SPECIAL INTERVIEW

'It's 90 per cent mental effort'

Greg Chappell, one of cricket's all-time greats, reflects on a range of cricket issues in a Frontline interview to N. Ram and S. Dinakar.

A stroke-maker of the highest quality, a prodigious run-getter, a catcher nonpareil in the slips, a useful medium-pacer and a fine leader of men, Gregory Stephen Chappell, was all that and more. His fine cricketing intelligence as well as his temp erament were renowned throughout the cricket-playing world.

Greg Chappell, the batsman, was the epitome of grace and sophistication combined with courage and accomplishment - which is to say he made a huge number of runs in wonderful style during the era of the most unrelenting battery of fast bowlers modern cric ket has seen. What is more, the South Australian, who later turned out for Queensland, seemed to reserve his best for a crisis - always the hallmark of a great batsman. Greg, along with elder brother Ian, played a key role in making Australia a cricket s uperpower in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Grandfather Victor Richardson, who captained Australia during the 1935-36 tour of South Africa, was a big influence on Ian and Greg, especially in instilling mental toughness and discipline, vital attributes in their success.

Tall, elegant and upright, the handsome Greg drove imperiously on either side of the wicket; seemed equally fluent on the front and back foot; and was admired for the technical perfection of his horizontal bat shots. Until the later stages of his career, when the fast bowlers spotted a slight chink against the short-pitched delivery, he was an extremely courageous hooker. Greg used his feet against the spinners in that great Australian tradition and his body balance while taking on the quicks - both in defence and offence, off either foot - was considered close to perfection. Seldom ruffled by the opposition or the situation, he could, through his champion stroke-play, impose himself on the bowlers. His drives and cuts did not seem more than a caress a nd it was a delight to see him coax the ball into the vast empty spaces that appeared non-existent only moments earlier.

N. RAM

Like other very great cricketers, he had a fine sense of history. Not too many players have begun and ended their Test careers with centuries. Greg achieved the feat making 108 on debut against England at Perth in 1970, after Australia were tottering at 107 for five at one stage. And when he walked out for his final Test innings, against Pakistan in Sydney in 1984, he needed 69 more runs to surpass Donald Bradman's tally of 6,996 runs to become the highest run-maker for Australia in Test cricket. The pr essure on Greg must have been immense but the response was typical of the man - he conjured 182 to become the first Australian batsman to break the 7,000-run barrier. As though this was not enough, he held three catches at second slip in the match, to ta ke his tally of Test catches to a world record 122, surpassing Colin Cowdrey's 120.

Greg, who without the slighest fuss pouched seven rapidly travelling English snicks in the Perth Test in 1974, shares the world record for the highest number of catches in a Test by a non-wicketkeeper with India's Yajuvendra Singh.

His sense of timing was on view when he dazzled with 123 and 109 at the Gabba in his first Test as captain, against Clive Lloyd's talented West Indians, in 1975-76. The Aussies, led shrewdly by Greg, handed out a 5-1 drubbing to the Caribbeans in the ser ies. Another highlight of his seven-year stewardship of the national team was the series victory over old rival England in 1982-83, with Greg again leading by example with centuries at Perth and Adelaide. As captain, he was not as demonstrative as Ian, b ut pulled the strings quietly, getting the best out of his men, lethal pace twins Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson in particular.

As a batsman, Greg was pitted against some of the finest pacemen of all time - Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and Joel Garner from the West Indies, Imran Khan of Pakistan, Bob Willis, John Snow and Ian Botham of England, Richard Hadlee of New Zealand, Kapil Dev of India, and Lillee in the Sheffield Shield - but came through the tests of fire with his reputation enhanced.

Greg, unfortunately, never toured India, and his 235 in the 1980 Faisalabad Test remains his highest score in the sub-continent. The only occasion he played against India was in the 1980-81 home series and, characteristically, he produced a match-winning 204 in the Sydney Test.

Outside Test cricket too, Greg dazzled. The unofficial matches between Australia and the Rest of the World in 1971-72 saw him excel with 115 not out in Sydney and 197 not out in Melbourne. He was in sparkling form in Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket r ebel contest as well. The one controversy in his 17 seasons at the first class level and 14 years as an international cricketer came in February 1981, when he instructed brother Trevor to bowl an underarm delivery to end a one-day match against New Zeala nd in Melbourne. Later, Greg bitterly regretted this decision, owning it up publicly as "certainly the wrong decision to make," something that might have been "within the laws" but was "certainly outside the spirit of the game".

After Greg retired, younger brother Trevor tried to maintain the family tradition, but only tasted limited success. In all, Greg played 87 Tests, scored 7,110 runs at a handsome average of 53.86, made 24 centuries, took 47 wickets, and held 122 catches. In an era which saw the launch of limited-overs international cricket, he played a mere 74 One Day Internationals (ODIs), scoring 2,331 runs at an average of 40.18, notching up three centuries and 14 fifties, and taking 72 wickets.

After retirement, he has kept himself busy as national selector, coach, part-time commentator, film producer (he had financial stakes in Crocodile Dundee, a runaway success in the 1980s), and businessman. But he has done these things at a pace and in a way all his own. A modest and reflective man who has converted to vegetarianism and an unfretful lifestyle, he has won favourable notice as a writer on these subjects.

Fifty-two-year-old Greg Cheppell was on a visit to Chennai recently in his capacity as Director of Brisbane-based Griffith University's unique programme for aspiring sportspersons. In an interview to N. Ram and S. Dinakar, he was articulate and thoughtful while addressing a range of cricket issues:

Greg, you must have followed with some distress the recent indications of a rot in cricket.

I am disappointed like anyone else. Surprised, by the sort of people involved, allegedly involved. I suppose the realist in me suggests a possibility that these things can happen and, if anything, I think this will focus everybody's attention - the admin istrators around the world - the players around the world, and hopefully this will be the catalyst to clean the game up and take it forward into the 21st century.

At least three types of transgressions seem to have been identified. One is betting on cricket, by players, officials, etc. This goes against the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct. The second is receiving money for some kind of insider trading. You trade information on pitch, weather conditions, team selection, and so on. And the third is outright corruption where cricketers take money to underperform, if not to fix matches. Would you say we can have sanctions to contain this menace?

I think that's got to happen. I think there's got to be a conviction from all cricket-playing countries that it is stamped out. And the only way it can be stamped out is if there are strict guidelines. The guidelines, in my view, have got to be - Nothing ! Can't have any involvement with gambling or in any way consort with people who might be involved in it. I think it's the only way we're going to clean the game up.

As one of the great cricketers of all time and as an Australian captain, you must have educated a number of youngsters, seen them grow in their roles. One of the things we found about the Australian response to the problem was, apart from the investi gation, your Board has recommended a programme of educating young cricketers on what is right and what is wrong. You think that's the problem, or is it telling them the obvious?

Maybe it's telling them the obvious, but I think it is important to point out to cricketers - from as early an age as possible - what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. I think that must be the start of the programme of eradication. Along with that, the guidelines that all players must know before they start an international career, exactly what's right and what's wrong.

You had no problems doing it with your team and with your youngsters?

We certainly had no problems. I think the other players are quite comfortable with the sort of programme that's been put in place. There's been a code of conduct that's been there - for Australian cricketers at least - for quite some time now, and the pl ayers have no problem with that.

On another issue, what's acceptable and what's not acceptable on the field. In the old days they used to talk about 'sledging'. I heard an interview in which Sir Donald Bradman denounced it, saying he would never have tolerated it. Today, cricket see ms to be relatively free from that kind of problem.

ALL SPORT
Greg Chappell in full flow was a glorious sight.

I believe so. I think the whole thing has been overstated, to be quite honest. There was always going to be emotion on the cricket field. You'd be worried if there wasn't emotion. The players are out there representing their country and representing them selves. All of them like to perform. Particularly fast bowlers who are putting in a lot of effort into their particular job. Sometimes the emotions can run a little bit high and there will be flashes that erupt, words that are spoken on the field. But by and large, they are few and far between and I think the whole thing has been overplayed. We sit at home and we watch international cricket, in our lounge room for many months of the year. If it was a widespread thing you'd be aware of it. Personally I s it there and watch a lot of cricket and I don't see very much of it. You just see occasionally some byplay between players and occasionally, maybe, the umpires have to step in. But I think that's a rare than a regular occurrence. From my understanding an d from talking to players who played long before I played, this byplay between players has gone on for a long time. If there weren't any emotions, the game probably wouldn't be worth watching! Equally, you don't want to see it go over the top and too man y occurrences of talking back between players. I think the umpires have got it pretty well under control, they know what's the normal expecatation for this sort of thing. If anyone oversteps the mark generally, the umpires step in. They often talk to the captains, say "maybe you need to talk to this player, he is taking things a bit too far." Between the umpires and the captains, I think it's pretty well controlled - and always has been.

Australia has had a number of distinguished leaders starting a long time ago. Recently, your cricket has been very well served by Steve Waugh and, before him, by Mark Taylor. I read in the press that Mark Taylor set very high standards which had a lo t to do with improvements in approach and behaviour on the field. Could you give us some insight into the special qualities of the present Australian captain and his predecessor?

I didn't have a lot to do with them on an intimate basis. But as I understand it, they are both guys who are strong leaders. Very good cricket brains. They have high standards that they have set for themselves and they expect equally high standards from their players. Their personalities, I think, are quite different. Steve has always been a very single-minded individual, Mark a very good communicator... I think Steve is a good communicator from what I understand. As you said, Australia has been well se rved for years with good leaders. We don't have a regular turn-over of captains. They seem to go on for a reasonable length of time and I think that's a good thing. The position of the Australian captain has always been well respected by the players. I t hink we've had very few occasions where there's been anything but a hundred per cent support for the captain in place at the time. Mark and Steve are very eminent captains within that group. I think history will suggest that they've both been in the uppe r echelon of Australian captains.

There is also a feeling that under Mark Taylor the on-field behaviour improved.

I'm not sure that it was all that bad before then. But Mark was very conscious of making sure that the players' behaviour was acceptable at all times. But I don't think there were any real problems before then. Perhaps there was a lot more commentary abo ut the need to make sure that on-field behaviour was impeccable. Mark took it upon himself to carry that out and I'm sure Steve Waugh is doing the same thing.

I've heard you offer a very interesting response to the question: What is behind the success of Australian sport? Would you mind summing this up for our readers?

I think it's a culture, it's a package of the culture of sport in our country. Our grassroots programme is very strong. Club cricket and domestic first-class cricket have always been strong. Very competitive. The fact that we have only a small number of first-class teams, something like 60-odd first-class cricketers playing in any one time in a small number of games each year means that it is a very competitive competition, a very vital competition! I think it's the whole package of that plus the desire of the individuals to perform well and to try and represent their country. This means we've got a competition that produces the right sort of players. So it's a package of the identification programmes, the elite programmes that we have plus our club cr icket and our domestic first-class cricket, that produces the right type of cricketer. To be able to walk into Test cricket and be able to perform virtually from day one. That's been the case through history. But I think in recent times, maybe fifteen ye ars ago, the Australian Board realised that it needed to take some steps if Australian cricket was to continue to be successful, and not go through the down periods that we've experienced before. That if we were going to have a consistent performance, th en we had to have a consistent production of players so that the gaps could be filled very quickly if we had retirements and players dropping out of international cricket. So, it's a whole package.

Some years ago, I asked you about this interaction between one-day cricket, the limited-overs form of the game, and Test cricket. If I remember right, you made it clear that a good player would be able to do well in both. Have you changed your opinio n on that? Because there's a great deal of focus now on the negative effects of one-day cricket. Among others, this business of corruption and also perhaps it affects technique?

I think a good player is a good player and will play either form of the game well. I have had some concerns in recent times that there has been an imbalance between Test match cricket and one-day cricket. I think to some degree the administrators of the game have denigrated Test cricket by pushing it into the background and concentrating on one-day events. I think that's a dangerous path to go down because cricket really is about the skills that are required for Test match cricket - the physical skills, the mental skills, the temperament, all of those things that separate the exceptional performer from the good performer. One-day cricket doesn't, to the same degree, draw on those strengths of the individual, nor does it draw on the strengths of the gam e.

I mean cricket is a bit of an anachronism in this day and age in that it takes so long. You have a long form of the game. Even the short form of the game takes much longer than everyone else's long form of the game! So it's quite unusual in that regard. But I think for both players and spectators, without Test match cricket and without the skills of that breed, one-day cricket will be diminished. They need each other and I think it is important that we keep a balance between the two. To quantify that ba lance, I'm not in a position to say exactly what it is. But all I know is if you're only playing one Test match to every ten one-day games, then the balance is way out! It's certainly got to be much closer than that.

Now speaking again of Australian cricket's top strengths: almost equally good in both forms, but probably better at the Test level where it really counts. Would you say that?

I think there's still a recognition within the Australian players that Test cricket is what it's all about. And that, even now, 20-odd years down the track, nearly 30 years down the track (since one-day cricket became part of the international programme) a player is judged on his Test match career, not his one-day career. The Australian players are very conscious of that fact and I think still have a great reverence for the Test match game. They would prefer to play that to one-day cricket. I'm not sure that's the case everywhere in the world. And I think that's a shame because, having played both and having enjoyed both forms of the game, I know the greatest test is Test match cricket. It's a perfect name because it is a Test. It is a test of all your skills. I think that's the only case where you can get a true guide to an individual's performance in cricket.

Some years ago we heard some kind of slogan "Two Teams, Two Different forms of cricket" attributed to your Board. You even had two captains; now, of course, you have Steve Waugh for both forms of the game. A wonderful player like Michael Slater, a ve ry attractive and fast-scoring batsman, stands no chance of finding a place in your one-day squad. Has it gone too far, this separation of squads?

I think the problem is something like this. It's not the case with Michael Slater but it holds for a number of players. Go back a few years and Ian Healy was left out of the Australian team. I think that decision was taken because they wanted to preserve him for as long as possible in the Test match arena - and one-day cricket is very much a young man's game. If you've got a team that is made up of too many senior players, then your performance in the one-day game is probably going to suffer. Because fi elding and fitness and all of those things are a very important part of it.

So, I can understand that from time to time, you will have a different balance, and you will have a slightly different make-up between your Test match team and your one-day team. I think it would be a sad day for cricket if ever we got to the stage where we had eleven players who played Test match cricket and eleven different players who played one-day cricket! I can't ever imagine that would be the case. We had the situation where Steve Waugh was the one-day captain and Mark Taylor the Test match capta in for a short period. And I think that will happen from time to time. Again, I would think, it would be a sad day if that became a permanent thing. I don't think that the two games are that far removed. The skills that are required for success in Test m atch cricket are required for success in one-day cricket. You will get the odd exception. Michael Bevan is probably one of those exceptions. He struggled to make the grade in Test match cricket for whatever reason, but he's been able to carve out a very good career in one-day cricket. His average in one-day cricket is unbelievable. It's great credit to him that he's been able to do that with the disappointment, I am sure, of not being able to force a regular place in the Australian Test match team.

Who made the decision on Michael Slater I've no idea. I think that's a tough call. To decide when somebody is a relatively young man that he's a Test match cricketer but not a one-day cricketer or vice versa. Greg Blewett, I think, would be a very good o ne-day cricketer, but a decision was taken some years ago that he's a Test match cricketer. I think that's a pretty tough call. I'd like to think that we were fairly open-minded about our cricket and our cricketers and that everybody would be considered for both forms of cricket. But, as they say, I'm sure, that there will be times and there are times when the balance is required to be different for a one-day game and a Test match. So you'll have some different personnel. And the guys, as they get older , if they want to remain in top-level cricket, might have to accept that one-day cricket is no longer for them.

The factor that has come to the fore is the depth in Australian cricket. You have an abundance of talented players. Tom Moody goes away and you replace him with Andrew Symonds; Ian Healy goes away and in walks Ian Gilchrist; Jason Gillespie gets inju red and Brett Lee comes in. Each seems to do better than the one before. You don't seem to miss anybody.

That's been part of the decision-making that was taken about fifteen years ago. In the early 1980s, when Dennis Lillee, Rod Marsh and myself, all finished at the same time. We had a few years when it was a struggle for Australian cricket; it also coincid ed with the rebel tours to South Africa. Not only was a big slice of our Test match team and one-day team taken away, the next level of experience also went away. It really did expose us for a period of time. I think there was a recognition then that the re were some gaps in our programme, particularly at the grassroots level and decisions were taken to try and plug those gaps and improve the production of players.

I think we're enjoying the fruits of that now because we do have a reasonable depth of talent. We do seem to have a fair bit of back-up strength in pretty well every department. Even in the spin bowling department, when Shane Warne was struggling, Stuart MacGill came into the side and did fairly well. We've got reasonable depth in batting. When you consider that the likes of Stuart Law and Darren Lehmann find it hard to get into the Australian team. If there are ever any gaps for whatever reason, we've generally had the people to fill those gaps. Shane Lee came from nowhere in the last twelve months or so. Jason Gillespie has bounced back from his accident. I would expect from the coming summer that he would be fully fit and ready to play the game, and I have no doubt the Australian selectors will want to use him as soon as he is available. We'll have then four pretty strong pace bowlers. As back-ups, you have fellows like Kasprovicz and Bichel. We've got a pretty good depth. We could undergo some set backs with injuries or form and not really deplete our strength greatly. And that's a position the Australian Cricket Board wanted to be in and that's why it took the decision 15 years ago.

The Australian Cricket Academy has played a huge role in this.

Yes, it's the finishing school of the players. On its own I don't think it's not the complete answer - without the identification programmes and the elite programmes that develop the cricketers to that stage. Then the Academy doesn't have any raw materia l to work with. So I see it more as a finishing school. If we neglected our grassroots and just relied on the academy, I think we'd have some problems. It's the combination of the two that works very well for us.

Coming to the one-dayers, Dennis Lillee observed some time ago that some of these tournaments count for nothing. He said we have the World Cup, and a one-day series you play along with the Test series. Most of the other tournaments, what do they mean ? How many people remember them? It's just a money-making arrangement, it seems.

Well, there's no doubt that a lot of the one-day games just seem to run into each other. My recollection of the one-day series that I played in my time is not great. Mind you, my recollection of the Test match series diminishes with time as well. There i s a danger that a lot of those matches are meaningless, particularly when you have this stand alone one-day series. I think that concerns me to some degree.

V.V. KRISHNAN
Greg and brother Ian (left) played a major role in making Australia a cricketing superpower in the 1970s and early 1980s.

I think, without being too biased, the balance in Australia is pretty good. We play five or six Test Matches each summer and we play about 15 one-day games. The same teams that are involved in the Test match series are involved in the one-dayers, with on e other side participating as well. I think that's a pretty good balance and it seems to blend together pretty well. But these one-day series that stand alone can be a bit tiresome for everybody concerned. And that perhaps breeds the complacency that, ma ybe, has allowed the problems that we're seeing in cricket at the moment. It's very difficult but if the players want to be full-time professionals, then they deserve to be well-paid for what they do. The one-day game does generate a lot of money but I t hink there's been an artificial environment created around the one-day game. If we are not careful, if we allow this to go on, we're going to diminish the game, we're going to denigrate the game in the eyes of the public. It's already happened certainly in some parts of the world - where Test match cricket has been relegated to second class status. I think the decision taken in Australia some years ago to play the Test matches first, separate the two, play the Test matches first - keeps Test match crick et in a pre-eminent position. That's the way I'd like to see it worldwide.

When we interviewed you a few years ago, you provided an analysis of the balance between physical strength and physical capabilities on the one hand and mental strength and mental capabilities on the other. Could you take us over your experience in t his regard in your seventeen seasons in first-class cricket?

I think when you are starting out in the game the physical part of it is most important. Because you must learn the basics and you need to develop your technical skills to be able to progress through the grades. As you go through the grades, you start to develop the mental skills to maximise the physical talent that you have. Once you get to the international level, the overwhelming majority of your skills have got to be mental skills. To maximise the physical talents that you've got. And that's concent ration, it's focus. It's all of those sorts of things. The temperament of the individual has a lot to do with his chance of success at the top level of the game. The mental skills become more important, the higher you go up the game. I think sometimes yo ur early matches are the easiest. Making the grade is one thing, staying there and performing well over a long period of time is another thing. You won't get by just on skill alone. Steve Waugh, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, the guys who have reached the highest level as batsmen, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, and all the others - the West Indian fast bowlers, Wasim Akram who is a great fast bowler - they don't remain at the top without a great deal of desire, a great commitment, both physical and mental, the courage to take risks, fail, come back and try again. That courage is both physical and mental. Everybody has his own doubts and fears. Facing those doubts and fears and overcoming them is what makes success. Maybe Sir Donald Bradman had no fears of failure, but I think everyone else who's ever played the game has! To face up to those fears and to make yourself go back and try again and keep trying - keep trying to improve takes a lot of effort. And that effort is as much a mental effort as it is a physical effort.

Let's take two examples, two great players of all time - you and Sachin Tendulkar. How would this balance between mental effort and physical effort work?

You probably stop developing your physical skills somewhere around your late teens or in your early 20s. From there on, what you're honing are your mental skills. To make a hundred in a Test match is going to take you between three and four hours. Occasi onally, under exceptional conditions, you'll make a hundred in around two hours. Generally speaking, it's closer to three hours and sometimes longer. To bat for that length of time, you need to be able to focus, able to relax in between times, and learn to switch on and off so that you conserve your mental energy. Because you can't concentrate for six hours on a trot. You need to, maybe, only focus for seconds, maybe minutes at a time, and in between that time, you must relax and then rekindle the focus again. That takes a lot of training. It takes a lot of energy to be able to do that.

So for Sachin Tendulkar to make a hundred in a Test match, takes more mental effort than it does physical effort. I don't think I was really ever physically tired when I finished batting, but I was often mentally tired from the effort of concentrating an d training myself to switch on and switch off. And that meant switching on for every ball, relaxing between every ball, and that making sure that I switched back on. Because if I didn't switch back on, I was in danger of being dismissed!

You don't get a chance to play all of the shots in your repertoire in the first half an hour. The art of making runs in Test match cricket is to be able to bat long enough to receive enough bad balls to your strength, to be able to score a hundred. And t hat takes a lot of mental effort and emotional effort. There are times when you just wonder if it is all worthwhile. You're out there, it's hot, the opposition are not only doing well, they've perhaps got the upper-hand in the game. The mental energy tha t it takes to summon up the strength to keep fighting and keep resisting long enough to perhaps be able to turn the tide of the game back to your team is hard to calculate. But it's enormous. It'll probably be 90 per cent mental effort and 10 per cent ph ysical effort once you're at that level because you have to be focussed on every ball that is bowled.

As for the special pressures on Sachin Tendulkar in the Indian context, you have this idolatry from millions of people. How would you compare this with the pressures others have faced, including you and Brian Lara?

Brian Lara is a good example I suppose, Brain has had a three-month lay-off from cricket because of the pressure. He comes from a country that may not even be a million people. I suppose pressure is an internal thing to some degree. But I often wonder ho w Sachin has been able to cope with the expectations of this sub-continent, a billion people! Many of whom follow cricket, and many of whom expect him to be the best player - not only in India, but the best player in the world. Wherever he goes, in fact, he probably can't go to too many places as a regular citizen. Because he is an idol and people see him as something quite extraordinary. Those pressures must be enormous. For him to continue performing at this level as well as he does is a great credit.

I've observed him in this country and outside this country. He has a calmness about him that is commendable. Whether that's something that is natural for him or whether that's something he's developed over a period of time... Perhaps, in some ways, he w as lucky that he came in early, as a young man and he has had to cope with this from the very beginning. Maybe, he's learnt some skills to cope with those pressures. Quite extraordinary. It's a great credit to him that he's been able to cope with all of that and still perform at a level that is rare through the history of cricket.

Some years ago when we asked you for your evaluation of Sachin - his talent, his potential, what lay ahead, including possible traps that others may impose on him, for example, making him captain too early - you offered us a very high evaluation and also the right caution. But the question is: from that point of expectation has his performance been up to your expectations? Above expectations? Any disappointments?

I think at least up to expectations - and at times above expectations. It was always going to happen that he would be expected to take over the captaincy at some stage. The danger was it would be given to him too early, which I think it was. And it's pr obably now spoiled for ever his prospect of being able to take on the captaincy. I saw him in Australia last year as captain of the team and he didn't play the sort of cricket that we would expect of Sachin Tendulkar. Because I think the weight of captai ncy just weighed too heavily on him and he wasn't playing his instinctive game. He was cautious, fearful and it didn't suit. And he didn't perform as well as would be expected. He was still the best performing batsman in the line-up. I think it's better to accept that Indian cricket will be best served by Sachin Tendulkar being a player - a leader within the team - but not captain.

You spoke about Sachin now. But it was found in Australia that the Indian cricketers were wanting in mental strength. They were just blown away and nobody seemed to have the heart to fight it out apart from Sachin. There was not even a willingness to stay at the wicket for some time and take on the fast bowlers. Most of our batsmen caved in pretty meekly. Do you think there's a distinct lack of mental strength and motivation here?

The difficulty, first and foremost, I think, was the lack of experience on Australian wickets. Sachin had been there before; one or two others had been there before. But a majority of them, particularly the batsmen, very few of them had been to Australia before. That was one thing. Secondly, the Australian team was really playing very well. It's a very good team, mentally strong, very well prepared mentally and physically for what they need to do. Very well led by Steve Waugh. It's very difficult when y ou're playing against a side that is obviously a better side than you. It's very easy for them to roll over the top of you and you just feel there is nothing you can do. That's when real inner strength is required and there wasn't an obvious surplus of t hat commitment and that desire to be able to withstand the pressure first and then try and turn it back.

Having been on the receiving end during the late 1970s and early 1980s with the West Indian teams, there were times when we felt that the cause was hopeless. It didn't matter how many runs you could make. They could make one more. It didn't matter how fe w runs they made, they could bowl you out for one less. That was a real mental struggle to be able to come to grips with that and still have the desire to keep fighting and trying to resist almost the inevitable. I think we learnt a lot about ourselves f rom having to fight that fight. And if teams that are competing against Australia have to find the same resources, they've got to be able to develop the right sort of players to withstand the pressures that it brings. It's hard to describe but there are times in that situation when you are on the receiving end that you just think, "I don't know that I can fight any harder anymore. And if I do, is it going to be worthwhile?" But you've got two choices: you either just give up and go away, or you say, "I' ve got to fight on." And it is amazing when you make that decision to fight on, just how much you learn about yourself, and how much more you are capable of giving - if you are prepared to have a go.

Losing was not the problem but the meek surrender was shocking. In the past too, we played Australia and the West Indies, but we had men like Gavaskar and Mohinder Amarnath, who would take on the fast bowlers, stay at the wicket.

The Australian team had done its homework and knew how to go about dismantling the opposition teams. They did a very thorough job of it with India. Sachin resisted on many occasions, but it was almost a passive resistance, I felt, because of the captainc y more than anything else. He was so weighed down by the expectation of performance that he never let himself loose to be able to counter-attack. He was the one player who could have counter-attacked and, maybe, pushed Australia back a bit but it just ne ver came. But I think great credit goes to Steve Waugh and the management of the Australian team, John Buchanan, the coach. The preparation was exceptional.

In qualitative terms, the West Indies had complete supremacy in an earlier era, the period you mentioned. Is Australia close to something like that in the Test form of the game?

I believe so. For whatever reason, I think our battles against the West Indies in the late 1970s and through the 1980s bred the system that we now have. There was a recognition that we had to compete with a team of the quality of the West Indies, then we had to lift our game. We had to lift our standards, we had to be better than them. And we had to make sure that we could provide the talent to continue being better than everyone else. What cricket needs now is for one or two more countries to take on t he same commitment to lift their standard, to compete at that level, and make it hard for Australia to maintain its supremacy for a long period of time. Well, I look around the world of cricket at the moment and I don't see anybody who can compete with t he Australians. Not even the South Africans. They possibly have the commitment, they just haven't the personnel. They're very committed, there's a strength about them, there's a team-spirit they tend to build, but I don't think they have the personnel. T here are others who have more of the personnel, but not as much as the commitment.

I think one of the strengths of Australian cricket is that we are able to build a team unit better than anybody else. And I think that stems from our culture, the fact that in society, everybody's equal. Certainly in our cricket, everybody's equal. The o nly criterion is performance. It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from. If you can get yourself to the stage of being able to play first-class cricket, then you can represent the country. Because it's up to you and your performance. There's a great respect for what's gone before and there's a great respect for the position of captain. That in itself helps build a unity that few other cricket nations have been able to achieve.

Apart from the problems of Indian cricket we have discussed, there is the well-known problem of pitches. Preparing a certain type of spin-track here and this is reflected in the dramatic contrast that we used to see between India's performance at hom e and abroad. Over the long term, surely, this is counter-productive.

Yes it's a difficult one because, obviously, weather conditions and soil conditions have a big bearing on what sort of wickets you can produce. Again, looking at the Australian experience, we are very fortunate that within the continent of Australia ther e's a wide range of soils, there's a wide range of wicket types. And, therefore, the players who have come through to the Test level have learnt to cope with the bounce in Perth, the bounce and movement in Brisbane, the lower, slower wickets in Melbourne and Adelaide and even in Hobart, and certainly through the 1970s, 1980s, and the early 1990s, the spinning wickets in Sydney. So we've developed some pretty good all-round cricketers. Therefore, with experience of coming to the sub-continent, we've been able to perform better in these conditions and cut through the path where, maybe, a player would come here only once in his career. So we've overcome the experience problem. If, in your own country, you can't develop the variety of wickets that's going to give that grounding, then I think it's important that the younger players, when they're coming up through the 'A' team or Under-19s and so on, are given the opportunity to play overseas on wickets that are different from the wickets here. To give them the experience to be able to cope when they go away. The other thing is... again I'd rather talk about the positives... looking at the Australian team, we tend to be fairly resilient, we're quite capable of coping with adversity and with the different c onditions, and so on. That also is a reason why they've been able to succeed at home and abroad reasonably well. The West Indian team through the 1980s was exceptional. They performed well everywhere! And that's the mark of a great team. The resilience - getting back again to the mental strength - that is required to do that is quite exceptional. If other teams want to perform at that level, then that's what they have to be able to produce.

With another batting legend, Sunil Gavaskar.

You have given us an analysis of the factors behind Australia's cricket success: grassroots, your broad base, the programmes at the foundation and at the elite levels, the cricket Academy. Do you think India has some of what it takes to begin a reviv al in cricket?

I believe so. You've got a resource that very few countries have got. You've got the people, the players. There's an enormous number of people playing cricket in this country. Perhaps the focus needs to be narrowed somewhat. I don't pretend to understand all of the different levels of cricket in this country, but, again looking at the Australian scene and the reasons for success, at our domestic first-class level, we have six teams. So we have a broad base that is narrowed to the first-class scene to pi ck our players for the international programme.

And that's the best domestic cricket programme anywhere?

It's the best domestic programme in the world. I think there's a lot to be learnt from that. Maybe, there needs to be a re-think on the structure of cricket in this country. Maybe you need to have a new level incorporated between your domestic first-clas s and international level. With a smaller number of teams in a much smaller competition to really bring out the talents of the top players - to prepare them for what international cricket has to offer. We're very fortunate in Australia: we have a wide ra nge of wicket types, we have a vital and vibrant domestic first-class scene, and it seems to produce the right type of players. Obviously to change what's been happening here for a hundred of years, is not going to be easy. But an Academy by itself is no t going to solve the problem. Without the right sort of competition, the players won't be developed. Practising in the nets will not teach you to play Test cricket. It's only the cauldron of battle of a very vibrant competition that will produce the righ t sort of players to play Test cricket. I think it's important that all cricket nations share knowledge, share experiences. It's no good for cricket to have England weak, the West Indies down on where they've been, it wasn't good in the 1980s to have Aus tralia weak, and it's no good to have India or Pakistan weak for any length of time. We will go through cycles but, by and large, we need to have strength in all cricket-playing nations if cricket is to prosper in the 21st century.

Greg, you've come here in connection with the Griffith University sports programme. It's a very ambitious programme: for talented young people to combine sports and education.

The programme is quite ambitious. It's unique in Australia, it's unique in most parts of the world. The American system has always been able to incorporate sport with education. That hasn't been the case in Australia nor in many parts of the world. I thi nk the embryo of the idea came from the fact that our education is now recognised worldwide. We have a great culture of success in sport in Australia. We have some of the best coaches in the world. We have had to develop our coaching standards because we are isolated - and we looked to other sports and other countries to glean the best knowledge that we can to put into our coaching programmes. In most sports, we can match the best in the world with our coaching ideas and our basic talent.

We thought it was something we could export to the world: attract students from all round the world to come and share in this success we have developed. We have a wonderful climate where Griffith University is, in South East Queensland. In Brisbane, ther e's a sub-tropical climate, beautiful winters, pretty good summers. We can play outdoors all year round. It's a very safe country. We have a pretty good ethnic base through most races now in Australia so there is a level of acceptance that's probably as good as anywhere in the world. All races, creeds, religions, whatever, are fairly well accommodated in Australia. I think that's important, because the students must be made to feel welcome when they come. The level of coaching that we can expose these s tudents to is going to be unique. I have a son who is on a baseball scholarship in America and he doesn't get exposed to the elite athletes. He only gets exposed to the coaches at his college.

We will bring in, from time to time, elite coaches, elite players to lecture to these students. Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Ian Healy, myself, Allan Border. We will have access to these people to bring them in for lectures from time to time. For a young cricketer, to be able to come to our course and be able to rub shoulders with the likes of these individuals who succeeded at the top level is unique in the world of sport. The same thing we can do with golf and tennis.

Because we have such an egalitarian society, these stars of sport still move very easily through the community, given respect, but also are accepted just as normal citizens. I think that's a wonderful thing and we will be able to encourage these people t o come and give guest lectures for us and spend time with our students and hopefully, pass on some of the skills - not only the playing skills, but the survival skills that it takes to survive not only in sport but in life.

Somewhere down the line, would you have scholarships for Indian students who can't afford the fees and the cost of studying in Australia?

Yes, and the other thing that we would like to develop within the countries we would attract students from is perhaps some sponsorship arrangements, where some of the corporations involved in the local community might see fit to be able to do something p ublic-spirited by way of sponsoring students. With a combination of scholarships and sponsorship, we would hope to be able to help a wider range of students.

From being a superstar in the playing arena you made the transformation into a post-Test career pretty smoothly.

It had its bumps.

You recently wrote a book that was very well received.

Yes, I've written a couple of books on health and vegetarianism.

You are a vegetarian?

Yes, I have been a pure vegetarian for about seven years. Before that, 22 years I've been moving, I suppose, down that path. The books were a lifestyle thing and really based on my own experience and, interestingly enough, very well received. As for the transition, I suppose, I was lucky in that in the era in which I played cricket, we had to have a career outside of cricket. I spent most of my time when I was playing either employed or in business with partners. So there was another life. Cricket was r eally a pastime for me and, therefore, I think the transition was much easier. And the other thing, as I have said before, is that sports stars in Australia are lauded while they are playing sport, but away from the sporting arena they are accepted as no rmal citizens and treated like normal citizens - and probably don't expect any more than normal citizens. I think that helps make the transition much smoother. But it may be a little bit different for the guys who are playing now, because they haven't ha d a career outside of cricket. I suppose to some degree that will be compensated in that they've been paid quite well and their retirement funds will probably be reasonable to give them a cushion to be able to adapt to a life after cricket.

Commentating? You don't do much of it now.

I have done it. I don't really want to commentate full-time and it's very difficult to commentate part-time. I've done it, I've managed to do it part-time for a while but to do it part-time, you need to travel a lot. And I'm at the stage of life where I enjoy being home and I don't want to spend three or four months a year overseas and away from my home and my family. So I made a decision two years ago that I would not commentate for the foreseeable future anyway. If the opportunity arises in the future , I could come back to it, but I think it would only ever be on a part-time basis.