Discussions with The Don

"So, David," said Don Bradman, leaning menacingly across the lunch table, "you think you know better than me and Dennis Lillee and Richie Benaud and the Chappell brothers?" Yet again we were debating the front-foot no-ball law, which Don hated. I believed - and still do - that a reversion to the old back-foot law would be retrograde. Bradman was exasperated. His face had reddened. I suppose mine had too. Then his delightful wife Jessie, for surely the umpteenth time in their lives, eased an awkward situation. "David," she said sweetly, "have you written Don's obituary yet?" No, I hadn't. I wasn't that well organised. And anyway, he was going to live to 100, wasn't he? We all laughed.

The lively disagreements we sometimes had through 30 years' friendship were probably a source of sustenance for Don who, in his own estimation, was never wrong. And, like most great men, he found himself spending much time with fawning yes-men. Yet he was forever essentially a boy from the bush, gifted with an extraordinary mind and reflexes, fired by ambition and fierce determination, the key to his insistence on always being right. The keen-eyed young man with kookaburra features was still discernible in that ageing face.

He once took me to task for writing that he bowled Wally Hammond out with a full-toss at Adelaide in 1933. "It was not a full-toss!" But five or six participants in that Test match, including Hammond himself, had declared it a full-toss. And I discovered - too late - that Don himself had spoken of it as such in his radio summary very soon after the incident.

Amazingly, all these years later, he seemed to regard the bowling of a full-toss as a symptom of defective character. I loved him for it. Somewhere in the 100-plus letters I received from him is his reaction to my costly acquisition at auction of Victor Trumper's fob-watch. He kidded that he was now going to hunt through his cupboards: "I reckon I could dig up a couple of wrist-watches."

He was very generous, contributing forewords to two of my books, with scant concern for remuneration, and giving me all kinds of things he no longer needed, such as early New South Wales yearbooks with his personal rubber-stamp on them. Maybe the one thing we truly shared, the red-and-white cap of the St George club, counted for something. Bradman, who revered cricket's traditions, was a man of adamant opinions. He was laughingly dismissive of a purported history on video, declaring that compiler Ian Chappell's knowledge of history "would fit on a postage stamp". He was content only when he had had the last word in a debate. I suppose it was some sort of substitute for 20 competitive years of habitually carving up bowlers of all descriptions.

Tireless correspondent though he was, he became impatient with birthday cards. "I know I'm 84," he wrote in August 1992. "I don't need reminding. It means I'm one step nearer to the grave." Speaking of which, after one long session at his Adelaide home, he kindly offered to drive me back to the hotel. Just after midnight, as he was steering the car out of Holden Street, a vehicle came speeding towards us from the right. Don Bradman seemed not to have noticed it. Whiteknuckled, I cried out. He rammed his foot on the brake pedal and we were saved. Calm as ever (apparently), he continued driving, saying not a word about our lucky survival.

I once tried to entertain friends with an imagined newspaper headline had the worst happened: 'Cricket writer killed in car crash.' And in smaller letters beneath: 'Driver (old cricketer) dies too.' Just imagine.

David Frith, author and historian, was the founding editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly.

Whatmore accepts NCA position

Dav Whatmore has verbally accepted an offer to become director of operations at India's National Cricket Academy (NCA) in Bangalore. Speaking to Cricinfo from Australia, where his family is based, Whatmore said he was happy to accept the job offered to him by Ravi Shastri, recently appointed NCA chairman.

"Its finalised" said Whatmore,"and (most likely) I'll be there in person to sign on paper. I'm excited."

Niranjan Shah, the secretary of the Indian board, said the deal was finalised and the details would be confirmed in a couple of days.

As director of operations Whatmore's duties are likely to include looking after the day-to-day operations. Shastri told Reuters Whatmore, who is expected to start work at the academy at the end of the month, would have a three-year tenure.

In its seven-year history the NCA has had only two head coaches: the late Hanumant Singh, who was director-cum-coach in 2000, and Balwinder Singh Sandhu whose tenure as head coach lasted for a year in 2001.

john wright got something to say

Akhila Ranganna: John, as the coach of the Indian team, knowing the setting and build up to the World Cup in South Africa, who according to you were the favourites to win the World Cup?

John Wright: We had started building up and thinking about the World Cup for at least 12 to 15 months before the actual event - Sourav [Ganguly] and myself, and the other senior players like Rahul [Dravid] and Sachin Tendulkar. We thought we had a team which would be very competitive at the World Cup and with the addition of the youngsters such as Mohammad Kaif and Yuvraj Singh, and the talent that we knew we possessed in Harbhajan Singh, Anil Kumble and Virender Sehwag, we though that we could do pretty well. We'd been playing good cricket throughout the year. We had gone to West Indies and won the one-day series there. Then we had a very good win in England in the NatWest final - there we beat both England and Sri Lanka. Then we went to the ICC Champions Trophy and finished as co-winners. We had a bad hiccup in New Zealand but we honestly felt that we had a team capable of winning in South Africa. The teams that looked the strongest and toughest to beat were going to be the South Africans at home and also the Australians. We knew a lot about them but we thought that on our day we could match them.

AR: What was the experience like playing in South Africa with them hosting the World Cup for the first time?

JW: I think the thing that we noticed about the World Cup when we toured South Africa was that that it was a very big event for South Africa. They went out of their way to make sure that it was well organised - the practice facilities, we had a training camp at Durban for 10 odd days, were well organised. The travel arrangements were excellent, our security was first class, and we got a feeling that nothing was too much trouble. So looking back at the 2003 World Cup it was just a very well run tournament.

AR: India had a tough tour of New Zealand just before the World Cup, and then they did not start on a very promising note in their opening game against Holland and then the thrashing at the hands of Aussies. With expectations weighing the team down and hostile reactions back home, how difficult was it for the Indian team to pick themselves up?

JW: Well, we had a pretty tough time in New Zealand leading up to the World Cup and lot of our key batters had lost their form. We tried to rectify that by putting special emphasis on batting in our 10-day warm up camp in Durban. We spent a lot of time in nets. But we weren't quite back to form and that was pretty evident when we played Holland. It was a game we won comfortably but from the runs perspective we did not score much over 200. Then when we were bowled out pretty cheaply against the Aussies and there was a huge reaction back in India and it was pretty tough on all of us. We knew that we had reached a point in the tournament, almost a crisis point. We had Zimbabwe next and we knew that if we did not win that game then we wouldn't be going very far in the tournament. I remember having a press conference along with Sourav Ganguly, and the seriousness of the media, who let us know, in no uncertain terms, about the reaction back in India was fairly hostile. And then Sachin Tendulkar gave a short one statement in the press conference assuring the Indian cricket-loving fans that we were doing our best. That was about it, we were doing out best, but we had reached a crisis point and we knew when we flew to Harare we had to turn our batting form around.

We tried to keep things in perspective, it was difficult. We knew about the reactions back home and some of them were extreme and I think Mohammad Kaif and Rahul Dravid were affected. Sourav and some of us had our effigies burnt. You are a little bit isolated because you are away from India but you know that it is serious. We just got close, we worked harder, we knew that if we kept working and kept being positive then we could get it back. We particularly targeted the Zimbabwe game as the must win game. Immediately after that we had Namibia, which was a good game for us because we got some confidence out of Zimbawe. Sachin led the way with a very good opening innings and also Sehwag. We caught and bowled well and so that was a convincing win. Then we played against Namibia and we got big runs there, Sourav got a hundred and we started to grow from that point. We just kept close, we'd had criticism before and it's part of playing with the pressure and expectation of the great Indian public and that's just one of the things that you have to cope with. As I said at the start, we were always very confident that once we found our batting form then we would start to win games again.

AR: The game against Pakistan had to be the mother of all games. Going into the game how were the odds stacked up and what was pressure like on the team? John, could you run us through that match?

JW: I suppose for all of us there was the World Cup but there was also the match against Pakistan. We were all tremendously keen to play this game. It had been a long time that some of the boys had played Pakistan and it was certainly my first experience of Indo-Pak rivalry. It was such a thrilling atmosphere when we got to the ground because there were thousands of Indian supporters who seemed to have arrived for the match, out-numbering the Pakistan supporters but they were there in good numbers as well. And there was something, an edge, it's hard to describe, a sort of atmosphere building up to the game - it was super charged. You could tell that it was something special. The ground was full when we arrived about two hours before the match. It was just a very special game to be part of. Pakistan batted first and batted very well. I think the thing that runs through these matches is the excitement; every ball seems to be important to the spectators particularly. It was very competitive; the thing about India-Pakistan game is that there is no motivation needed from a coaching point of view and every player down to a man strives to give his best because it means so much to the particular fans.

When we went to lunch you could tell from the manner and the body language of the Pakistan team that they were very confident, they had made a good score and we would have to bat well to beat them. And particularly since the last time we had been to that ground, we were humbled by the Aussies when we were bowled out for just over 100. So they were very confident. In my mind, on that afternoon, I saw perhaps one of the finest displays of attacking batting when Sachin and Sehwag strode out to bat. I think they really set the tempo in the first two or three overs and the game was almost decided then. There was still a long way to go but I think Pakistan were rocked by that salvo from Tendulkar and Sehwag. Sehwag was out, not long after but Sachin played, what in my mind, one of the greatest one-day knocks that I have been privileged to see. And then there was a little bit of a hiccup when he was dismissed, a little uneasy feeling that goes through your changing room. But then after a good innings from Kaif, Dravid and Yuvraj took over. We seemed to just coast home. The closer we got the happier out changing-room became. I will never forget arriving back to the hotel and there was a large crowd waiting to meet us as we got of the bus. Walking into the foyer of our hotel one elderly Indian gentleman grabbed me in an embrace and said, it doesn't matter we have beaten Pakistan and that's enough. So it was a very special day.

AR: South Africa, the host nation, was knocked out of the World Cup once again hard done by rain and a miscalculation resulted in misfortune. How did you look at South Africa's exit?

JW: Well from a purely Indian perspective we were pleased to see them go, they were obviously a team that was playing at home, although there was a lot of pressure they looked a very good side. It was a surprise when they went, and also it was good lesson in making sure that you have done your planning and you had every fine detail. It seems such a waste that you should go out of the tournament because you are not quite sure which score you have to get to actually win or tie a game. And I can never forget watching on the television the dismay on the faces, particularly Shaun Pollock and the players, when they realised what had actually taken place and they hadn't done enough. But from our point of view we would have preferred to play Sri Lanka than South Africa.

AR: One of the classic games of the Super Six stage was between the trans-Tasmanian rivals. Do you have any memories of that match?

JW: I can remember watching that match on the television in my room and we all expected a performance from Michael Bevan, and at that stage Andy Bichel had had a magnificent tournament. He was probably the most valuable player Australia had because he got them home against England in the previous game. So, I suppose from a New Zealand perspective, New Zealanders always like watching Australia lose to New Zealand but you had to admire the tenacity and the skill of both Bevan and Bichel. And particularly in Bichel's case, he probably exemplifies the attitude that makes Australia a hard team to beat - they are never down and you can never count them out.

AR: Andrew Symonds, over the years, has become a mercurial part of the Australian one-day side. What do you make of him as a player?

JW: Well Andrew Symonds is one of the best one-day players in the world today and his game has developed. I had the pleasure of coaching him when I was at Kent. You could see, always, a player with the right attitude, very tough competitor, very uncompromising, and who has tremendous talent particularly athletic ability. I think he has learnt a lot about his game and he can turn the game on his own. He intimidates opponent, particularly in the field. He brings great attitude to the team and with of course his batting he can change the match very quickly, so he is an integral part.

AR: In the semis, Australia played against Sri Lanka. An easy win for Australia but it must have been something to see a player like Adam Gilchrist walk in a match as big as semis.

JW: I can remember watching that match. Adam Gilchrist walked which was a great piece of sportsmanship particularly in a very big match like that. There was a feeling that playing at Port Elizabeth might just suit Sri Lanka. And the Sri Lankans had a very good record against Australia on the wickets that turn. So an upset could have been on the cards. It was the game that we anticipated to be much closer. But Australia play those big matches very well and in the end it was easy for them.

AR: India had to face Kenya in the semis, an easy match but how did the team approach that game?

When we approached the semi-finals, it was one of the games where, more than anything else, you have to just respect your opposition and try and do the simple things right. If we batted first then we had to get big runs from our three four players, someone had to get a hundred. And by that stage we've been implementing and succeeding and following our game plan. So we just tried to keep things simple and stick to what we've been doing.

AR: An unbeaten run and Australia was the team to beat in the World Cup. John as an opposition coach what did you make of the Australian side?

JW: The thing about Australians was that they were very consistent throughout the tournament. They can do all the three things well. They had an excellent bowling attack, even with the events surrounding Shane Warne, they covered that very well. I think the thing that turned their tournament and got them going was the game against Pakistan where Andrew Symonds made that magnificent hundred; they seemed to grow in confidence. The other thing that had happened is that they had played a couple of games at Port Elizabeth and they were very close games. And somewhere along the line they would always have a Bevan or Bichel. They could find someone to get them home, over the line. They were always a very tough competitive side, and when we look back at it, perhaps to break them down and beat them - maybe runs on the board might be the best way to go.

Well, the Australians are very tough opponents, but from an Indian perspective we went on to play a lot of games against them. We knew that on our day we could beat them. We'd done that in India and in Australia, but I think the thing that marks them out is that they are very consistent. They don't seem to have too many off days; they are very well-organised and extremely competitive. And their bowling, over a last decade or so, with people like Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, who have been world class, has always been strong. They've been well served by brilliance of Gilchrist upfront and the emergence of Ponting. So they have always been a very very tough side.

AR: Nothing seemed to be going right for India in the final. Could you talk us through that final against Australia?

JW: When you look back at the final there are two things that we could have changed. We could have batted first, but when we looked at the wicket there were lot of damp spots of dew over it and the groundsmen were drying it with the hair-dryer. Sourav in the end, after discussions, decided that we would bowl. We felt that if we could get the top three wickets of Adam Gilchrist, Mathew Hayden and Ricky Ponting early, with what looked like there would be some movement, and having chatted some of the locals, ex-players and the likes, we thought and they thought that there would be some early movement. Everyone was fired up, everyone was keen. When you look back at it perhaps we could have opened with Javagal Srinath, who had a little bit more experience. Zaheer Khan was keyed up, very keen. Unfortunately things did not go well in that first over and it set the tone, but it's just one of those things.

When you look back, it was one of the worst innings from an Indian coaching point of view that you'd like watch, and the reason for that was that it was one of the best innings that you would see. The captain playing the World Cup final - the thing that I remember so much about it was how cleanly he hit the ball, he hit a lot of sixes that day and his clean hitting was the feature of that innings. The other thing that was impressive was Damien Martyn at the other end complemented him beautifully, he fed the strike, they ran well between the wickets and they did not let up, they kept going and really did not give us a look in. So it was a big partnership that set Australia on to win the World Cup.

AR: Australia piled on a huge score in the final, and it was clearly evident that the bowlers did not deliver for India on that day. With such a huge total to chase did the team give itself a realistic chance of winning that match?

JW: Initially the team was a little bit disappointed, bowlers particularly. Perhaps things could have gone better on the day. Then we sat down, we knew we chased big totals, but we'd never chased 360. There were a few clouds about so the Duckworth-Lewis might have come into the picture. We knew that we had to get off to a big start and I can remember that the early loss of Sachin Tendulkar was a very big blow. To his great credit Sehwag kept playing and at one stage when there looked to be rain around, he was going so well, you thought, well, another half an hour of Sehwag and then a huge thunderstorm then we might get lucky but we knew we had to be very lucky. But in the end it was too big a total and we'd lost too many wickets.

AR: What was the mood in the team and how did the team feel about their World Cup campaign?

JW: Well, to lose a World Cup final is not much fun but we were comprehensively beaten on that day and we had no excuses. We knew we had played well to get there. I think the biggest disappointment was that we knew we could probably have bowled and fielded a little bit better. But really Ponting's innings was magnificent. I think there was a quite disappointed feeling amongst the players, there was a silence and a sombre mood.

AR: Who according to you who were the star performers in the 2003 World Cup?

JW: Players who did well for us - you'd have to pick the seam bowling quartet. Ajit Agarkar did not play many games but he was always there. The bowling of Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra and Javagal Srinath was outstanding right through the tournament. They got into good form on the green wickets that we played on in New Zealand and that form continued right through the tournament, well, apart from the final. We always looked to take wickets in the first 10 overs, and invariably they came up with wickets. Harbhajan Singh was preferred over Anil Kumble, and that was always a tough decision to make because they are both world class spinners. It was very tough on Anil. With our batting we knew that if we were to do well in the World Cup then Sachin had to bat where he preferred and he had to bat to his potential, which he did. He really set up our batting, when we were in difficulty he played a magnificent leaders innings against Zimbabwe, I think he got 80 odd. And certainly that innings against Pakistan was very special. Sehwag brought his own explosiveness. He had a wonderful match against Sri Lanka the two were an intimidating opening pair. Sourav Ganguly's leadership went from strength to strength, once his batting form returned against Namibia. He batted at No. 3 from the team's point of view though he would have preferred to open. Then Kaif, at times, played some valuable innings. Also the partnership of Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh was pivotal in many games, because whenever they came together, quite often we were under pressure, they generally finished the job for us.

AR: As it often happens, a lot of careers came to an end after the World Cup, John what are you thoughts on the players who retired after the 2003 World Cup?

JW: Well one of the features of any World Cup is that generally you have players that have hung in to play that World Cup some of them are getting on and some of them maybe have just past their best. And you know that you are never going to see them again. World Cup 2003 was no different. From India's point of view, we lost Javagal Srinath. Srinath and I have had a special time; he was one of India's great fast bowlers. Certainly, having been the first foreign coach to coach India, Javagal was one of the older players who certainly made my path a lot easier. He was a true leader, and a wonderful ambassador for India. Just from a team point of view he was one of the guys who kept our spirits up.

Then you look at Aravinda De Silva, who actually won a World Cup for Sri Lanka and they certainly missed him in that tournament. And then, I suppose sometimes there are no happy endings and it was not so for that wonderful trio from South Africa - Jonty Rodhes, Allan Donald and Gary Kirsten. All great cricketers for their country and it is always tough when you have to go out like they had to go out at Durban. Warne was his own man and it was disappointing that he missed 2003 World Cup. I am sure he was disappointed about that. And lastly Waqar Younis, who has been such a champion and that, was the last we saw of him. So I suppose it will be same in this World Cup, there will be great players and it will be their last, and that's just one of the things. You hope, as a player, to go out on a winning note

Twenty20 could play an enormous part in cricket's future'

'

Anand Vasu: I have with me former captain of Australia, Ian Chappell, to look back at what has been a memorable and exciting inaugural ICC World Twenty20.

Ian, in a lot of ways this couldn't have been scripted better, could it? It's been a great advertisement for Twenty20 cricket.

Ian Chappell When you have a world tournament, what you hope for is for the best two teams to reach the final and then you get a great final. Well, this tournament has done even better than that; we had one great semi-final, the two best teams got to the final, and then the final turned out to be a cracker. As you've just said, it's been a great advertisement for the game and it's probably even converted a few cynics and a few doubters.

AV: We've seen a few things in this tournament that aren't very common. The first is a Pakistani side playing consistently good cricket and then an India side fielding brilliantly.

IC: It's amazing what happens when you give youth a chance. Both Pakistan and India have gone with new and young captains and they've led brilliantly. Also, India have included a lot of young players - the selectors got a bit lucky there with the senior players making themselves unavailable for the tournament and they've been forced to pick some youthful players and now they have seen what youth can do. The fielding has been revitalized, and with a courageous captain India have played a very entertaining brand of cricket, as have Pakistan. It's the innocence of youth - they don't know all the things that can go wrong and they play without fear, and it's been terrific to watch.

AV: This tournament was a lot of things World Cup 2007 wasn't. That seemed to drag on and on, it had plenty of one-sided matches, and after a while Australia looked unbeatable. Well here it was open till almost the last over.

IC: Yes, most definitely. It's also saved the reputations of a few International Cricket Council (ICC) officials because the accent will now be shifted from the World Cup - which was a total disaster - to what a great tournament this was. So I think there will be great relief around the board table at the ICC.

Ian Chappell: "There have been lots of players who weren't so well known who've suddenly pushed their name forward - like Misbah-ul-Haq" © AFP

AV: Let's look at some of the stars of this tournament. There was Shahid Afridi who was chosen as the Player of the Tournament, but there were lots of others who could have easily won it - Misbah-ul-haq, Yuvraj Singh are some names that come to mind. So there were lots of players who did perform well.

IC: That's exactly what you will hope happens. And the fact is that have been lots of players who weren't so well known who've suddenly pushed their name forward. If you take the final, you have Gautam Gambhir and then Misbah, who has been pushing his name forward throughout the tournament. The way Misbah played in such pressure situations, well people must be wondering now: where the hell he was all this while?

That's what cricket needs - it needs revitalisation now and again, and that comes with new players coming forward and making their name in the game. It's good to see that the same old names didn't come up for Player of the Tournament. Umar Gul is another one who really enhanced his reputation, as did Mohammad Asif and guys in the Indian team like RP Singh. A lot of young players put their names forward in this tournament and it's good for the future of cricket.

AV: In some ways there has also been a blur of images and matches - there has been so much happening. What are the moments that you will take away from this tournament?

IC: Well obviously Brett Lee's hat-trick and Yuvraj Singh's six sixes in an over stand out, but when I was asked to pick my favourite moment on television I mentioned the moment when MS Dhoni decided to go with Harbhajan Singh in the semi-final rather than one of his seamers. I thought it was a critical decision and a good decision and a very brave one. He then followed it up with some very courageous work as a captain in the final; at a time when Pakistan could have easily taken a stranglehold on the match, he was brave enough to bring an extra man into the circle to save some singles, which put extra pressure on Pakistan. They then lost some wickets, which turned the match on its head and brought it back in India's favour. For me, the leadership of Dhoni has been enlightening and I've enjoyed it.

AV: When this tournament began, neither India nor Pakistan were fancied to go all the way. People spoke about how much Twenty20 England had played on their domestic circuit; people spoke about how power hitting was the forte of teams like Australia and South Africa, yet Pakistan and India have been able to cut some big names down to size.

IC: Yes, and they've played good, sensible cricket. I think what this Twenty20 tournament has shown - and I think you'll see it happening more and more now - is that batsmen who are looking to play fancy and inventive shots are not really the ones who are going to succeed. If you look at Yuvraj's six sixes, they were all very good cricket shots. If you look at the guys at the top of the run-scorers list - Matthew Hayden, Misbah - they all played traditional cricket shots.

I think what this Twenty20 tournament has shown - and I think you'll see it happening more and more now - is that batsmen who are looking to play fancy and inventive shots are not really the ones who are going to succeed. I think that's the message that's come out of this tournament

Misbah is probably sitting in his hotel room ruing that fact that despite playing traditional shots throughout the tournament, he suddenly decided, at the crucial moment, to become very inventive and that brought him undone. So maybe that's a good lesson to a lot of the other players; that's the lesson that has come out of this tournament, particularly once it got to the knockout stage, you saw the opening batsmen playing pretty sensibly. Gambhir's knock in the final was crucial for India, but he wasn't trying to crash balls out of the park; he played sensibly, yet he had a strike rate of 140 and it turned out to be a match-winning innings. So I think that's the message that's come out of this tournament.

AV: One-day cricket had an effect on the way Test cricket was played, after a certain point. Do you see Twenty20 cricket having the same effect, and is Twenty20 here to stay?

IC: I don't think there is any doubt about Twenty20 being here to stay. The administrators now need to use the game wisely and I think it could play an enormously important part in the future of cricket. The game is always going to keep evolving - if it doesn't, it will die, and if you look back at one-day cricket when it went on the international stage in the early seventies, it revitalised a game that was in a bit of trouble. If cricket doesn't keep revitalising itself then it's in trouble. I think this has been a terrific boost for the game but the important thing is that this opportunity shouldn't be wasted. Twenty20 cricket should be fitted into the system wisely and should be used to improve the structure of the longer form of limited-overs and Test match cricket.