'Will Fletcher risk annoying a lot of people in India?'

Nasser Hussain looks at the challenge ahead of his former coach, his own experience as a British Asian captaining England, and how to balance cricket's three formats

Duncan Fletcher's first major series as the India coach has been disastrous. But one man knows what Fletcher is capable of. Nasser Hussain was the England captain during the first five tough years of Fletcher's tenure as their national coach. During India's tour of England, Hussain spoke to ESPNcricinfo about what Fletcher brought to the table, the difficulties he could face in India, the need to play less cricket, and about his own Asian roots

Has your identity as a British Asian been a part of how your career turned out? What did it mean to you? Did you think of yourself as the man who broke the glass ceiling for cricketers of Asian origin in Britain?
I dunno if I broke the glass ceiling or anything like that. I know I'm very proud of doing it [becoming England captain]. I still remember practising in the outfield of the Chepauk stadium with my brothers. I know how much it meant to my dad that someone from that situation - where he bowled balls to me at the Madras Cricket Club - ended up captaining England. And that is a great story for me and my family, and I am very proud of that.

The only issue is that I've always considered myself English and British, but I do realise I've been a bit of a role model for British Asians. I think I've enjoyed the fact that I am of mixed race. It's a great combination: the fire and passion of Indians and their cricket is from my dad, but also the English schooling system and the English system as a whole gave me great opportunities.

I didn't really come up against any racism. In Essex, I played in a middle order with Nadeem Shahid and Saleem Malik, and you see Ravi Bopara there now. A lot of that Ilford British Asian community has always progressed well.

The most important thing I take from my dad is the realisation that what you do is very important. The game of cricket is very important. I used to hate it, and I still hate when people say, "Oh, it's just a game." See, what happens when you lose a Test match or whatever, it's more than a game. So the appreciation of the game and how important it is came from my dad, and I always took that everywhere. Even if I played a benefit game in Essex or a charity game, I would be upset if I was out for 5 or something like that. It is important if you put all this effort into it, the passion and everything that goes in. You might as well do it properly.

Did you not have to fight your British Asian identity when you were growing as a player? Or did it grow with the cricketer?
I never really fought it. The only time I had to fight it was when I was in India, very proud of being half-Indian or whatever you want to call me. The appreciation and the love of the Indian fans and a little bit of the curiosity of how this boy from Madras ended up going on to captain England. I had to keep reminding myself that I was the England captain and my main priority was to win games for England and not to try and win over the Indian fans and be nice to all of India.

So that is the only time you had to battle a little bit. You had to still realise what your main job is, not worry too much about the fairytale and the dream of going back to India with your dad and all these things. It was only on one tour [2001], the time I took my dad back to Madras was the tour that I captained. There was a lot of love, and the Madras Cricket Club put on a great function for me and my dad. We were made honorary members. I was very proud of that and had to remind myself the next day that I was the England captain trying to beat India. You don't fight it, but you just realise that's your given job and you have to go out and do it.

Duncan Fletcher

In hindsight, what did Duncan Fletcher bring to the table for England?
Fletcher, first of all, was an outsider, which was very important to English cricket. English cricket was always driven by people in the game. They had played the game, they ran the game, they were involved in some way. Some were looking inward, some were just so busy trying to save their jobs, they weren't doing their jobs.

I think that's a sign of madness if you carrying on doing things just because you've done that before. So Dunc came in with new ideas. He'd been out of the game for a while. He brought in business ideas to the team, man-management ideas, structures. It wasn't just the captain and coach, there was a structure below the senior players. Younger players would sit and make decisions on everything: on what time we were going out, how many nets, how much we'd train, what we'd wear to High Commission functions, etc.

Selection was massive. He changed selection. Like, Stuart Broad at the beginning of this series had a poor three-six months. In the olden days, no way Broad would have played [the first Test against India]. In the olden days the media would be writing, Broad must be dropped, Broad must be dropped And he would be dropped because people were worried that if that's what the media is saying and you go against that… The media had a massive influence. It is you that puts your head above the parapet, not Broad. It would be you, as selector or chairman of selectors.

Fletcher said, "Forget all that. If I want to pick a player, I want to pick him as an investment, not for just one week, one Test match. I am picking him as an investment for the future. I want to know how good he's going to be in one year, two years' time." So he picked up people who had average records, like [Michael] Vaughan, [Marcus] Trescothick, [Steve ] Harmison and [Andrew] Flintoff. They weren't pulling up trees in county cricket or whatever. But he had a good eye for a player and an investment for the future. And because we had some success, and winning those tours in Sri Lanka, Pakistan - four series - it gave us time to get these lads bedded in.

"The one thing Greg [Chappell] tried to do was to change the culture a little bit. To try to make a younger, fitter team. So how does Fletcher take on players and make really important decisions that will really annoy a lot of people in India?"

Duncan's got great technical skills, and I can name a dozen occasions where he's looked at a player and got him spot-on. I won't name names but there's was a player on our first tour of South Africa, and he looked at him at a net and said, "Ah, Allan Donald will get this lad out a lot on this tour. He won't get many runs." And he didn't get many runs.

He picked on Mohammad Yousuf in Cape Town, and he said to Jimmy Anderson: full outswinging delivery early on. Bowled him, cleaned him up. Duncan has a great eye for technical weaknesses and strengths of players. He's insightful, he's new, he's fresh-thinking, or he was back then.

I do wish him well with the Indian team. I do think they have got their right man, because he has to go on that path again with India now.

Would you say the two international coaching situations he's had to go into are actually similar - England and India? People wouldn't think so.
The situations are similar and dissimilar: England back then were rock bottom. India are not, they are still a good side. They have just had two bad months. But they are papering over the cracks if they don't think that in Test cricket they have a long fight here to get back to No. 1.

The biggest difference is [that] in English cricket, he was the main man. If he said he was going to do something, we did it. Now if he gets back to India, it is how much they will let him do things off his own back. That will be the decision they will have to make and he will have to make: whether he takes on people in India or not.

By that do you mean he's one of those coaches who believe that in some cases he must actually be more powerful than the captain? Was that a part of your equation then?
No. Duncan was still old school, where the captain was the main man. It's a very English way - the captain is always the main man. But because I had such great respect for him and what I saw him achieve with us, I would... bow down's an exaggeration, but if he wanted something, or he had a vision or he had a player, I would say, "Dunc, you've got the last five right, so you are going get this one right too", and I'd go with it. He'd get it right occasionally and he's probably made mistakes on this trip. But in my time he got more right than wrong. I would be strong about certain things, but other things I would say, "I'll go with you."

But [his case is] even more different with Dhoni. Dhoni has to be the main man. Like I say, his record is so good, so exceptional, that he has got to be the main man in leading India forward, with Fletcher by his side.

Have you wondered how it's going to work out for Fletcher, even other than his equation with the BCCI?
I have wondered... The one decent thing he had with us is that he had done three to four years of county cricket with Glamorgan. So the players I mentioned, he knew the ingredients. He'd seen Trescothick get a 150 against Kallis bowling very quick, so he made a mark... not that he ever thought he'd be England coach, but he made a mark. When he was England coach, he immediately turned to me and said, "You know, one lad Trescothick." I hadn't even heard of Trescothick. I'd seen him a bit. And I said, "Oh, okay, all right."

So that's going to be his issue - how much of the young players of India has he seen? And he will need to see. I do wonder how it will go for him. I wish him well, because I think he can do a good job if he is given the tools.

What about personality-wise? Will he adjust to working in the Indian cricket environment?
Well, that's again going to be difficult for him. He rubbed people up the wrong way in England, and he still does. And he is a very stubborn man, doesn't bow down to the press, makes a lot of enemies, doesn't suffer fools gladly. Very stubborn. He still won't speak to certain people who have messed him up over the years, and he comes across - even though I know him as completely different - to the English media as quite a sort of sourpuss, and he's not. He's got a good sense of humour, he's a good guy.

The main thing was that he took on the counties. A lot of what is happening here [in the England v India series] is down to Duncan. Before Duncan, Angus Fraser and Darren Gough were bowling on a Monday and Tuesday before a Test match - a little bit like India. We were having knackered bowlers, who had either not played a lot or played too much, and Dunc said, "No, Thursday of a Test match, they must be fit."

In our counties, it was like the England football team - Arsenal, Liverpool are bigger than England. That's how it was. We used to be in the England dressing room and players were still putting on Ceefax [to check] how's Essex going, how's Middlesex? And I was like, I'm not interested here, this is England, we're playing Australia. So Dunc used to ring up Somerset and say, "Sorry, Andrew Caddick is not playing next week." And they are trying to win the Championship, so it was a massive thing.

"If Duncan wanted something, or he had a vision, I would say, "Dunc, you've got the last five right, so you are going get this one right too", and I'd go with it" © Getty Images

There was a Northants chairman who was asked which would he prefer: Northants winning the Championship or England winning the Ashes, and he said Northants winning the Championship. That was the mentality Dunc had to take on, and it made him very unpopular with counties. But he took them on and he rested the players. And look now, it's all moved on and that's just normal now. He changed our culture a little bit.

The point is, can he do that in India? You know, with all respect, and I don't want to get into the Greg Chappell-Ganguly thing, the one thing Greg tried to do was to change the culture a little bit. To try to make a younger, fitter team. But how do you? The players are bigger than the coach in India, so how does he [Fletcher] take on players and make really important decisions that will really annoy a lot of people in India? But he will view it as the right thing to do.

Was the clout of the counties the biggest hurdle England had to overcome to get to where they are today?
Definitely. Because every decision we made had to be voted on by the ECB cricket committee, which consisted of the counties. It was like turkeys voting for Christmas; it was a difficult thing to get by. They were almost voting to put themselves secondary to the England team. That was the major mindset change. We had the players, who wanted to change, but we needed the counties and the ECB to buy into the fact that the main focus must be the England cricket team and everything must be secondary to that. It took a long time, a lot of arguments, but eventually we got there.

Because of the success of the team?
Yes, and I think the chairman of the board, Lord MacLaurin, bought into that. He was a very clever man. He came in from business. He came in from Vodafone, Tesco. He said, "Okay, I'll give you that, but in return I want something: I want you to behave like businessmen, want you to dress smartly. I'll give you single rooms. I want you be clean-shaven. If I'm paying you extra and looking after you, I want you to be ambassadors for your country and put in performances as well."

It was a bit of a give-take situation. Fletcher being stubborn helped. If he hadn't been so stubborn, he [may] have buckled and said, "No, right, let's not do this." And we would have gone back. Fletcher could have thought, "I'm in my job, I've lost a couple of series, I'll look after myself", but he didn't. He never tried to look after himself. He kept plodding on, and other people behind the scenes - Geoff Miller, one of the selectors then, he's now national selector, was very helpful in driving all of that. You need everyone buying into it, including people within the team.

We also had good ex-captains like Atherton and Stewart, who didn't come with any kind of needle and bitterness and say, "In our time we didn't..." Like, why didn't we have it this easy? It could have stirred those two, but it didn't. And [there were] also good guys within the team. Every team needs good guys. Not your best players, I'm talking about players who aren't legendary, but guys like [Paul] Collingwood and [Ashley] Giles and [Craig] White, people who would lead the way in England going in the right direction.

Twenty20

What's the best way for the world game to handle three formats? Greater financial benefits for playing Test cricket? Does Twenty20, with its mushrooming domestic leagues, need to be trimmed down?
I enjoy international Twenty20, and I've heard a few - some very good names - say you shouldn't have international T20. I was in the World T20 in South Africa for the India-Pakistan final, I was at Lord's for the Sri Lanka-Pakistan final, and I was at the Australia-England final in Barbados. These were great occasions, great sport. The other day at Old Trafford was a sell-out, and it was a very good game. I think international T20 works. I just believe some of the domestic tournaments, I just think they've just overdone it.

"People go to a Test match to see bowlers bowl at 95 miles an hour because they know they know they can never bowl a 95-miler. If they are just going to go and see medium-pacers they see in club cricket, what's the fuss all about?"

I mentioned the IPL, but even in England there are far too many games for our domestic players. They are doing far too much travelling and too much cricket. They will be exhausted as well. Everyone is trying to get the money in. Counties are struggling, the IPL is a lot of big bucks. What I would say to any administrator is, "Yes, you do have to balance the books, yes, as administrators you are also looking at how much money you are bringing in, but also look at the future of the game. You are in charge of it." I think Bradman said all players and administrators are in charge of this game.

Then you look at the standard and quality of bowling we are now left with. Is it a coincidence or is it just a fact that the amount of cricket being played is eventually taking its toll on bowlers? Michael Holding would look after his body - he still looks after his body. He wouldn't bowl too much when he played county cricket, he was saving it up for the West Indies.

There is a real lack of fast bowling. Bowling has diminished in the last five years, and I think the volume of cricket has taken its toll on bowling. Bowlers really put bums on seats. People want to see Ambrose and Walsh in, McGrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Akhtar, Gul, Kumble, Srinath, these sort of guys, Murali. People would love to see Brett Lee running in at Virender Sehwag, or Shoaib Akhtar at Sachin Tendulkar. People want to see things they can't do themselves. People go to a Test match to see bowlers bowl at 95 miles an hour, because they know they know they can never bowl a 95-miler. They can't face anyone at 95 miles an hour. If they are just going to go and see medium-pacers they see in club cricket, they know that was good, but what's the fuss all about?

I do believe as administrators they are going to have to say enough is enough. I do believe we can sell every day of the calendar, especially in India. People will soon say we need quality instead of quantity.

You're saying it's not about how you split up cricket's financial pie but containing the number of limited-over games and keeping the bowlers fresh is what should matter most?
Just less cricket, generally. I don't know how many days a year we are playing now. Look at India's schedule: World Cup, the IPL, they had a tour of the West Indies, a tour of England, they have a home series against West Indies, ODIs against England, then away to Australia. They haven't got that rest yet.

Of course, I too get disappointed if I put on the telly and there's no cricket on, but you have to learn to wait. It's like a treat. You have to learn to wait to watch Sachin bat. He's not there every night, you wait to watch him bat.

If it's just there all night, every night, I think you are overkilling it. I do believe you can cut down one-day cricket. You don't need seven ODIs and a couple of T20s. Have three one-dayers and three T20s or something like that. T20 will sell itself, you'll have sell-out crowds everywhere. All these ODIs will be sold out too, but that doesn't mean you have to do it just because it's bringing in money.

Hussain on leadership, the rise of England, the captaincy styles of Strauss and Dhoni, and more in part one of the interview here

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Feeds: Sharda Ugra © ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View the original article here

'As captain you need people to want to play for you'

Nasser Hussain talks about leadership, the rise of England, the captaincy styles of Strauss and Dhoni, and more

To the outside world, Nasser Hussain's significance in English cricket outweighs all his contemporaries - both as a prickly, unyielding, constant competitor and a forceful leader of men who captained England at a time of both tumult and progress. As much as Hussain gives credit to Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower for the team's recent ascent, the back story begins in the Hussain era, like Australia's did with Allan Border or India's with Sourav Ganguly. During India's tour of England, Hussain, now an insightful media analyst and crusader for Test cricket, spoke to ESPNcricinfo at length about the rise of England, the ticklish demands of that side's captaincy, why he is who he is, and where the world game needs to go.

The redefinition of England began, it can be said, in your time as captain. How much of personal pride do you feel in England's rise to Test No. 1?
See, I'd have been disappointed if anything I'd done had been put down to 12 years before or whatever. What this team are doing now is down to Strauss and Flower. They were No. 6 in the world, being 50 all out against the West Indies, in turmoil again, and they have come in and put things right so quickly, it's unbelievable.

If you think about it, there is only one way, up, and I was fortunate that it was me that came in when [we were] at rock bottom and we could move our way up from there. I take great pride in watching England and the way we have progressed over the last decade because I go back to the comment that was made when I met [Duncan] Fletcher in a room at Lord's. He looked at me and said, "Why are you the worst side in the world? You have all these counties, all these facilities, all the money, all the players, a good team, a very good team, and we can't be... we're not the best side, but we can't be the worst."

So I look now - sell-out crowds, England No. 1, winning, and it's almost like, "Yeah, we've put things right now, we're playing like an England cricket team should." Look at the passion for the game in this country - every Test match is sold out, and we are now playing for them as they expect us, and we should do.

Is there actually a single template for teams to be successful? One particular method? You said that the Australian way was almost preached...
Well, there is a template. Good bowlers and good cricketers, and that is it. And that's what I meant about Australia and preaching. They used to preach a little bit, and I used to turn around and say, "Well hold on, [you've got] Warne, McGrath, Waugh, Waugh, Lee, whoever... Taylor, all that lot."

What I would like, and what I would hope this England side do - and they seem to be doing it at the moment - is, you worry about what you are doing and don't tell the rest of the world how to do things, because what now applies to England may not apply to India or to South Africa or to New Zealand. What we have is a lot of money coming in from Sky or whatever, we have the fortunate or unfortunate thing that we are picking up quite a few players from South Africa, a coach from Zimbabwe… I don't think you should ever preach.

The template is having the ingredients first, having a very strong captain and coach, and having 'em ready, having mentally strong cricketers. In this series I would say England have been mentally stronger than India - ready for the fight. Whereas I see a lot of Indians sort of say, I've played Twenty20, I've played 50 overs, but this is just a little bit harder for me, five days of this. I haven't done that for a while, so I'm not going to do it.

Finally I would say, having them ready, that's been the biggest difference on this tour. How many times on this tour - first ball, Jimmy Anderson, voom, got Abhinav Mukund. First ball, voom, got Virender Sehwag. RP Singh comes in, not ready, nightmare. You have got to be peaking at the right time.

Speaking of mental toughness, do you think it's one of those things that either you have or don't, or can it actually be built?
A lot of it is nature, what you're born with. It's what [Kevin] Pietersen has, it's the arrogance, the bravado, the ego. In 2005 the difference between [Ian] Bell and Pietersen was that Pietersen had a big sign up: "I'm Kevin Pietersen, please everyone look at me." Whereas Ian Bell back then had a sign up that said, "I'm Ian Bell, please do not look at me, I'm a bit quiet and shy." And you can't have that as a cricketer.

So you are born with it and you can learn it with success. Now look at Ian Bell. He's still a lad that mum and dad will be very proud of, a quiet, shy lad. But he has that confidence and arrogance and presence now, and mental toughness. That, I think, is going to stay.

Most of it is born. Like [Darren] Gough had it and [Andy] Caddick didn't, for example. Gough wanted to know when we are playing, he wanted to know where every camera was on the ground, wanted to be on TV. Caddick didn't. I think you are born with it, and if you get a bit of success you can learn it. And that's probably what [MS] Dhoni has done a little bit. Dhoni is a star figure and it's rubbed off on other people over the last two or three years, that I want to be that figure.

How much does the rise of a team, like England now, have to do with planning and how much with the cyclical patterns that we see in sport?
Well, you can plan. Every business will tell you that you've got to have some kind of succession plan. It's amazing how Australia, with that bowling attack, suddenly fell off a cliff, really. We were told all the time how great Shane Warne was. Then you see [Michael] Beer and [Xavier] Doherty and whatever playing, and you say, wait, we've seen these lads in county cricket in England, this is not Shane Warne. You've got to make sure you are thinking about the future all the time.

That's what has disappointed me about India on this tour. They were sinking in the present. World Cup, World No. 1, IPL, celebration. You've almost got to be ahead of the curve, all the time, and it takes a very clever man to do that.

That's going to be India's major issue. People write me down as someone who is hugely anti-IPL. I've seen IPL and I know what it means to the Indian public - they love it, British Indians love it. It's a good tournament, but it will exhaust cricketers. It's going to be one of Fletcher's biggest challenges. That if India carry on with IPL, I believe it will hurt.

There's no doubting it helped their one-day game. I think they wouldn't have been world champions if it wasn't for IPL. I think it has massively helped. Playing in your home country, players whacking the ball out of the ground, the handling of pressure, soaking it up - they've had it all in the IPL, and they go out and do it in the World Cup. But it is now going to hinder them - as we have seen here - in Test match cricket. Because you need young bowlers to be fit and raring to go, and the IPL is death for bowlers. It is noticeable that none of the England bowlers have played IPL.

What is England's next challenge? Is it to be dominant for a long period of time? Or is that not possible?
Let's not get giddy about England. Their main challenge is going to be the subcontinent. Going and winning in the subcontinent. England have got a lot of tours coming up in the subcontinent, in both forms of the game. So that's going to be their biggest challenge... finding that second spinner, whether it's going to be Monty [Panesar] or Samit Patel or someone like that; reverse-swing bowlers…

But they are all of the right age and all well looked after. The challenge is going to be to not do what they did in 2005, when they got giddy, and think they've climbed their Everest and that's it, we've done it. I don't think this lot will do that.

"People write me down as someone who is hugely anti-IPL. I've seen IPL and I know what it means to the Indian public - they love it, British Indians love it. It's a good tournament, but it will exhaust cricketers"

Also, England has not been No. 1 in sport, any sport, for a long time, so these are going to be star names. There's going to be a lot of attention in England, there's going to be a lot of lucrative deals. They're going to be more recognisable, so they need to not let it go to their head, lose their focus.

They are going to be enticed by IPL money. "Come and play, come and play." And they need to be looked after by the board to make sure that they don't go. So that they are ready for Test matches in the future. Because our season is always straight after that. So we don't need 'em coming straight from that exhausted. When you get a bowler, it's like gold dust. You do not just let him go. You don't just say, "Oh, fine, we can lose Anderson." Because before you know it, look at India, they're all gone. Look at Australia. Looking after this bowling unit and keeping them together is crucial for England at the moment.

Why has England's one-day cricket been so poor in all these years? Why haven't they been as competitive as they should be?
It is many things, but primarily, given the amount of cricket that is played, it is difficult to be at your best in all formats, and over the years England have prioritised Test match cricket, a little bit like India have of late prioritised one day-cricket. Very few teams can do both, like the Australians, for example, because the demands for both formats are very different.

The 50-over game is simple: see ball, hit ball. One-day cricket has been a lot more about individual brilliance, a lot more about raw talent. Not so much about technique etc. You look at the [Lasith] Malingas and the [Tillakaratne] Dilshans, Sehwag and these sort of guys - it's not about technique, it's very much about genuine raw ability and flair.

And historically England have produced good, solid technical batsmen, but you wouldn't say they have produced massive hitters of the ball or people who can be innovative with the bat, or have weird actions with the ball, spin it both ways or reverse-swing it. We've been a little bit too English, if you like, a little bit too orthodox. I think what wins you one-day games is a little bit of the unorthodox, and some individual brilliance. We've always lacked that, and Test match cricket is a little more of a team game.

As we've seen in the Test series, England had much more of a team, against the individuals who were India with great records and great players. That's Test match cricket. In one-day cricket it's probably a bit of the other way around - an individual can just turn a game on its head.

We're starting to produce those cricketers, albeit with a bit of foreign imports, but it's still an English side. Like [Jade] Dernbach with the ball - he's got unusual variations with the slower ball and he's unorthodox.

In that way Australia's dominance has been remarkable because it encompassed two formats consistently over a decade. Does this mean that kind of dominance will not happen again?
It will happen, but it won't happen every time, every team. The West Indies side of the 1980s and 1990s and the Australian side of the 1990s and the 2000s dominated both types of the game. It doesn't mean - as India are finding out now - that just because you are a great side, as India have been, you can be a great side in all forms of the game unless [the players] grow up together. It's becoming a bit late now for India, because, for example, soon it will be broken up. There are some tired bodies in there.

Whereas the Australian side grew up together - the Waughs, Warne, Ponting. It took a long time to build. It might come again. There is potential in this England side, but they have won nothing yet in one-day cricket, rather than the World T20.

England need to learn to win in one-day cricket - they need a good World Cup, just so that the kids in England look at it and say, "All right, we can play one-day cricket." I think it's going to be very important, the next World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, for England. It is very difficult [to build dominance] but what this England side have now, and that Australian side had, was strength and depth.

If Warne was injured, a [Stuart] MacGill would come in, if Mark Waugh was injured, Stewie Law was waiting, or Greg Blewett or whoever. Michael Bevan would come into their one-day side when [Michael] Slater was out of it. That is a seriously good squad in both forms of the game. What you do need is strength and depth if you are going to be great in all forms of the game.

Do you think the ODI series is going to be tightly fought? Or is there far too little room for the Indians to turn the result around?
I think the one-day series is more about the future. Look what happened when England went on the Ashes before the last, without Vaughan, without Trescothick, without a few other cricketers. They got blown away 5-0. I don't care how good a side you are, if you lose the likes of Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh, Gautam Gambhir and the rest, it is going to be a massive blow.

The ODI series is going to be close, but more than the result, India should be interested in what they find out from the series. They are world champions, no one can take that away from them. If they lose 5-0 to England, they will still be world champions. What they need to do is to start to look to the future.

They need someone to come through with the ball to replace Zaheer, they need Ashwin to bowl well and see if he is a replacement for Harbhajan. I think it's much more about which of these young lads will put their hands up. Rohit Sharma, I'm a big fan of Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli... In English conditions, it will move around in day-night games in September, and Fletcher will be watching closely and the selectors will be watching closely. Now is a great time to show what you can do.

Would you say South Africa are now England's biggest threat for the No. 1 spot?
They are, away from the subcontinent. If you had all of the Pakistan team available, and all fit, and none of the politics and none of the going around in circles with captains and all that, with their bowling attack, they would be a threat, but unfortunately that's not the case.

But South Africa are a threat, [though] they rely heavily on [Morne] Morkel and [Dale] Steyn. Imran Tahir is a very useful addition to them. But Jacques [Kallis] is not young, [Mark] Boucher is not young. I don't know who is going to keep wicket, whether AB [de Villiers] will take over. They are a good side, but I still fancy England.

Captaincy

What drove you to believe that you could make a difference as England captain? You've always said you were a nervous cricketer. Captaincy is not a job for the nervous.
I think what drove me was that I always wanted to push myself, really, so I enjoyed captaincy. I enjoyed thinking about the game, even when I wasn't captain, wondering about different tactical changes and technical changes. I also felt we were underachieving. [That] there must be something you can always do to try and improve the side, improve the team's performance. I was very, very interested in improving the England team.

"There are certain characters in the team that, when they speak, people will listen. In my team it was Darren Gough" © Getty Images

Captaincy was also something that challenged me. For too long I thought about my own game and worried about my own game. I needed something else in my career - to just start thinking about other people in the team. And in a way that would help me within my own game, really, not to be so self-centred and so introspective. It [captaincy] just helped a little bit, for a little while anyway, until the whole captaincy burden comes on top of you...

Obviously your place is much more secure as captain, so you're never that worried about being left out, and that always helps. It helped me understand a few other people as well. It helped me understand the likes of Andrew Caddick, who also had a large fear of failure. We're worriers. So me being like that [too] helped me get a broader understanding of a variety of different people.

I always believed that captaincy is not having one rule that fits everyone or one way that fits everyone. You couldn't get two more different human beings than Gough and Caddick. Or Stewart and Atherton used to open the batting, and you couldn't get two more different human beings than those two.

It helped me understanding that people were full of frailties and worries, people weren't all like Graham Gooch. I remember saying to Graham, "How do you cure nerves and waiting to bat?" And he said, "I don't really get nervous." So maybe someone like that didn't quite understand someone who did get nervous and someone who did worry and fret.

Good captains, then, like coaches, don't really need to be great players?
I don't think you do. I think you need to be secure in the side. When I got the captaincy job, Keith Fletcher rang me and said, "Well done, and the first thing you have to do is to make sure you keep getting runs. That's going to be the most important thing for you because it's always much easier when you are doing well. You feel more comfortable in the team and you feel more comfortable telling people what to do when you're doing it yourself."

I don't think you have to be the best player. One of the greatest captains England ever had was Mike Brearley, and he certainly wasn't the best player in that team. You need to have other skills. Sometimes the best players don't understand failure and don't understand fear of failure, and some people that can't do the things that they can do. Sometimes the great cricketers, like Ian Botham and Freddie Flintoff and people like this, don't make as good captains because they are, to a degree, geniuses, a little bit. Ask them to dissect [their game] a little bit, they might not be able to. So I do believe it's a just lot of different skills involved in being a captain to being a player so it doesn't necessarily go hand in hand.

What is the key quality a good captain needs to have - one or several?
He needs to have a presence about him, definitely, and probably the most important thing is that people want to play for you. I played under Michael Atherton and I thought that was his greatest skill. His greatest asset was that I wanted to play for Michael Atherton, because he always put the team first. I think the team sees straight through you if, when you are winning, you take all the credit and when you're losing you blame the team. I think how you handle yourself in and around the team, so that the team wants to play for you, is hugely important. I think when you lose that trust with the team, then I think you are fighting a losing battle.

How does a captain build loyalty? Did it come naturally to you?
No, you just have to be clever, really. I believe that there are certain characters in the team that, when they speak, people will listen. It's not necessarily your best player, it is your most charismatic player. In my team it was Darren Gough. At that time he was the pin-up boy, he was the star performer…

When we were going through bad times, that's when the team really start to chat properly. They won't tell you things in team meetings or hotel rooms, but when they get away from it that's when the niggly things come out. Why are we practising tomorrow? Why are we training tomorrow? Why is Hussain doing this, why is Fletcher doing that? Why is he still in charge? He hasn't got any runs for two months. That's when you need all your lieutenants out there, who will just quash that immediately. And I had two or three good ones in Atherton and Stewart and Gough, and [Graham] Thorpe was another one, who, if any of that chat happened, immediately said, "Hang on, we're all going in the right direction."

I realised very quickly that I needed Gough on board. When Gough spoke people listened. Gough, on my first tour as captain to South Africa, had a bit of a weight issue. The one thing that really upset Goughie was anyone mentioning his weight issue, and I was asked that at a press conference. Immediately I said, "No, Darren Gough doesn't have a problem, and he's the first name down on my team sheet and he always will be." Because, (a) that was the truth, and (b) I wanted Darren to know I had given him full backing in the media, so that I would have my main character, my main charismatic figure, on board.

Has captaincy become simpler than what it used to be when you started playing, given the massive support staffs etc, or has it become more complicated now?
It's become simpler for some. Michael Atherton and Alec Stewart would love to have had what they have now - central contracts and bowlers being rested and ready like they are now. They had people like Angus Fraser etc turning up exhausted [on Test match morning], Gough himself turning up exhausted. But while they would like what we have now, they would also be the first to say that captains of different eras have different problems. It's not got easier from me to Strauss. I was given quite a lot by Lord MacLaurin. Obviously we brought in central contracts etc.

"I'm pigeonholed as this nasty, aggressive captain who was always ordering, shouting. In fact, Duncan used to do a lot of the behind-the-scenes"

A captain is pretty much only as good as his side, mainly only as good as his bowling attack, really. A bowling attack can make you look like a fantastic captain. You only have to look at Mahendra here on this tour and look at Andrew Strauss. You are pretty much as good as your bowling attack. They are the key ingredients. The rest is about two, five, maybe 10% captaincy.

Do captains have a limited lifespan? You said you quit captaincy because you were tired. What did you get tired of?
Tired of worrying every day about English cricket. Every day you literally wake up and you're doing meetings and thinking and planning and looking back and looking forwards, worried about your own game, worried about the England team game.

It's different from country to country and different from era to era. For me, there was a lot of winning, but there was a lot of losing as well, so dealing with the media and everything, there were a lot of good days and a hell of a lot of bad days. So for me a four-five year time span was enough. [You finally say], "You know, I've got a young family, I don't have to be grumpy all my life. I need to move on a little bit." Whereas if you are Steve Waugh or now Andrew Strauss, and you're winning all the time, the number of bad days are a lot less. And hence your lifespan is that little bit longer really.

So I think it depends on what sort of side you are captaining, how successful that side is, what age it comes to you, and how much you want to do it. [Captaincy is] the sort of thing that you can't just do in half measures, it's the sort of thing you have to either do full-on or not at all. So once you get that gut feeling that you are just doing it because of the job, or you're doing things to save your job, rather than actually doing your job, then you have to move on. And I felt that very quickly, it came to me like a bolt out of the blue, and I just knew it was time to move on.

Does a captain need to be detached from the job a bit, to be able to do it for a long time, to be successful? One of Dhoni's strengths, for example, over these four years is said to be his detachment.
Again it has to come from character, and Dhoni looks to be a completely different character from me, for example. Different captains and leaders for different teams and situations, I think. India needed Sourav [Ganguly] to... it was always "nice India" when you played against them, all very friendly, good morning, all that sort of stuff. And Sourav made them into quite a nasty, aggressive bunch, a tough bunch. And it was what India needed then. I reckon with all the chaos that goes on with Indian cricket, and when it was on its way up, and the expectation and hype, what was needed after that was someone to calm it all down. You know what Indian cricket and media [are like] - it's so hyperbolic, so high, so low. They need someone like Dhoni to be there, flatlining all the way though - a calm character. So I believe in different captains for different times. Same with myself.

England were underperforming. We were the worst side in the world 12 years ago, booed here [at The Oval]. They needed someone to come in and kick 'em up the backside: this is not good enough, we are better than this; we are not the best side in the world, but we are certainly not the worst. So I had to show them what playing for England was all about, what it meant, but after me, when I had my time, they needed [Michael] Vaughan to come in.

When everyone was hiding behind their sofas in 2005 and saying, "Please, please, come on, let's beat Australia for the first time for a long time, win the Ashes", he stayed very calm, cool and collected. And after the Pietersen and Moores debacles, they have needed someone with a mature head, like Strauss, to come and take over. So it's different leaders for different times. I don't think, for example, Vaughan [would have been suited for] when I took over. Vaughan would have been a little bit too calm and nice and cool for that situation.

A little bit, what you've got to be careful of is that you get pigeonholed a little bit. I'm pigeonholed as this nasty, aggressive captain who was always ordering, shouting. In fact, Duncan used to do a lot of the behind-the-scenes. If anyone needed reprimanding or having a quiet word, Duncan used to do a lot of that.

Good cop, bad cop?
Yeah, good cop, bad cop. It's just like with kids. Being in charge of a team is just like having kids. You say one thing to Gough at one end and then completely different at the other end. Fletcher plays the bad cop, I play the good cop, and then we swap around.

But the captain-coach relationship is absolutely vital. You both must be singing from the same hymn sheet. Even if you disagree - when I'm having a cup of tea with Fletcher, we're having a meeting, I say, "No, Dunc, you're wrong," but 10 minutes later, when we go in the meeting, players will be [thinking] "Why is Nass going against Dunc?" So in a meeting you're together, [facing] the press you're together, even though behind the scenes you're disagreeing on a few things.

How do you rate captains you've seen? Who are the ones you've admired, both from the time you played and now?
I think these two [Strauss and Dhoni] are very good - for different reasons, sometimes not just on what you see of them but sometimes you've just to look at the record and say, "There must be something good about this guy, it can't be coincidence." I don't see something specific about Dhoni where I say, "Jeez, he's Mike Brearley", tactical brain or whatever, but the stats are there, the CV is there.

And if someone like Sachin Tendulkar says "He is the best captain I have played under", you put that into the equation as well, I think. I admire Dhoni for what he's done. Listen, I was there in Mumbai [World Cup final] when he did that, when he put himself up the order. I mean, the pressure… I was feeling nervous watching, and it wasn't my side playing. Dhoni pushes himself up the order, he's there at the end, he whacks it for six, picks a stump up and walks off. Now that is as cool as you like. He's got something about him. He's got a presence about him, and he's a leader of men.

Strauss is different. He's a leader of men [too]. When he speaks, people listen. He's an ambassador for his country, he is very dignified in the way he talks. In the whole country, I reckon no one would look at Andrew Strauss and say, "What's this bloke on about?" They listen. He talks well, he makes good sense, he makes good decisions, and yet both of them, you wouldn't have them both them down as massive tactical geniuses.

I admired Stephen Fleming. I thought when he took on that Australian side with a relatively normal New Zealand side, he had great tactics, great ideas.

I learnt a lot from Brearley, reading Brearley's book. I enjoyed him as a captain, the way he handled Botham - magnificent, the way you can handle Botham like that. Still, to this day, when Brearley comes into the box, Beefy gets up and it's "Morning, Brears", and he shows him a lot of respect. Brears is a psychologist of leading, his man management of people was there.

"You only have to look at Mahendra here on this tour and look at Andrew Strauss. You are pretty much as good as your bowling attack" © AFP

The other thing as captain is that you can't have all the ingredients. You'll be good at certain things and not so good at other things. Just as long as you've ticked enough boxes and you've got more good things than bad, then you'll be all right.

How would you rate yourself as captain?
I always think it's for other people go say things like that, but I rate myself like I tried to rate myself as a player actually, so that when I end, I would say, "Well, that's the best I could do." That's what I did as a player and that's the same with my captaincy. I know I couldn't have done what Vaughan did in 2005, and I know I couldn't do what Strauss is doing now with this team.

Why would you say that?
Because of personality. I felt - a little bit like my batting - I was a man for crisis, because it took the fear of failure away. I hate [to be] like [Ravi] Bopara, going in now, going out at 300 for 4 or whatever. I liked it to be 20 for 4, almost like no one is expecting you to do well. You have got nothing to lose and then you show people you can do well.

And that was the same with [when] I took over. I got booed here [at The Oval]. Everyone was expecting England to just carry on and I would just be another captain. So it was almost a "like to prove people wrong" sort of situation, and I liked those situations.

And I'm one who thinks all the time. Think, think, think, think, and eventually there's only so many hours of brain time that you can use up before you say enough is enough. But I enjoyed the job. I absolutely… more than playing, my greatest moments and love of the game come from captaining England.

And the next day when you put on the TV and it's Michael Vaughan, England captain, it hurts. When the Barmy Army sang "Michael Vaughan's Barmy Army" from "Nasser Hussain's Barmy Army", it hurt. And again I'll quote Brearley. He said that what hurt him the most was the next day. When you are no longer England captain, you suddenly realise it's over, you are no longer England captain, and you appreciate what you had.

Hussain on working with Duncan Fletcher, being part-Asian and more: part two of the interview will be published on September 7, 2011

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Feeds: Sharda Ugra © ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View the original article here

'To become a good coach you need to have good cricketers'

John Wright talks about the place of coaching in the modern game and looks at his assignment with New Zealand, as well as his time with India a few years ago

If cricket coaching could be transported into extreme sport, John Wright would probably not opt for the elastic security of his native bungee, or even skydiving. Wright would be a BASE jumper, the stuff of shorter freefall and greater hazard, leaps taken off buildings and cliffs. Better not go further with the metaphor, though; Wright doesn't even like flying in an airplane too much.

Yet it's no coincidence that both his international coaching jobs so far have involved risk-taking and a sense of why-the-hell-not? Coming cold into India in 2000, and then, 10 years later, joining up as New Zealand coach, with a team at an ebb and two months left for a World Cup, does indicate an appetite for adventure.

At the World Cup, the previously easybeat Kiwis strangled South Africa in the quarter-final before losing their semi-final. The sight of a baying pack in black astonished many, the result shook the World Cup's rafters. Wright says drily, "I'd rather that happen than for us to leave limping meekly. We're not playing in a church or a classroom." Those words are not quite in sync with his decades-old image as "nice guy" and "gentleman." While the image is not entirely untrue, it's not entirely him either. In a game situation, the hard-bitten on-field competitor in Wright would always punch the gentleman's lights out. It is how his coaching works. The basics over the bull, the "wins" column over the window-dressing.

He is today one of the world's most seasoned coaches, an individualist in a world of jargon-junkies and cheerleaders. In his time away from the disco lights of Indian cricket, Wright's kinship with the country has only grown deeper. At the World Cup, New Zealand never had a shortage of net bowlers; hotel staff talked family with Wright; his India captain, Sourav Ganguly, called to give batting tips ("Don't play square so much", "When tackling spin in India, keep your legs out of the way"). Wright watched the World Cup final in his home outside Christchurch, pleased to see many men from the 2003 final laugh and cry, celebrate and be celebrated.

In between the two big jobs, he got an offer to head the Australian Centre of Excellence in Brisbane, worked as New Zealand High Performance manager, contemplated frequent IPL coaching offers (at last count, three), and late last year was about to sign a World Cup TV contract in India. Then he was asked to walk through a door that until then - to the utter bewilderment of the outside world - had been kept shut between a tailspinning national team and its country's most prominent international coach. Once again John Wright took a leap into the unknown.

He spoke to ESPNcricinfo in two parts; the business of coaching and modern cricket was discussed during the World Cup, and matters New Zealand early last week.

What is your assessment of how the World Cup went for New Zealand? What did the World Cup prove to you about the Black Caps?
That we can beat anyone. Losing in the semi-finals was bitterly disappointing, but I hope the team has learnt. I think it has grown. What's important is that we just played as hard as we could with the resources we had.

The semi-final was just a case of the batting going wrong, wasn't it?
We won the toss at the Premadasa which was a bonus, but we couldn't achieve what we wanted to with the bat in the last 10 overs. We had a pretty good target to achieve. We knew that a 240-250 target in a semi-final would be tough, but we had our hiccups in the latter phases. We just didn't get to where we needed to be with our batting. We lost three wickets just when we were about to take the Powerplay. When we came into the break, what we talked about was that we just needed to replicate the attitude and the quality of our display in the previous game. We didn't have much to play with but if we went out there with the attitude we had in the quarter-final, you never know what could happen. In a one-off tournament anyone can be beaten.

In the team's net session in Ahmedabad, batsmen weren't allowed to hit over the net? What was that about?
We have got a lot of good ball-strikers, but we hadn't had a lot of hundreds before the World Cup, and that's been really because we have not been prepared to work the ones and twos. It's all very well to be a net tiger and play all the big shots. Before the Australia game I saw we were were hitting the ball all over the place, but when we went out there we found that didn't work against a good bowling attack, and we had to knuckle down. So we changed how we trained. The guys didn't like it very much for a start because it challenged them. It was a way of getting them to work on their first 10 minutes on the batting crease. So if they practise irresponsibly, they'll go out and someone else will get a bat. I think you have to practise with purpose, as if it is going to help your game.

The du Plessis incident surprised a lot of people. No one had seen the Kiwis sledge someone so hard. The captain got fined.
Well, it wasn't carefully rehearsed. But I'd rather that happen that the other way around, to go out limping meekly. We're not playing in a church or a classroom.

As coach, what was your best moment from the World Cup?
Seeing a team starting to believe in themselves and in each other. That's a big thing. The fight the boys showed tells you about the team - that it can get better. We have the opportunities at this stage to get better.

What's with these almost self-destructive jobs you like to take on? First India, which you didn't know much about and then a struggling New Zealand, two months before a World Cup.
The Indian one was sort of just an opportunity you couldn't miss: to be the first foreigner to coach India. I always thought if I got the opportunity and if I hadn't had a go at it, I would have regretted that when I was at 60 - not much older than I am now, really! It's been a great life experience for me, to be honest.

This one, New Zealand, was slightly different. I'd been working for New Zealand Cricket for two years and a bit. They had hired various coaches, and I probably was their last resort. I thought the side could play a bit and just needed a bit of tweaking and changing one or two things.

I suppose it was a bit like unfinished business - to come back to India and do a World Cup with your own country. It's nice to be back coaching. After India, I of had two years of recovering, fixing up the farm, and working with some of the younger New Zealand players - a variety of roles, a little bit of a coaching. I wanted to get back to team coaching. I like the competitiveness of team coaching, of having games where you want to win. I like that. It can be… not nerve-wracking, but it keeps you on your toes.

What from your Indian experience have you learnt or unlearnt?
You just keep learning. First of all, the way you become a good coach is, you need to have good cricketers. And that's it. Not only good cricketers, if you get that combination of a great cricketer and a very competitive character, a good character, certain behaviours. You look at the way that people react to competition, to pressure, all those things. It's just moulding all of that together.

I've always believed in old-fashioned stuff: work ethic, honesty, and really enjoying playing for the team you are in, whatever that is. Coaching is just moulding a group that has the skills and the attitude to win. It's probably a different challenge with this team, with difference pieces that perhaps we haven't got, that we had with India, and vice-versa. You just work all that out. I think most coaches come into an environment and they have to sit and listen and look and find out where what needs to go, where, if you do make a change, it makes the biggest impact, and hopefully you win games of cricket.

One of the things I learnt in India is that you are so dependent on what goes on underneath the national team. When we mentioned to Mr [Jagmohan] Dalmiya [former BCCI president] that A teams are really, really important so we had to have regular A-team touring, it made a lot of difference. It creates heat on the incumbents, which is good, because you don't want comfort zones. Then again, the selection has to be very accurate and ruthless, and you have to have succession planning. I don't think many countries get that right, personally. I think you have to be thinking a year ahead, at least. That doesn't mean you're changing the team now, but you know you have to. You can't stand still.

"Personally I've given a high score on attitude or character, or whatever you like to call it, because I don't think you get it on talent. You have to have a certain amount of ability, but I think the players that have attitude will always go further. You probably want people [who], if you had to go to war, you wouldn't mind them being on the same bus"

Where does it stand in New Zealand at the moment?
I just feel we have got a long way to go. We are missing one or two bits here and there, and we've got some good youngsters coming through underneath. If we get them some really tough playing opportunities to bridge the gap between international and first-class, in two or three years time we could have a good side.

Given the team's poor results last year, isn't New Zealand Cricket worried about reduced public interest or the shrinking of the talent pool?
I spent the last two-three years working with 16-19-year-old kids, some of them now 20-21. Kane Williamson is in this team, Adam Milne was in the Under-19 teams. We've got four or five, maybe six, kids that really show a lot of potential. I've been really impressed with some of the talent I've seen in the last couple of years in U-17 and U-19 tournaments.

I know that as long as we can put a playing programme in place for these guys coming through, it challenges them and bridges the gap between first-class and international cricket. The ones with that talent, the ones that really want to make it, we could hopefully hold on to. There will be a few changes from this team over the next years. The opportunity for the boys to earn huge money with the IPL, of the kind we wouldn't be able to generate in New Zealand, is exciting. That may attract more kids to play the game, or think about it anyway. The critical question is whether the administration makes the right cricketing decisions.

Much was said about how you had been kept off the coaching job because of player power in New Zealand. What's it like working with perhaps the most powerful of New Zealand's players, Dan Vettori?
I'm all for player power, particularly if it's on the field. Dan's been great to work with. I've enjoyed working with him and we have got to know each other. As captain, he tried to lead with performance on the field, and he achieved that.

The 2015 World Cup in New Zealand is going to have only 10 teams. As someone who's been a part of the tournament, do you agree with the idea?
The World Cup has got to be about the world - they [the ICC] have to be sure they have got the 10 best teams in it. No matter where they come from. Otherwise it's a nonsense. Surely it doesn't take eight years to sort that one out. Ireland were a revelation this time. They have shown they can knock over big sides. There needs to be some incentive for the [Associate] teams to get the opportunity to play in the World Cup.

Fifteen-odd years into coaching, is there anything that you did in the past that you wouldn't do now?
The one thing I wouldn't do is overestimate the importance of the role of coach. Because I think there's a lot written about this and that. It's the players that win you the games, that's it. As a coach you can do some things, but when you sum it all up, matches are won because DW Smith got 124 or SL Patel took 6 for 38, and they, the players, did it.

You've been involved with two very different teams. In a skill-driven sport like cricket, what do teams really need to win - talent or application?
In India, belief was a big thing [when] playing away. That was built slowly, like a win here and a win there. Now they have got that and the latest crop has taken it to a much higher level.

I mean, a simple thing like fitness. When you look at it, when I first started, it was a coach and a physio, and it took us a year and a half to convince people that a fitness trainer might help. The support team now with the Indians is very, very professional. So there were lots of areas of improvement.

In the end it's about working particularly with your captain and your seniors players, to say that, "Well, look this is probably the way to go if you guys want to be a part of a winning team." You have got to be able to sell it to them. Not only sell it, sometimes you have to convince them and sometimes you just instruct. But in the end they have got to take ownership. If you can't sell it, you can end up frustrated and you are probably not a right fit with that group.

The best thing is to have a highly talented player who has the best attitude and wants to be the best player in the world. It's not common but coaches can get a few of those. Look at all the good teams - they have five or six or seven of those. Now if you are playing international sport and you don't have that attitude - those individuals who like to compete and have a lot of courage, you're not going to make it.

Personally I've [given] a high score on attitude or character, or whatever you like to call it, because I don't think you get it on talent. There's a huge amount of talent everywhere; getting both in a package is fantastic. You have to have a certain amount of ability, but I think the players that have attitude will always go further. You probably want people [who], if you had to go to war, you wouldn't mind them being on the same bus.

Culture becomes immaterial, then?
I think you have to be mindful of the culture you are in. I would always try and be me wherever I work, but you have to appreciate where you are. It took me two years to work out how things worked in India. I could never work out why there were 15 players with every team at home when all we needed was 12. But that's fair enough, you understand and accept it.

One of the things you get quoted a lot is saying that you can't coach "want". How, as a coach, can you pick want?
That's easy. A ten-mile run will answer that. You see it in the way a player approaches everything, particularly on the training ground, particularly how they react to individual success or failure.

"The one thing I wouldn't do is overestimate the importance of the role of coach. It's the players that win you the games, that's it" © Getty Images

What would you say has changed about you since your two international jobs?
When I coached India there was so much at the start. You were virtually coaching for your career, every game almost. It was trying to manage your emotions that was important. I think I used to take the losses when I was coaching India a bit personally, which is not so much now. I'm a bit older and wiser. I don't know how the boys see it, though. I wanted to make a difference with India, and so it meant a lot. Here I'm a bit calmer. It's a big role in terms of New Zealand, but actually coaching the All Blacks would be similar to coaching India, in a much smaller fashion - a country of four million to a billion people.

You get better at things, areas you try and improve, areas where you need to improve. I still don't smile much during matches.

What's said most commonly about the Indian team is that they play with so much expectation surrounding them, while the Black Caps don't really have to deal with that. Does the pressure of expectation bring a team closer? Or does having a relaxed environment produce better cricket?
I think any fan, whatever sport they watch, just wants to know that their team plays with a lot of courage, plays with a lot of fight. I know that all New Zealanders - and we've had a bit of an up-and-down period - want to see their team wants to play good cricket, is proud to play their sport for their country, and fight like hell.

Realistically, man for man, against some teams, statistically we don't match up, but if we can put on a good performance, people will accept that,. And it wasn't too much different in India… although, come to think of it, it was different. Fighting was important but you had to win. As a foreign coach, you had to win. Sourav and the boys, we had a good cricket team, and we needed to win.

As New Zealand coach, are you tempted to talk about the team you played for in the 80s?
No, absolutely not, they're not interested. A lot of them would have [had] the 80s rammed down their throat. Some of the guys who have played in the 80s are commentators now. It is good to reflect on the past, but as a coach you don't do that at all. Players want to set their own era. A few things you want to avoid [as a coach] is saying, "Don't do this" and "In my day." We were playing Test cricket and we weren't a great one-day side.

The modern cricketer is interested in the Twenty20 landscape. There are many more choices. They are professional sportsmen and are earning lots of money. When you work with them for New Zealand, you want a good support crew around so they feel like they're playing for the team, but they have also got other things they do too.

So whatever you are, it is that team thing that you are talking about, about getting the culture right. As coach, the other thing is simple: you put a group around you - the physio, the trainer. Bob Simpson, who had a big influence on my coaching career, always told me that as a coach you always try and get your batsmen to score more runs and bowlers to take more wickets. You always go back to that, because if a player is not learning his own game, he will, after a time, become a little dissatisfied.

You are trying to help them learn their game, trying to put together a team that wins, because that's how you have fun playing international cricket. It's not fun losing. All your fun comes from winning and that's how it should be.

What about modern coaching do you not like?
Having a lot of meetings sometimes doesn't make much sense to me. Generally I think they are overrated. I'll try anything if you think it's going to make you win and make a player work. As a coach you're constantly thinking of what those things are. I have probably done some dumb things over the years myself, but the longer you go on, certainly I think you can throw away a lot of the meaningless stuff. I've always thought there are two levels. There is the team thing and then there are the individuals. The trick is finding the key that turns the lock for a player and gets the best out of that player.

I would have to say I have seen a lot of kids get messed up by poor coaching. Saying stuff when it just complicates it for the individual or the team, I think that's just someone trying to justify their role, and I really don't have time for that.

Sometimes it's easier to say, "Look, this is what we need to achieve." Good people and good players generally work out how to get there. They might need a bit of tweaking, and if they go down a blind alley, you send them back. That's where selection is critical and the characters you pick and the make-up you pick.

The other thing that I hate is when people start talking about others. I always think they should look at their own game first. That's really important. Once you start reviewing each other, you don't review yourself first. And that applies to coaches and everyone. You can't just blame the players.

You're interested in the work of other coaches. What's the latest going on there?
I was reading Roy Keane's book and the boys are reading it too. His insights on [Alex] Ferguson, for instance, were very interesting. He was obviously a very, very good operator, with a great attention to detail, and he stood up for his players. Meeting other coaches is fantastic, but you don't get too many chances, so I read up a lot. These days it's almost like you've got to have several PhDs to qualify for some of these job descriptions. I always go back to coaching the game and coaching the skill and then putting the management structure around it. I think when you are at the international level you are always judged by your results. So don't fluff over them with all the other stuff.

"I have seen a lot of kids get messed up by poor coaching. Saying stuff when it just complicates it for the individual or the team, I think that's just someone trying to justify their role or whatever, and I really have no time for that. That's basically getting in the way of players"

You've played and seen limited-overs cricket for close to four decades now. Where do you think the game is now?
I think the all-round batting is of a higher standard. The ball-striking ability is something that has really evolved since Twenty20, and players are smart about it. The running between the wickets varies from team to team.

There are more shots, a lot more players now play the reverse sweep than they ever did. They are probably more fearless now. The boundaries aren't huge, and players look at someone on the boundary and say, "I've got the power to hit over them." That used to be the bad option, but now there are players that can do that at will. Whether this means that Twenty20 specialists will be the way to go, though, I don't know. We must see how the stats of the good Twenty20 players came through in the World Cup. I think your more all-round batsmen will come through in 50 overs. Whereas in Twenty20, it's your impact players, who don't bat for long. But you still have to set an innings up in 50-over cricket. And that is set up by the top four. If someone out of that gets a hundred, then you're going to be okay.

How does coaching work in Twenty20 now?
My first match with New Zealand was a Twenty20, and I hadn't worked that before. It was interesting. You have to be really fast tactically, you need to get people in the right places quickly - like, your batting order can change. And then where you bowl and who you bowl to. It will get to a stage, I feel, where you will have match-ups. You put that bowler to that batsman. You can do a lot of research in that area. For the bowlers, the variation of deliveries is really big. That's probably come through in the World Cup: slow bouncers, all sorts of different balls, taking the pace off the ball... Spinners are a lot more effective than people thought they'd be in limited-overs cricket, mainly because [batsmen] can't use the pace of the ball.

I enjoy Twenty20 because I think it'll evolve into a lot of match-ups, where you put players who will have an impact, and player stats will get more important. Your research and planning will have to be interesting. What's the point of having a player with a strike rate of below 130, for instance? You look at all that information, you look at players that can bowl at different times and in different places. Now sometimes when you look at how IPL franchises assign values to different players, sometimes you just say, "How does that match up with the stats?"

I think it's like baseball where numbers will be really important. Eventually players will be bought and sold on those valuations. Twenty20 is only going to evolve that side of the game. As a coach, you don't have to sit for so long and I think there's no time to get anxious because Twenty20 is pretty cut and thrust, pretty intense.

Did you follow the IPL auction?
Yes, we were in the changing room, having finished a day's play and it was an hour after that. The boys were following it on their phones. Ross Taylor was sitting on the couch, and was sold for a million. So that was the fastest million you've ever seen. It was quite surreal. But that's where it's going.

What's the type of coach India now need, given that Gary Kirsten is leaving?
Gary Kirsten's done a great job. What type of coach? Just a good one. The team is at an interesting stage. It's probably going to be a younger team in two or three years. It's something the BCCI is going to have to think about. Obviously what they want is someone who can win games of cricket with India. One who can work with the players and challenge them to keep getting better. Coaching is a lot of man management, being a hard task-master, and yet, also making a player feel good about himself. In reality it's a mixture of both: you have to do both things and you have to work out how to do it with each individual.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Feeds: Sharda Ugra © ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View the original article here

'If the critics think I could have taken four, I feel I could have taken six'

The latest entrant to the 400-club aims for another 200, beats himself up for his bad spells, and talks about how he's better when he's calm and composed

How big is getting 400 wickets for you?
Four hundred is a lot. When I was young, I remember Kapil Dev getting it, and it was quite a big thing. An Indian had taken it. I feel honoured and proud that God has given me a chance to reach 400 wickets. It's a big thing for me, I don't know about others.

Do you think you can end up with 600?
That's where I should be. If I don't reach there I will be disappointed. It will be my fault if I don't reach 600. It will depend on how badly I want to get there. Anil Kumble, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan are way better bowlers than me, and I would like to get close to them. I have nothing to lose. I have everything to gain from here on. I want to win games on my own.

It seems sometimes that you are two different bowlers. When you are bowling well, you are so good. Then, on days you slip to the middle and leg line - quick, defensive. What do you have to say about that criticism?
If the criticism is that "One day he does well, the second day he doesn't, third he does well" then fine. But without any reason, just because I didn't take any wickets today, "chalo isko uda do [let's slam him]"… If I take a wicket - be it off a full-toss - then "well bowled". That's not fair.

Yes, with me there have been days when I bowl well [but] I don't take wickets. When I have bowled bad - as you say when I bowl leg and middle and take a wicket at backward short-leg - as a cricketer you know, it isn't satisfying. I don't mind criticism if it's fair - that I didn't bowl a good line.

I do try a lot of things. I want to bowl outside off, bowl from close to the stumps, from round the stumps. I keep changing my seam position, [try] small things - I don't know whether you guys are able to pick it from there. There are lots of times these small things work. The revolutions on the ball are different, the amount of turn is different. My effort is to bowl to the best of my potential. I am human after all. I will bowl well, I will bowl badly. I must have done something good or I couldn't have lasted 13 years. I am making sure my mistakes reduce.

What about the leg-stump line criticism?
I am disappointed with myself when I do that. For example, in the Jamaica Test, I think I could have taken at least 10 wickets. I am very honest about it. I didn't bowl as well I could have done there. There was nothing much to do but just hit the spot on that wicket. But for two days I just couldn't land the ball where I wanted. I tried my best, but it didn't happen. I felt disappointed and hurt.

In Indian conditions the leg-and-middle line seems to make sense sometimes. You have a backward short-leg in place, and there is that bounce and turn…
Let me tell you something. Even if you have a backward short-leg, it doesn't mean that your line should change. If the spin can come from outside off, you want to make the batsman play to mid-off or covers, and not to midwicket or mid-on.

What happens on those days when we see you drift down leg?
Sometimes I just get over-excited. I see the pitch and I think, "I have to get this wicket." When I am just looking to bowl, I am calm and composed, and most of the time I get it right. The ball lands where I want it to. When I see a pitch like Jamaica, I get excited. So the focus shifts from basic things. I start thinking [of doing] magic stuff. I will pitch it here and get it to do this. I will bowl this ball. And in trying to do all that you end up trying so hard, you lose it.

So you bowl a few overs like that. Can't you then change?
By then sometimes it gets too late. You are bowling like that and the batsman starts getting used to you, the pitch, the bounce. The impact that you have early is different from when he is playing the 30th or 35th ball. Of course you try to change, and you do change, but I am saying sometimes the effectiveness gets lost because of that initial bad spell.

When you have had two bad spells, does the pressure get to you and affect your future spells?
Of course. I put myself under pressure. Every bowler - if you talk to Shane Warne - wants to bowl a magic ball and get people out. Try to make the guy play a flick and catch him at slip. You start thinking: the pitch has so much, so why is nothing happening for me? You look to bowl fast, cross-seam, and not give him time. Sometimes that results in a couple of boundaries. That builds up pressure on you. I think what I have to do is make sure I keep things simple. When I have done that, things have worked for me.

What does "keeping things simple" mean to you? What's your ideal line and pace?
I don't rely on pace. See, every bowler is different. Lots of people say I bowl very fast and [Erapalli] Prasanna used to bowl slow. Obviously he was a great bowler in his era, but my bowling is different. My pace is different. I know my strength.

It all depends on the wicket. You can't have a set format. I will give you an example. In South Africa - in the first Test in Centurion - they normally say an offspinner should make the batsman cover-drive. I tried it whole day: I tried to make them drive through the covers and kept getting hit through there for fours. And many times I could see Jacques Kallis' two stumps because he was shuffling towards off to sweep me. He got 200. [Hashim] Amla also kept cover-driving me. Later I was thinking that the balls were good. It's not as if I was cut or pulled. Yet they were driving and sweeping me easily. I spoke to Ravi Shastri and he said, "Your first-day bowling will have to depend on the pitches. In India, or in Centurion, wherever there is no turn but good bounce, a lot of these good players will try to play on the up, with the bounce, and against the turn." So I was getting hit.

"When I was so young my action came in to doubt. I had to go abroad and clear it. Those days I didn't even speak proper English. I couldn't talk at all with anyone. Then I was thrown out of the NCA. Then my father died, which was my lowest phase. Then that Sreesanth incident. I thought my cricket will be over after that"

In the next game I changed my line. I bowled very straight. I made them play every ball. If he misses the sweep I will get him lbw. So I didn't bowl outside off. If he plays across, there's a chance of a slip catch or a bat-pad catch.

Shastri told me that on days and pitches like that you don't want the batsman to drive to cover. You want him to play to mid-off or towards you. You can push mid-off wider and make him drive between you and the mid-off on a first-day wicket. If it's spinning then you, of course, try to bowl wider outside off. I tried that and it worked. Amla got out trying to sweep in Durban and in Cape Town. On a given day, on given conditions, you have to change your line and length according to the batsman. If Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman are batting together, the ball that is good for Dravid is not good for Laxman. You have to keep thinking. Any time you are bowling you are trying to make sure the ball is hitting the stumps. I try to do that. Most days it happens. Some days it doesn't. Wickets have a way of coming in a bunch for me. Four hundred wickets is not a fluke. Utne bhi gaye ghuzre hote toh ghar pey baithe rehte [If I was so ordinary, I would be sitting at home].

In the New Zealand tour in 2009, you seemed to be at your best. The turn, the drift, the bounce...
I think I bowled my best there. We were playing three seamers and one spinner. Your role demands that your seamers remain fresh and you bowl a tight line. Don't try and do lots of different things. Make sure things are under control.

There wasn't much in the pitch, and I bowled well. On that tour I was consistently landing the ball in the spot. I was just doing normal things. There is bounce in overseas wickets. I bowled the best because I was calm and I knew my role.

I think I am a strike bowler - even in New Zealand. I want to take wickets and not put pressure on Zaheer [Khan]. My job is to take wickets, but at the same time I was very calm and composed and aware of my role in New Zealand. I was in good rhythm.

I had played a lot of Test cricket before that series. Here I have come on the back of lots of ODIs and Twenty20s. Your body takes time to adjust from one format to the other. Especially six months of one-day cricket, you can take time to adjust. This is not an excuse, but it does take time to bowl slower in the air and make the batsmen play in a different channel.

In ODIs sometimes you want him to play with the turn. In Tests you want him to play against the turn. The channels are different. It takes time.

You say you did well because you were calm. But sometimes the perception is that if you put Harbhajan in a fight, you get the best out of him. You are aggressive, emotional, and things start to happen.
Yeah, people say that, and it has worked for me. When I am in a contest, it gets the best out of me. I respond well to challenges. I do get pumped up. But in New Zealand there was nothing like that. They are very quiet out there. So which is the best mood I should be in? I think the calm, composed mood I was in in New Zealand is the best. I was enjoying the company of my team-mates. It's not that I am not now, but when you are playing good, you enjoy everything. But obviously when you put me in a ring for a fight, I am for it. You will see a different Harbhajan that day, and I hope that doesn't change. But, yes, I want to be calm and composed going forward.

How much can you plan in these days of computer footage and studying the opposition? How much do you think on your feet?
I am not a great fan of computers. I do watch videos and analyse which batsman is playing how. Batsmen can play different shots on different days. A batsman may not play cover drives well, but if he connects with two such shots, he starts playing the drive well on that day. I go in with a plan that I should get my rhythm first, and not go for the kill straightaway. I have to bring in that zone. Bowl four overs to get into the groove. I need to set up my pace, see how the track is playing, and then after five overs, after I am settled, I decide this is the field to set, this is the line to bowl.

A lot of people said [Shivnarine] Chanderpaul has been getting out to offspinners in his last six innings. But it's not that he will get out to an offie in the next six too. I go with an open mind. I am there to bowl well.

Then you keep adapting within the game. This batsman is looking to sweep, this guy is coming forward, this guy is looking to play to the on side. I have learnt this from Anil bhai. I have not seen him come and straightaway say he needs a short leg. Same with Warne. He told me, "I see if I can keep a man in the deep for, say, someone like Sehwag, then I keep one right away. I drop my midwicket or mid-off back. Then if I bowl four good overs, I start getting the field in." I have learnt from these guys and also from my own experience.

You use a lot of over-spin and get bounce. Many offspinners use side spin more.
It has been natural with me. I always had the bounce; it was the biggest thing I had. I get a lot of bat-and-pad gap. I try to stick to that. The rest are add-ons. My action is completely natural. This is the way I bowled from the first day. My muscles have trained that way. I don't get tired through my action.

"Earlier the responsibility was shared between Kumble and me. Now it's my responsibility as the senior bowler to take most of the pressure" © AFP

In the press conference the other day, you said you had more downs than ups. Do you really think that?
I wasn't talking about wickets and such. I was talking more about life. In cricket too I have been dropped, not taken wickets, not performed over a couple of months, in a few series… Obviously those are low phases, but I was talking more about my life. When I was so young my action came into doubt. I had to go abroad and clear it. Those days I didn't even speak proper English. I had to go to England. I had no clue what to do. I couldn't talk at all with anyone. That was a low phase. Then when I was thrown out of the National Cricket Academy, that was a down phase. Then my father died, which was my lowest phase. Then that Sreesanth incident. I thought my cricket will be over after that, because just then the whole Australia [Symonds] thing had happened.

Yes, as a cricketer I have risen a lot. I didn't think I will reach here. And I have the time to rise further.

Are you an emotional person?
I am very emotional. It took me many years to recover from the death of my father. Even when I was playing cricket, I wasn't happy. I would just sit and cry. I was very young. He was too young; he shouldn't have gone. Cricket is all right. We all play sport. Good and bad days come. You feel bad when you are not doing well, but you can always come back. But when things go bad in life, you feel… that Sreesanth incident, I should not have done what I did.

Did you have to sit and think about how you were going to handle sharing a dressing room with Andrew Symonds?
We didn't talk about it at all. That was finished in Sydney, both for him and for me. And he actually mentioned it, saying it was over right there in Sydney and not to worry about what people were writing or saying on TV. For me it was over then and there.

For those who like you, you are like a loveable rascal. For those who don't, it's arrogance and bad character. How do you handle that?
I don't think many people know me. I come across as "akhadu" [arrogant], but when they talk to me, they tell me I am not like how they thought I would be. Even lots of journalists think I am arrogant, but people close to me know the real me. I am a jolly person.

It's important what people close to me think. They know what I am. I don't live for the whole world. I live for the people who are close to me. I can't please everyone. I don't wish bad for anyone. My conscience is clear.

You used to react a lot earlier on. You seem to be more relaxed these days.
I used to react a lot before [laughs]. If someone said something [to me] I'd react. [Now I understand] they have their opinion and they are doing their job. I am learning to handle it better. In our profession there is lot of scrutiny. It's not just a sport in India. It's way bigger than that. Every day we have an exam. It's big pressure, not just for me but for everyone.

A guy like him [pointing at Virat Kohli, who was briefly in the room during the interview] is just 21-22, but the pressure he is going through by not scoring in a few innings is huge. The next time he goes to bat, in the back of his mind there will be the things people said. He will be thinking, "They are saying, Virat Kohli is not a Test player." Slowly we all learn to adjust. Isn't there a song, "Kuch toh log kehenge, logon ka kaam hai kehna" ["People will criticise, that's what they do"]?

When people close to me get annoyed with me, it affects me. It still does. I say something and I regret it. I am very emotional. I play hard in cricket, but when it gets to my life and friends it affects me. I am a human being. I have feelings.

It's like your critics expect greatness from you and they're disappointed that you are letting them down.
Yeah. It's nice for them to think that way. I also expect big things from me. I go out and give it my best shot. When I come back to my room, I have to look at the mirror and be honest with myself. Everyone wants to do better. Hopefully when I retire, those people will say I justified my talent. That I was not doing as much as I could have done in that period of time but I went on to make the most of my talent. Those sorts of people actually inspire you to do well.

How do you separate your expectations from what others expect of you?
When you are doing it for yourself, you are doing it for everyone. You do well for your country. I don't think expectations burden me when I am on the field. I just try to focus on what I am doing. If I start thinking of all those things, I can't do what I should do at that particular time. At the end of the day you go out and try your best. That's what I have been doing for the last 13 years. If you ask Sachin Tendulkar, he will tell you the same thing: you can only do your best.

What was the impact of Kumble's retirement on you? How long did it take for you to adjust to his absence?
I want to clear one thing. After that 2001 series against Australia, I never thought I want to be the second spinner in the team. I never felt I was the fourth bowler and that it my role was to get two wickets and go. I wanted to win games. I wanted to take five wickets. When Anil bhai was there, he was a very competitive cricketer. He wanted to take wickets. I also wanted to take wickets. It's not competition, per se. He is a bigger bowler. He is a legend. But I wanted to do well too. When he left there was added responsibility on me. There is no bowler like Kumble at the other end. These guys are good but they will take time to get a feel of international cricket. So I took more responsibility. My role has become bigger. I have to ensure the young guys don't feel pressure. I have to bowl the crucial overs. Earlier the responsibility was shared between Kumble and me. Now it's my responsibility as the senior bowler to take the burden and most of the pressure.

"When I bowl normal offspin my seam is clear and easy to pick. And when I bowl my doosras the seam is scrambled and so it became easier to pick. So I started to bowl offbreaks with the scrambled seam"

Do you doubt yourself?
I don't doubt myself. People do. They ask if I am good enough. I know I am good enough, and that's why I have taken 400 wickets. Lots of people talk about other greats, but very few people have taken 400 Test wickets. It's not a small thing. I am a very confident guy, and not just about cricket. I do what I feel is right. It works for me. I never think my bowling deteriorated. If you doubt yourself, sit at home and watch cricket on TV.

What are the things you are developing in your bowling?
I am working on my angles: to bowl closer to the stumps, bowl wider. A lot of these guys are bowling new and different balls. When [Ajantha] Mendis came, it was different, but then batsmen adjusted to him. I don't want to complicate myself.

Warne used to bowl two balls - legbreaks and the flipper. And he used to vary so much within those, with his angles, pace and trajectory. His googly wasn't great. Anil bhai always was about tight lines. Murali was offspin and doosra.

If you master your stock deliveries and the variations that you want, then that's the best. It's nice to bowl different kinds of balls, but you have to make sure you don't forget what you know. Bowling different kinds of balls is not my strength. And to practise them you need to allot special time. You can't try them in a match. If we have 600 runs on board, then I can try sliders, back-spinners. I have tried them, in fact. They mostly went for boundaries!

You have not been bowling doosras much these days; you are using topspinners more. Why?
I bowl doosras too, but the batsmen have started to read it better. If you overuse it, it can get ineffective. You set up the batsman with offbreaks and then try to slip one in. I will increase it a bit more now that you have brought it to my attention.

You also come round the stumps more often these days.
Earlier it used to be considered negative bowling. Now they get you more lbws. That round-the-stumps angle is very good, especially when the ball is turning. You just to have to spin it a bit.

When bowling over the wicket, you have to pitch it wider, because you have to turn it within the line of stumps and not down leg. From round the wicket, the batsman has to play across his body, and that line gets really dangerous. Then I can slip in a topspinner so it can go off the edge to silly point or slip. I have really worked hard on that angle.

You use the scrambled seam a lot.
Yeah. If it lands on the shiny side, it skids on faster. If it lands on the rough, it spins more. As a bowler, when you don't know where it's going to land, how can the batsman know? This is with respect to the scrambled seam. With a normal grip, with the seam pointing across, you know the ball is going to land only partly on seam. When you are bowling with a scrambled seam you don't know where it will land. If it lands on the seam it kicks up. If it lands on the shiny side, it skids. I have started to use it a lot more.

When I bowl normal offspin my seam is clear and easy to pick. And when I bowl my doosras the seam is scrambled, and so it became easier to pick. So I started to bowl offbreaks with the scrambled seam. Some batsmen just see the revolutions of the ball. Those who pick it from the hand play it better. With the cross seam it's not clear if it will be an offbreak or go straight.

How much do you analyse your bowling?
I am my worst critic. That's why it doesn't matter to me what other people think. They feel I am arrogant, but it's just that I am my harshest critic. If they think I could have taken four wickets, I feel I could have taken six. I still can't get over that Jamaica Test. I should have taken 10 on that track. How did I mess that up? The amount critics blast me is nothing compared to how much I blast myself once back in the room. But I don't carry it to the next day. I don't want to repeat my mistake. I want to start the day fresh.

"I am trying to reduce my mistakes in the middle. I have scored runs only when I haven't gone out and started playing my strokes straight away" © AFP

Who are the cricketers you speak to? So many former players criticise you. Who do you turn to?
Sunny bhai [Gavaskar], Kapil paaji [Dev], Anil bhai, of course. Murali, who is a gem of a person. He always tells me what I should be doing. Warne is there to help you. He will talk to you. Saqlain Mushtaq is a very dear friend. Mushy bhai [Mushtaq Ahmed] and Wasim bhai [Akram].

Do you feel you are now the best spinner in the world?
I don't know. [Graeme] Swann is doing a fantastic job for England. [Daniel] Vettori is doing it for his team. Saeed Ajmal is a brilliant brilliant bowler too

How would you describe your game over the last six months?
I think I have bowled well, but I haven't got the results to show for it. I haven't got a big number of wickets. There were a few catches which went down. But that's part of the game. Some days great catches will be taken off your bowling and certain days simple chances will be dropped. The South African series was very satisfying for me. I was really happy I bowled well in South Africa. I think I should have taken more wickets in West Indies. I think I have bowled well here, except for the first Test. In patches I think I bowled okay in Jamaica too, but not up to my best.

You look like a proper batsman these days.
It's very important to think like a batsman when you are out there. When I bowl, no one gifts me their wickets. Then why play stupid shots, get out, come back into the dressing room and think, "I should have spent more time in there"? When you are in the middle, make the most of it. Don't throw your wicket away. If you get a good delivery then it's fine. I am trying to reduce my mistakes in the middle. I have scored runs only when I haven't gone out and started playing my strokes straight away.

Previously I used to go and swing my bat, hit a few boundaries and the dressing room would applaud wildly. But then I'd get out for 20. I still play my shots, but I am more judicious in my approach. Hitting sixes is not too difficult. It's taking singles that is tough. I think in that sense, the century against New Zealand really helped me a lot. Until you do something for the first time, you don't know what it is worth.

How would you describe yourself: an emotional person, a fighter or a lovable rascal?
I come from a land which has produced a lot of warriors. I am a warrior. I will put myself against anyone and I will give my best for all my friends, my team-mates, my country and myself. These guys come first, and for them I am ready to do anything. I am emotional and I am aggressive and at the same time. I am a wise thinker, though not many people think I am one [laughs].

Sriram Veera is a staff writer at ESPNcricinfo

Feeds: Sriram Veera © ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View the original article here