Can’t do it like The Don

Sir Leonard Hutton, Sir Frank Worrell and John Reid, also explained the difference: it was how skills played the most important part in winning or losing a match. As with chess, the end game strategy usually lay with the pawn, in this case the bowler.

In the mid and late 1930s, Australia’s strength — as it is today with India and Pakistan and, to an extent, South Africa — was in their batting. Dominate up front and subjugate the bowlers; where possible, seek, search and destroy the bowling.

It is also suggested by the Don that the game in those years was very ordinary, although the package was different. They didn’t lose a gameplan in those years as there was none to lose; it was all a matter of playing the game by sessions. Marshalling a bowling attack of two fast bowlers, a medium pace or swing bower with usually seam up and a couple of spinners made up the attack; made up also what semblance of gameplan there was.

It was far simpler in those days for, unlike today, where pre-match team hype is all about strategy, think-tank discussions and batting orders which can oscillate at a moments notice, and are part of the day-to-day planning, in Bradman’s era and up to the early 1960s the players were expected to do their own planning.

Which is interesting when we look at today’s so-called more scientific era where more gameplans are lost in the middle because of a breakdown in bowling tactics than anything else. Bowlers can dictate the pace of a game through their length and accuracy.

All we have to do is look at one of England’s recent efforts against India, and starting with the NatWest final at Lord’s of two years ago. The middle bowlers were the bits and pieces types such as Ronnie Irani and Andrew Flintoff. It was left to two youngsters in Yuvraj and Kaif to pull it together.

It should be remembered that India and England, apart from the World Cup games in the 1990s were not in regular competition and it is here where the importance of knowing the opposition tactics which makes the difference.

Also, the flat pitches, giving bowlers so little room for error, has seen a glut of runs as batsmen hunt down big targets. Apart from creating a culture of success it also shows up the difference between those sides that base their success on quality bowling attacks, with Australia as the ideal example. Their all-round balance has been worked through years of trial and error. They are so rarely under pressure because of this perfected formula.

Sure the game has advanced: it is faster, techniques and pitch surfaces have generally changed and the culture of the ODI game has created a different approach as strategies and philosophies demand more attention to skills and details as well as providing entertainment.

What is worrying is how ordinary the game has become at times. South Africa and West Indies have discovered just how tough it can be and how flawed are the leadership skills when bowling attacks fail to adjust. It also shows how big totals scored at a frenetic pace do not necessarily mean class or quality.