NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
DEAR REDIFF

The Cricket Interview/Tony Greig

'It's a pity Dravid is not in the ODI team'

All of six feet seven inches in height and as trim now as he was in his playing days, Tony Greig is one more of those top flight cricketers who has successfully parlayed his playing career into an equally lucrative career in the media.

Part of the WorldTel all-star lineup of commentators for the Sharjah tournament, Greig was easily one of the most influential cricketers of his generation, both as captain of England and, subsequently, as one of the leading lights of the World Series initiative sponsored by Kerry Packer, that saw a total revolutionising of the game.

Born in South Africa to a Scottish father and South African mother, Greig has always been a controversial, larger than life figure in the cricketing arena. A man in a hurry to succeed, charming and talented, ingenuous and ruthless. The kind of man who lets his heart rule both mind and mouth -- with occasional disastrous results, as when he threatened to make the West Indies grovel, and had his words rubbed into his face by his opponents.

A skilful all rounder with an aura of flamboyance, Greig almost single-handedly held the England team together through a stormy period. The years have dulled none of his outspoken-ness -- thus, his criticisms of teams, players and umpires, today, are as scathing as his media briefings used to be when he was playing and leading the side.

Greig took time off from a stint in the box to chat with Anant Gaundalkar.

Which, according to you, is the strongest batting side in the world today?

I would say India and Australia, not necessarily in any order. Both teams have a galaxy of stars -- Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Navjot Singh Sidhu, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Ajay Jadeja for the former and the Waugh twins, Mark Taylor, Ricky Ponting and Michael Bevan for the latter. Every one of them is a match-winner in his own right, they all mesh into top quality line-ups, they complement each other perfectly.
It is unfortunate, while we are on the subject, that Rahul Dravid does not find a place in the Indian one day squad. He is slightly slow in scoring, but he is a perfect anchor for the Indian strokeplayers to bat around and his own scoring could only improve with time, and with the confidence that comes of being a trusted member of the side.

How do you analyse the respective strengths of India and Australia on the basis of the recent tour?

India won the three-Test series by a very convincing margin. 2-1 looks tight, but both the Indian wins were by huge margins and they thoroughly outplayed the Australians in all departments of the game.

However, I would have loved to see five-match series, as Australia were just beginning to get a measure of the Indian conditions and Indian players when the series got to an end. The Aussies did very well in their final games, both in Tests and one-dayers -- thus, a longer series would have provided a much keener contest and a better overall indication of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

The trouble is that international cricket schedules are so tailored to the one day format these days that one rarely gets to see five-Test series, except in England and Australia.

I also think Australia made a mistake in not playing a battery of quick bowlers against the Indian batsmen. Sheer pace has always been India's weakness, you can't win Tests in India with spinners no matter how good they are.

During your commentary stints, you come across very strongly when umpiring errors occur. Are you an advocate of neutral umpires for Tests?

Actually, the present system of one neutral and one home umpire is working very well. There is always the advantage that the home umpire knows the local conditions. But again, a bad decision by a home umpire is always more suspect than a similar bad decision by a neutral umpire.

Having said which, I must add this: when I was captain, we won a five Test series by a handy 3-1 margin in India, with only home umpires officiating. It all depends on how you approach the game, irrespective of where you are playing and who is supervising -- umpires are human, there will always be errors, players need to get out of the victim mentality and get on with it.

On the basis of his showing against the Australians, how would you rate Sachin Tendulkar in the roster of world players?

As the undoubted number one batsman in the world. There was a period in 1994 when Brian Lara had that aura, but Tendulkar has dominated the world scene since.

He is cool, has magnificient temperament, and is so mature you tend to forget his age. I can't think of any other example of a player who has so dominated the world before the age of 25. And all this has to be taken with the fact that for most of his playing days, he has had to bear the burden of India's batting -- much as Sunny Gavaskar had to, during his playing days.

Actually, I am glad that Sachin is now relieved of the pressure of captaincy. He now seems to be going from strength to strength.

Azhar, I think, is a very relaxed skipper, in the mould of Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi. A good captain brings about the best results from the best batsman in the side -- and for India, that is Sachin Tendulkar.

And your views on Shane Warne...?

Like Tendulkar, Warne is the best there is, in his field. The best spinner ever to play international cricket, in my book. Even if he doesn't take another wicket, he will remain at the top of the spinner's category -- I don't see anyone capable of challenging his position.

Warne has enormous variety in his bowling, he is a performer under any conditions and on any kind of wickets. The loss of form in India is just one of those things, a bad patch in his otherwise distinguished and illustrious career. Warne, like Tendulkar, is an obvious pick for anybody's world team -- cricketers, both, out of the very top drawer.

Your comments about the dispute now on in Australian cricket, between administrators and players?

Well, it is far from settled. I think a meeting between the two camps is scheduled to be held soon, which will decide the outcome of the deadlock.

I don't think the appointment of different skippers and even players for Tests and one dayers has anything to do with this. Mark Taylor was found to be not good enough for one day cricket, that is all. It is like Ajit Wadekar -- he was a successful Test captain, but in my book he wouldn't have fitted into the one day scheme of things.

These things have to be seen in cold blood, without emotionalism -- for instance, Gilchrist coming in for Ian Healy. Sure, Ian is a great keeper, one of the best today. But the introduction of Gilchrist means that he can be used as an opener, which takes the pressure off Mark Waugh and, at the same time, allows an extra all-rounder to be slotted in to the side.