D'Oliveira thoughts on the size of Indian backsides....and cricket in general

When Peter Roebuck died Mark Davis sought out one of his books to read and I have to admit that the passing away of Basil D'Oliveira made me reach up for an autobiography of his sitting in my cricket library (alright, alright, it's just one shelf!). It's an early book, written in early 1968 before the uproar about his inclusion in the England team to tour South Africa and tells of the way he got into the English professional game and his thoughts on cricket in general.

There are some interesting observations in there. He laments the lack of Indian fast bowlers:

"Indians....are small in stature. They just haven't got the framework for the quick stuff. Big backsides are essential for fast bowling, yet you would have to strap three Indian players together to make a rump to compare with Fred Trueman's."

And yet some of what he said seems contradictory, to me at least:

The Indian and Pakistani teams "were very friendly teams and a pleasure to play against. Unfortunately that is not much of a recommendation for Test cricket. It might be cynical, but I think a connection exists between behaviour on the field and the balance of power. The teams without much chance smile at you and make you welcome at the wicket. Those that expect to win bruise you and smile later - when it is all over."

But he also seemed to think that tailenders should not be bounced - here's a passage relating to Derek Underwood being hit in the mouth:

"Just before the Trent Bridge Test ended, Charlie Griffith hit Derek Underwood, England's number eleven batsman, in the mouth with a bouncer. I had just got out so I only know the dressing-room end of the incident, but it looked nasty.

None of our chaps had any time for it. Not many of theirs had either, from what I could make out afterwards. The game was as good as over and England were down the drain. There was no tension about. No need for desperation. I can't think what made Charlie do it.

The point is that Underwood is not a recognised batsman. I know he had shared a stand with me for the last wicket in the first innings (of 65), but that was almost a freak performance. His main quality as a batsman is courage. He stands in front of his stumps to the fastest bowler. But he has little in the way of technical equipment. With some people you know instinctively that they won't be able to defend themselves against this type of attack. Underwood is one of them. Because he should never have been given the bouncer. He is not capable of defending himself. That made it unfair.

Underwood was a special case. I am not arguing generally for tail-enders under this so-called gentleman's agreement whereby they don't get anything short bowled at them. That's a rediculous business. If a man can bat and he is causing trouble, then he is entitled to be given the bouncer - no matter whether he is number one or number eleven. There are plenty of fast bowlers who have been around county cricket for years and haven't been on the receiving end of more than half a dozen bouncers.

They make a lot of noise when they are. Everybody has heard them. They threaten retaliation to the bowler who has done it, they swear to bring war to his team-mates. For years they have been getting their quota of runs by sticking the front leg up the wicket before the ball is bowled knowing that under the so-called fast bowlers' pact it won't be short. They deserve to be frightened every now and again just to know how other men feel when they are cheerfully letting go two or three bouncers an over.

In the final reckoning everything must depend on whether the batsman is capable of defending himself."

Interestingly, Underwood received a written apology from Charlie Griffith. I guess things were a little different in the days before helmets as you had the ability to seriously injure someone or even kill them, but Underwood had clearly shown he could hang around with his part in the 1st innings 10th wicket partnership of 65 - why shouldn't he receive a bouncer? Especially as "those that expect to win bruise you and smile later". These days of course all the protective gear means that there's no reluctance to bounce anyone, and nor should there be.

Interesting though the book is, it's hardly a revalation. But tucked inside the front cover were lots of old press clippings and many of them relate to the controversy over D'Oliveira's selecting for South Africa so they were a really interesting read. Thank goodness the days of aparthied in South Africa are over.