Did Botham's 1981 heroics do more harm than good?

[Rachael]

The following was written by Matthew Engel (October 2004) as part of Botham's Wisden/cricinfo profile (see http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/PLAYERS/E...M_IT_01001529/)

Originally Posted by Matthew Engel

Then began the most famous few weeks in English cricket history when Botham (under Mike Brearley's captaincy) led England to an astonishing Ashes victory with three performances – two with bat, one with ball - of mystical brilliance. Every one led to victory and between them they caused a boom in support for English cricket that reverberated through the decade. By the end of it, sober judges were wondering if Botham had done more harm by good by making all England believe, as he did, that cricket matches are won by inspiration not preparation.

Strikes me that in a lot of ways.. English cricket has taken until now (with the focus on preparation, preparation, preparation) to get to a point where the virtues of hard work, solid coaching and great organisation can be shown to be the real key to test success.. but that the triumph of perspiration over inspiration is being hijacked because of a media obsession with the "inspiration" side of things.

Shame, that: a team that does well because it works hard should surely get the credit for achieving through hard work.. and the kids should be shown that it is first and foremost hard work (not some mysterious, talismanic ability to "make things happen") that makes for a successful cricketing team.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Surely the very best sides bring a combination of both to the table and a team wholly reliant upon one or the other exclusively will ultimately be unsuccessful.

I'm also not sure that recent years have seen the first recognition of the value of hard work and preparation in English cricket - weren't these the cornerstones of the Gooch-Stewart (Mickey that is) era of the early 90s?

[flanflinger]

Personally I think there is a place for both.

I think that Cricket would be a very dull sport if all inspiration was removed. I also think that coaching and training can only do so much. I think that we need the inspirational players like Flintoff and Botham, but we also need those who work hard and apply themselves - Giles and Collingwood.

Good preparation is what makes the Australins into such a good team, but preparation and coaching based on natural ability.

All-sport needs a good mix of both otherwise they may as well be played on a computer using binary codes to define which side wins based purely on ability on paper.

For example in the last home Ashes series, Mark Butcher's wonderful 170* to win, that was all down to a moment of brilliance, how dull would the game be without such moments.

[Occasional Fan]

Interesting points all, but the question is quite simple and, for me, the answer is equally so: No. Botham's "heroics" made me sit up and pay attention to Test cricket perhaps for the first time in my early adult years. I'm grateful to him for that. I'm sure that Flintoff's efforts are doing the same for some young folk now. Preparation, perspiration and inspiration: cricket benefits from the lot.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Shame, that: a team that does well because it works hard should surely get the credit for achieving through hard work.. and the kids should be shown that it is first and foremost hard work (not some mysterious, talismanic ability to "make things happen") that makes for a successful cricketing team.

Rachael,
What hard work?, the team was playing crap until the Test at Headingly, and then that famous victory was down to the few.
It was Bothams Ashes, he was the inspitation to the rest,who else was outstanding bar Dilly and Willis, he showed the world that when the chips are down, have a go, dont just take defeat for granted.

He was an inspiration to a whole generation, so how could the 1981 series have done more harm than good.

What a strange link to post, a bit for everone.

cricinfo]His batting was based on sound principles and phenomenal strength; his bowling seemed by then to be more run-in-and-hope, but batsmen remained intimidated by his early reputation to the end. His apres-cricket activities were always turbulent, and often semi-public, yet his marriage to Kath has lasted 25 years-plus at odds that seemed greater of 500 to 1. Almost as improbably, he has settled into a calm-ish middle age as a TV commentator of some wit and sagacity.
Matthew Engel (October 2004)

Sound principles, could be talking about Tendulkar or Boycott, but it was Botham.
we we all know the theory of his bowling was thrown out with the bathwater, well over 350 Test Wickets, not far behind Sir Richard Hadlee.
TV commentator of some wit and sangacity, sums the man up really, always doing something with his life.

Ian Botham was as good a cricketer as any before him.

Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

he showed the world that when the chips are down, have a go, dont just take defeat for granted [...] He was an inspiration to a whole generation, so how could the 1981 series have done more harm than good.

The guy who wrote that piece for Wisden was obviously considered well qualified for the job (and surely had his piece vetted by an editor): you should give him, and Wisden, SOME credit for not talking through his / their hat(s) and at least acknowledge that, as all good reporters do, he was reporting a genuine ambivalence within the world of cricket.

I am pretty indifferent to the chap.. but in the big bad world out there he was surely as divisive a figure as any who have ever played the game. His own approach was very much out of "boys own"... and with his explosive emergence into the world of swing bowling he embodied the notion that stars are born not made: that, from the start, made him a sorry icon for every coach who had a charge who lacked that talent and had to do it the Geoff Boycott / Graham Gooch / Nasser Hussain way - through sheer hard work.

You have actually seen the same divisions right through to the present day.. and with Botham STILL being the divisive figure at the heart of things: asa commentator he has constantly been a thorn in the side of some very, very good English coaches, captains and selectors.. basically urging that we just operate a rotating door policy of ever younger players until we find people like himself who can actually do it WITHOUT putting in the hard work.

There's a damn good reason that Botham hasn't ever got near to being involved as a selector or coach: with his influence we'd have seen an ever-changing team based on kids.. and would currently have guys like Will Jefferson, Mascarenhass, Jimmy Anderson and dearest Mahmood and a discard pile that would have long since (like years ago) seen Hussain, Butcher, Giles and Hoggard shown the door.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The guy who wrote that piece for Wisden was obviously considered well qualified for the job (and surely had his piece vetted by an editor): you should give him, and Wisden, SOME credit for not talking through his / their hat(s) and at least acknowledge that, as all good reporters do, he was reporting a genuine ambivalence within the world of cricket.

I take your point here, but with reservations, they are only people like you and I, and Rachael, we both know our cricket, like the rest of the board, so I would say, our opinions matter just as much as cricinfo and there reporters, and don't forget Ian Botham is such a reporter now, it is his living.

Originally Posted by Rachael

but in the big bad world out there he was surely as divisive a figure as any who have ever played the game. His own approach was very much out of "boys own"... and with his explosive emergence into the world of swing bowling he embodied the notion that stars are born not made:

This is an interesting part of your post, I like the anology with "Boys Own", that in itself was good for the game, even if people such as yourself did not like the style of Ian Botham, but such an anology shows that Botham would appeal to the young, I wonder how many supporters today, would not have been watching cricket only for Botham.
Stars are born not made, and Rachael they do work hard, Bothams, Flintoffs, Imran Khans, Holdings are born generations apart.

Originally Posted by Rachael

that, from the start, made him a sorry icon for every coach who had a charge who lacked that talent and had to do it the Geoff Boycott / Graham Gooch / Nasser Hussain way - through sheer hard work.

We are not just talking Botham here, he did not work as hard as many, but what as that got to do with the likes of Boycott, Gooch, Hussain, they had talent just the same?they were stars in their own rights, as are many , many more.

Originally Posted by Rachael

You have actually seen the same divisions right through to the present day.. and with Botham STILL being the divisive figure at the heart of things: asa commentator he has constantly been a thorn in the side of some very, very good English coaches, captains and selectors.

I know what you are saying here, Botham went after the old order in the main, he could not stand the outdated mode of selection, men in clubs drinking "Pink Champagne Brigade", was the way I think he put it, men who had a lot of say, but in Bothams opinion, knew sod all about the game of cricket, let alone selecting the team.
It is a matter of opinion as to wheather he was a reformer, or just a divisive figure.

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's a damn good reason that Botham hasn't ever got near to being involved as a selector or coach: with his influence we'd have seen an ever-changing team based on kids.. and would currently have guys like Will Jefferson, Mascarenhass, Jimmy Anderson and dearest Mahmood and a discard pile that would have long since (like years ago) seen Hussain, Butcher, Giles and Hoggard shown the door.

I agree, for ther same reason he failed as captain, he only knew one way, and that was his own.

To conclude, I think on the whole, Bothams Ashes has been good for England, Rachael, Bothams Ashes is not the same as Ian Botham, he was just a player in Bothams Ashes.

If Botham was lazy to a point, please don't class all players of his type as the same, just to name Flintoff, when he was injured, he trained with hill running, maybe Botham did not need to do the same.

But Rachael, whatever Botham did or did not do, has no reflection on players like Boycott, Richards legends in the own right.
But different from players like Botham, Flintoff, Akram, Imran Khan, just different.

Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

We are not just talking Botham here, he did not work as hard as many, but what as that got to do with the likes of Boycott, Gooch, Hussain, they had talent just the same?they were stars in their own rights, as are many , many more.

No-one (least of all the players themselves) would single out Boycott, Gooch and Hussain as great natural talents: if ANY group of players in the history of the game have got there through sheer hard work then it is these three. Their batting was not "natural" or "instinctive".. it was based on selected methods and drilled to death to the point where it was endlessly repeatable... and it worked more because they had the stubbornedness and determination to make it work.

Hussain's perhaps the least successful of that trio.. but I believe his batting was basically based on "playing the line, not the ball": he basically swung down the line of the delivery.. never followed a ball going wider... not worrying about using the middle of the bat... and triumphed as much through his knack of tucking the bat inside the line as through anything else.

Botham is one of a long line of players who like to middle the ball.. they tend to try and make contact as frequently as possible in order to get some sort of rhythm going. Hussain was the complete antithesis: he actually came into his own when middling the ball was damn near impossible... basically because he didn't try too hard to middle the ball.. and didn't worry what bit of bat, pad or anything else got the job done.

It's not that the instinctive guys with the eye for the ball don't work hard.. far from it.. it's just that with (say) Botham.. the work is on honing an orthodox technique to ensure that when they DO swing at the ball and look to middle it.. the odds are as heavily in their favour as could be.

A similar kind of thing could undoubtedly be made on the bowling front.. but I'm not the one to put that together. I don't doubt for one minute that a coach could divide bowlers into the naturals and the technicians... the guys for whom coaching is about tweaking something that comes naturally to stack the odds in their favour (Botham)... and the guys whose actions are basically manufactured, who get to the top through being taught ways of propelling the bal that allow them to make a huge impact (perhaps Vaas and Gillespie).

Anyway.. I guess that's what the Wisden remark referred to: the way the 1981 Ashes fueled an ongoing media (and popular) obsession with "talent"... with finding "new Bothams".. and of playing in the manner OF Botham... when in truth that's a pretty hopelessly optimistic strategy.. and no where near as liely to bring consistent success as the hard nosed, pragmatic approach embodied by Hussain and Fletcher.

[Ernest]

Rachael I think in a way, you are not perhaps giving the like of Boycott, and Davd Gower, and Viv Richard enough credit, they maybe did not have the natural talent that Botham had, I do think player the like of him, are a breed apart, I realy do.
But Boycott and others did have a talent, yes they worked hard, but all that did was to bing out the talent they had to the best advantage, to themselves and theur countries.
Michael Holding, could not have had a run up, and delivery like he had, just coached into him, the man had talent.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Anyway.. I guess that's what the Wisden remark referred to: the way the 1981 Ashes fueled an ongoing media (and popular) obsession with "talent"... with finding "new Bothams".. and of playing in the manner OF Botham... when in truth that's a pretty hopelessly optimistic strategy.. and no where near as liely to bring consistent success as the hard nosed, pragmatic approach embodied by Hussain and Fletcher.

Yes I agree in full, this was a downside, every all-rounder was labled the new Botham, I mean the likes of David Capal, and a rash of others.

But this was in the main a media thing, an obsession, and I am afraid it was infectious enough to rub of on the selectors, you can't look for player like he was, they appear.

Ern

[Rachael]

Forget the word "talent" Ernest: just focus on the difference between certain types of players.

Some guys have a great eye for the ball and "timing": they are great at seeing the ball right onto the bat.. and finding the sweet spot. Let them get into a rhythm and they can be hard to stop as they see the ball "big" and are seemingly able (even with a fairly limited repertoire of shots) to put bat to ball no matter what the bowler does.

Then look at other guys.. who don't have that eye.. and lack that timing.. who wouldn't back themselves to make a clean contact if they threw the kitchen sink at a delivery.. but who (perhaps by playing the line of the delivery rather than the ball, and through having the mental discipline to avoid "fishing" outside off stump) get to the point where they really don't care if they get into a rhythm or not.. who are hard to bowl to because you can't get to them by simply making them uncomfortable.

Gilchrist is perhaps the most splendid example of the former in the game today... and Mark Richardson... the former spinner and no 11 bat who now boasts much the same career average and a higher PWC rating aasa batsman... is surely as splendid an example of the latter as you could ever want to see.

One is an instinct player who works hard on his technique to maximise his impact as he carries on playing a pretty natural and instinctive game of putting bat to ball.. the other in a method player who doesn't really HAVE a natural game.. but who has worked hard to become one of the best opening batsmen of his generation.

Think instinct and method rather than talent: the Wisden guy is on about the obsession with finding the instinctive players who burst onto the scene doing things there own way (like James Anderson and - in terms of batting - Andrew Flintoff).... and neglecting the huge amount that the method players (like the much disparaged Ashley Giles and Nasser Hussain) have to offer.