Robert Baddeley 'Bobby' Simpson had a strange Test career. After 29 Tests -- seven as skipper -- and 51 innings, with more than 40 first-class centuries, the New South Wales batsman had yet to score a Test century. But after crossing that barrier, Simmo, as he is affectionately called, went on to become one of the finest openers in Test cricket.

The former Australia skipper, who was also a good leg-spinner and had few peers as slip fielder, was also his country's first full time coach in 1985-86. He metamorphosed a dispirited unit into world-beaters, as Australia won its maiden World Cup in 1987 under the leadership of Allan Border.

Ever since his playing days, Simpson has been an adversary of bowlers with illegitimate actions. Despite being sued by bowler Ian Meckiff, whose career was cut short for alleged throwing after remarks in the book ‘Captain’s Story’, Simpson persevered with his relentless campaign on the issue.

A member of the ICC legal action committee, he had Pakistan speedster Shoaib Akhtar suspended for six months so that the bowler could rectify his action. He later resigned after Jagmohan Dalmiya, the ICC president at that time, overruled the decision.

In a conversation with Faisal Shariff, Simpson discusses the grave dangers of chucking, and also rubbishes the obsession with fast bowlers.

Excerpts:

You have been Australia's most successful coach ever. What was your approach to coaching?

Instead of telling the players what to do, you tell them why to do something. You can show reason and develop a relationship with the players. You must also remember that you are not the Major-Sergeant but a helper; a confidante.

You also coached the Indian team during the 1999 World Cup. How was the experience?

It was an enjoyable experience. Their talent was irrepressible, but they were not totally organized. If only they had learnt joining the ‘Is’ and the ‘Ts’ earlier they would have been much better off in their performances. But, I guess, that's the way across the entire board in India.

The Indians have talent, but talent is just a great right your parents had. It's your parents' gift. It is sad that they don't kick-on from there. You have to serve and work to learn your trade.

There is a wide gap between the Australian team and the rest of the cricketing nations. When did Australia take the lead?

They have a great structure that compliments the talent that comes through. Way back in 1986, the Australian board adopted my philosophy and my work ethics. I believe that you will get what you put through. You will tactically get better if you are technically better. The team also worked on being a good fielding side. We Australians are hustlers. We hustle for every run, every catch and every run-out. We hustle for everything. There is a mental urgency while playing the game. Every single must be converted into two runs; every boundary should be cut down to three runs.

It's a pity that the other nations have dropped back over the past few years. Just for the sake of the future of the game other countries must catch up.

Andy Roberts, the legendary Windies fast bowler, believes that the lack of fast bowlers has taken the sheen off the game. What are your thoughts?

Barring the freak West Indies period in the eighties, if you turn through history you will realize that there haven’t been too many genuine fast bowlers at one time. Australia has not churned out more than six fast bowlers; England have had a few, so has Pakistan.

I think it is too much noise over nothing. India has had just one medium-fast bowler.

In the last 20 years, however, there has been no genuine swing bowler.

If Alan Davidson, the greatest swing bowler I've ever seen, had played today he would have been as successful as Shane Warne.

Keeping in mind the Indians' physical attributes, that are not as strong as the Australians or the English, India will do very well to discover swing bowlers. This obsession with fast bowlers must stop.

You have waged a long battle against chucking in the game. What punishment do you recommend for bowlers with illegitimate actions?

I recommend that strong action should be taken against chuckers. The ball must be bowled, not thrown. When I was on the ICC's legal action committee we made a big difference. Shoaib Akhtar was suspended for six months to rectify his action. But the ICC president at that time [Jagmohan Dalmiya] stalled the decision, and that was a setback to the move. The decision by the ICC to allow the boards to decide the fate of the bowlers was ludicrous. It is but obvious that they will defend their players' actions. I had, therefore, resigned from the ICC legal action committee.

But what if the bowlers have a physical deformity, like in the case of Shoaib Akhtar and Muthiah Muralitharan?

I haven't heard of any player with a physical deformity being allowed to play in any other sport. So why cricket? And how can the same players who can't straighten their arms throw the ball from the boundary, which is miles away, into the wicketkeeper's gloves with a thud?

Even javelin throwers and baseball pitchers straighten their arms. And now we have the javelin bowlers. The ICC has misunderstood the mechanics of chucking.

Bowlers who chuck have a huge advantage over bowlers who bowl legitimately. Umpires should call every time they think that the bowler has chucked. It is as unfair as a bowler overstepping.

The laws have to be abided by. One can't set laws for one or two players. There are players going around who don't conform to the laws and are yet generally accepted.

The danger is that there are youngsters watching them... and these players are heroes for them. Ten years from now we will be searching for a bowler. It is a dangerous proposition.

Do you think India needs to continue with a foreign coach? Aren't our former players good enough for the job?

The adulation that an Indian coach gets prevents him from working on his job. India has tried a high-profile cricketer and failed recently. But having said that, any coach is only as good as the talent available to him.

Why didn't you join the Packer bandwagon?

Kerry Packer asked me to join him 12 months before anyone else. But I was running my own marketing company and didn't want to work with him. I don't think the Packer revolution went very far. The respective boards got control of the game and Packer got the television rights. Even if there was a change in the pay-scales of the players, it took a long while. Packer happened in 1979; player payments have only increased in the last ten years. The money Packer offered was good but was not substantial.

Interviews

Mail Cricket Editor