Question and Answer With David Graveney
By George Dobell Of The Cricketer - 29 January 1999
Q So why would anyone want to be Chairman of Selectors? A Well I
consider it a great honour. Having never played Test cricket, I
feel a buzz just being involved at that level. I'm fortunate to
still stay in the game, and despite the weight of expectation I
enjoy it hugely. It is an all-consuming job, though.
Q I think it's fair to say you've been more successful than your
recent predecessors?
A We've won a tournament in Sharjah, and we've won a five-Test
series, so, yes there have been some good moments. We're still
not winning as much as I'd like.
Q I've read that you believe your biggest improvement in the
selection process has been increased communication.
A That implies that it was bad before, which is not for me to
say. It's probably a feature of me as a person, and I see it as
part of my job to be accessible to the media. The PCA
particularly needs publicity. As regards talking to the players,
I've behaved in the same style as I did when captaining
Gloucestershire. The problem with that is that it sets
expectations. How many players should I talk to? How often should
I phone them?
Q So how do you decide?
A I talk to the ones that have been involved before any changes,
and any of those that are particularly close to selection. At the
end of this season I spoke to Graeme Hick, Phil Tufnell and
Andrew Caddick.
Q But Phil Tufnell read the squad on Ceefax, and Caddick heard it
on the tannoy when fielding.
A Yes, but I spoke to them afterwards. Obviously they were hugely
disappointed, and even though it will be of no consolation they
all came very close. I explained that, and our reasons, and
though I'm not expecting bouquets from any of them, at least they
are aware of what is going on.
Q How important is the personality of a player when picking a
side?
A Interaction is very important. Playing ability is crucial, but
tour reports are a feature. We'd be fools not to take that into
account. Tufnell would be the first to admit he's had the odd
difficult tour, but recently he's been no problem at all. All
three were cricketing decisions.
Q Even Caddick? How many wickets would he have had to take? And
where does that leave Croft for example who struggled to take
county wickets?
A It is a tremendous achievement for any cricketer to take 100
wickets in a domestic season, but as selectors we have to look at
the context in which these wickets are taken. I have to admit
that when I spoke to my observers, particularly the umpires, they
confirmed that Andrew was in fine form at the end of the season.
The relevant factor is what happened last winter. Andy would
admit that his bowling was not as he would have liked. He had his
opportunity in the absence of Cork and Gough, and didn't really
capitalise on it. As I said to him, would you expect to go in
place of Fraser, Cork or Gough? He said probably not. He
understood why Mullally was going in terms of different angles,
and that just leaves him and Dean Headley. Andrew's achievements
were great, but we have to take into account the circumstances,
and the wickets that people are playing on. The point with Robert
Croft is that the pitches gave no help to the spinners, so it's
not really fair to compare their performances.
Q In the last few years we've seen players like Gower, Tufnell,
Lewis, Cork and Caddick, all proven match-winners, discarded by
England for apparent personality reasons. That would appear to be
a luxury that we can't afford.
A Well I've already said that the decisions that I've been
involved in have been cricketing decisions. We don't shy away
from taking on difficult characters, but it is important that
they should be able to interact well as a team. The door is never
shut forever. They all have a way back, but I am aware that the
clock ticks on, and that time is perhaps no longer on the side of
a few people. I'm acutely aware of the responsibility of my job.
I remember changing the Gloucestershire wicket-keeper, from Andy
Brassington to Jack Russell. It was a decision that had to be
made, but I was responsible for ending a guy's career. I find
that a heavy responsibility.
Q It seems as if those most in need of understanding, and of some
sensitivity are the ones we manage the least. People try to build
up the confidence of players like Ramprakash and Hick, but they
can get dropped even after a century. Caddick was dropped
immediately after taking five wickets in an innings. David Lloyd
described him as 'an iffy character'. It's impossible to feel
secure in that situation.
A I can accept that things may be misleading in terms of wickets
and runs, but tactics are important too.
Q I find it quite hard to believe that the selectors don't think
that Chris Lewis is one of the best 37 players in the country.
A Chris Lewis is different. Lots of people will tell you that.
Q But these are the people that need The Management. If we can't
get the best out of the most talented players then perhaps the
fault is with The Management? AIt's partly about how players deal
with pressure. They have to be able to deal with the big stage.
That is where the personality is important. I've been to see
Chris Lewis. I explained our reasoning. I wanted to know what
makes him tick. He's fully aware of the areas in which we are
looking for improvement.
Q As I see it, your work for the PCA involves looking after the
interests of the players. Isn't that exactly what agents do too?
A They do, but in a narrow spectrum. They mainly negotiate
salaries for cricketers. There are good and bad agents though.
There have been worrying cases of players agreeing to pay a
percentage of their net salary straight to their agent. There is
a suspicion within the game that players can be exploited by
agents.
Q They can be exploited by their clubs too.
A I meant agents. We don't want confrontation with agents, so
we're drawing up a list of the ones that we feel we can recommend
to our members. To establish the same relationship the PFA have
with agents in football.
Q Is there a danger that you are too closely linked with the
establishment to best represent the players?
A I don't think so, but I know some people do. Some of the agents
don't realise that there isn't necessarily the money in cricket
that there is in football for example. We must learn the lessons
of rugby. Fine, the wages have increased dramatically for all
players. That is fine and good. We also want to ensure that we
have proper insurance and education options for players. We want
good health cover and general support for current and ex-players.
Q It does seem ironic that the players' union is seemingly
supporting the dismissal of many of its members.
A We're not advocating that, but we are recognising that it could
happen. Our members realise that as wages increase the
expectations of their performances increase. Therefore their
employment will be looked at more closely.
Q Is there a danger that you work from the viewpoint of what is
good for the game, not what is good for the players?
A No. In the very near future we hope to make announcements about
improved benefits for the players. We are in discussion with the
Board regarding improved funding and they are aware of our
additional requirements. However, we are all governed by economic
necessity.
Q You've mentioned already that wickets in the Championship are
not particularly hard to come by. We've heard other selectors
talking down the Championship as poor practice. Yet this is the
competition that has made overseas stars like Lara and Tendulkar
struggle. The last time we won the Ashes I remember listening to
Allan Border saying he wished Shield cricket could be more like
the County Championship. Isn't part of the problem that we talk
ourselves down too much, and perhaps the players start to believe
the negative opinions?
A The main thing as far as I'm concerned is the desire to play on
better wickets. I don't mean flatter wickets, I mean drier
wickets. All facets of the game would improve. You mention that
some overseas players struggle, but I think that has more to do
with the sheer quantity of cricket that we play. I don't mean to
talk it down, but it could be so much better. What's the point of
playing four-day cricket if the game finishes within three days?
It's a difficult balance. We don't want to make it too easy for
batsmen either. Certainly one-day cricket must be played on
batsmen friendly pitches. Everybody involved in cricket realises
that it is a competitive market, and we should be aware of the
public's desire. If people start going elsewhere with their money
we will be in big, big trouble.
Q But isn't a county preparing a pitch to suit their own team the
same as the Test-playing grounds preparing pitches to suit our
national team?
A I think it's true we want the pitches to possess traditional
English qualities. We're not giving our spinners much of a chance
though. As time goes by I move closer to the 'bring back
uncovered pitches' view. In my playing career I can remember
rain-affected matches where slow bowlers did most of the bowling,
owing to the fact that the pitch was unfit for the quicks.
Q The one-day team: we've tried specialists; we've used
all-rounders; we've done a bit of both. Where are we now, with
the World Cup looming?
A In truth not that much further. I think it comes down to horses
for courses. Most people would appreciate that the conditions in
Sharjah, Australia and England are hugely varied. There have to
be squad changes. In Australia the size of the grounds decrees
that we need a good fielding side even more crucially than ever.
It was great that we won in Sharjah, but we could have lost any
of those games. There was a slow outfield and the ball went soft
quickly. We surprised them with our medium-paced attack. We took
the same system to the West Indies, and almost went two up. Then
they adopted our system, and our performances declined. Morale is
affected by the outcome of a recently ended Test series.
Q Do you have some idea of the World Cup squad in your mind
already, and is it the same as the one-day squads for the other
competitions?
A I do have quite firm ideas of the World Cup squad. It's not a
closed door though. It won't be the same squad. You can say that
perhaps we should be building with the same team, but I think
it's important to win these games. That is the best thing any
team can ever do. It will be hard for each country to pick 15
players in March not knowing what sort of summer we have in
store. Let's face it, the weather could do anything. I have
thought about the first 15 overs quite a lot. Other teams are
putting in their best players first, and letting them bat
according to the match situation. Then we need those players to
be able to manoeuvre the ball around in the middle-order. Neil
Fairbrother is right back in the frame as regards that. The
combination of bowlers at the end is crucial too. In Australia
you need mobility in the outfield, so all-rounders can be
crucial, but it was shown in the West Indies that there is still
a place for a fast bowler or two to provide variety sometimes. I
expect Gough and Mullally and Fraser to come into that category.
Q People have now come to terms with the idea of England having
separate one-day and Test teams; do you think that a logical
extension would be to have specialist one-day selectors and
coaches? Dermot Reeve and Jack Birkenshaw for example.
A No. I think David Lloyd has done a great job. The fact that
we're younger helps. Gatting and Gooch are able to help with
coaching. We can hang around in the nets, and as a result we are
closer to the players generally.
Q Mike Atherton gave up his role as a selector when he was
captain, thinking it could cause problems with other players.
Does Alec Stewart have a similar belief?
A Not really. Mike did not have his say withdrawn, and he was
still in the meetings. If there was ever a vote then he would
abstain, but we've never had to vote in my time as Chairman so it
made little difference. Alec is a selector, plenty of new ideas
and energy, and wants to be involved.
Q You played for three relatively unfashionable clubs, but even
now it appears as if the selectors look first at Lancashire and
Surrey when picking players.
A I don't agree with you at all, but I do have plenty of letters
from people that do. As a selector I've always attempted to
spread my time equally across the country. Only 11 people can
play at once, and that means people will be disappointed. Yet
Lancashire have been the best one-day side for several years, and
although I appreciate the worries of people at Leicestershire, we
do give their players fair consideration.
Q Who do you consult when selecting?
A Lots of people involved in the game; players, coaches, even the
press. I'm quite happy to talk to the members too.
Q I understand that you reply to all your letters. Do you get any
congratulating you?
A Rarely. I do have some nice letters, but there are some I can't
reply to - those with no name and address for example. This year
it's been mostly about Hick, supporters and detractors; some
about leaving out Crofty after his batting saved a Test. And
there are some disturbing letters... but I suppose that's normal.
Q We read quite a lot about the importance of the hunger of our
cricketers. David Lloyd talks of the need to 'die' for Team
England.
A Yes, I think young players can learn from the deep passion
shown by Atherton and Stewart to play for their country.
Q Is that another irony that all three selectors decided to turn
their back on their country to play on 'rebel tours' of South
Africa? You must have known that you were going to be banned?
A I didn't turn my back on Test cricket, I'd never played it. I
feel now that there are certain decisions that you make in life
that you are not particularly proud of. That was one of them. I
was almost 36 at the time. It was a commercial decision. I did it
for my family. I'm sure parents will understand but not perhaps
agree. I don't expect people to forgive or forget. Damage was
done to friendships that is still there.
Q What reforms would you like to see made to the English game?
A Better pitches. I was a supporter of two divisions, but unless
the pitch problem is resolved the structure becomes irrelevant.
I'd just like to see the Board have more control over the matter.
It doesn't mean that they can't have their own characteristics,
but they must be controlled. I would like to see two divisions
because we've seen from the football play-offs that it keeps
interest until the last minute. It would also encourage stubborn
resistance, and the ability to fight for draws.
|