Obituary: Remembering Tony Greig

Few players have impacted the worldwide direction of cricket.  Or, to put it another way, while many cricketers turn a game by dint of skill or attitude, precious few shape cricket's big picture. 

For all his talent, memories of the great Sachin Tendulkar will highlight his nonpareil ability with the willow.  However, the One Day revolution occurred during his peak and he did not compel it, but merely embraced theis new style of batsmanship.  This revolution was authored primarily by a tiny, almost forgotten wicketkeeper from a sleepy island and his tactically aggressive captain.

In contrast, Anthony William Greig was a man who changed the way we regard the game –a South African who wanted to play Test cricket during the apartheid years and did so.  Then, he led England and finally took on the role as perhaps the first truly modern professional cricket player in the world.   

Tony Greig was the ultimate pragmatist.

Pragmatism requires clarity of vision and of thought: it is a process of identifying problems and solving them simply and brutally.  With Greig, this manifested in his combative and versatile approach to the game.  This attitude saw him graduate from Western Province to Sussex, England and then the captaincy of his (first) adopted country.

Another of the traits of the results-focused is strength of will.  Hewas the first to challenge Lillee and Thomson during their Ashes campaign of 1974-75; two years later, his grit – and big ton at Kolkata – and subsequently led the first victorious MCC squad to India since his hero, Douglas Jardine.  His leadership style was so obviously influenced by Jardine’s that he may as well have worn the Harlequin cap: calculating and yet noble as defined by his own distinct moral code.

His captaincy was astute and forthright.  He deployed a thirtysomething David Steele at the top of the order and coaxed Boycott from his self-imposed exile, while focusing England first on making England  difficult to beat.  His final act as a recognised player was signing with Packer and World Series Cricket, a significant coup for the nascent league.  Leaving the establishment for the betterment of cricket players' collective financial future and serving as Packer's chief overseas recruiter made him a cricket figure of the utmost importance.

The utilitarian is always questioned both aesthetically and morally.  Greig’s reasons weren’t necessarily always the most wholesome – let’s not beat about that fact – but he bore the ultimate mark of the pragmatist: coming out on top more often than not.  Tony Greig made effective decisions that led to his benefit and that of others – and what more could one ask from a leader?

Greig did not go quietly into the night.  Six months – almost to the day – before his death, he delivered a stirring – if controversial – Cowdrey Lecture on the Spirit of Cricket.  In the eyes of some, he implored India to take spiritual leadership of a game it practically leases to the rest of the world; others saw his presentation as further patriarchalism from a constant critic.

It would hardly have been Tony Greig if he didn’t address issues directly.

He will be remembered.  He will be missed.

On Tony Greig's Cowdrey lecture

Tony Greig makes a lot of sense. Re-read that sentence because I probably won't type it again for a while – at least not while he consistently forces rubbish memorabilia down our gestalt craw on the telly. But, in his recent Cowdrey Lecture on the Spirit of Cricket, the man in the panama hat spoke passionately and – for the most part – incisively as to the state of the sport and issues facing the game in general.

He ruffled some feathers throughout, but what else could you expect? It's Tony Greig, for crying out loud! As far as he can make out, many of world cricket's problems come with the effective power of veto that India holds over the ICC; this, when combined with his unfortunate reluctance to address the Indian cricket cognoscenti as “the BCCI” rather than “India” means that Twitter was alight this morning with comment both moderate and vitriolic.

Tony Greig is not a buffoon. Occasionally he seems like it, but he is neither incompetent nor stupid. In fact, his references to legendary cricket writer E.W. Swanton and Alec Bedser were touching memories, sad in nature and an insight into a complex and – in his own special way – honourable man. It's a guess, and I may be doing some people a great disservice, but I'd hazard such personal, relational disappointments would be scarce in the autobiographies of many current cricketers.

That said, Greig is indubitably guilty of poor choices from time to time, as are we all. Unfortunately, his happen to be extremely high-profile. On this occasion, while highlighting some of those past choices, he unwittingly stumbled into another in generalising a cricketing culture too freely.

However, to dismiss all he has to say as wrong or even “establishment” just because the speaker has a past history of gaffes is incredibly short-sighted. Those gaffes shouldn't discount his every utterance, but instead mean his words must be examined carefully and sometimes taken with a grain of salt. I doubt Greig himself would suggest any differently, neither did he suggest his view was gospel – merely his opinion. While they must be considered, his past cases of foot-in-mouth have been used too often to flay Tony Greig without proper cause.

When invited to speak about a subject on which he is passionate, he gave his opinions. Any suggestions of ulterior motives or personal agendas are bunk. He addressed first and foremost the questions he has in regards to the game's future direction, a bearing linked inextricably with the globally-nuanced “Spirit of the Game”.

How an oration is received is a very personal process. Each listener will take home a completely different message as it relates to them and their world view. With that said, in my opinion the kernel of the lecture was a call for reconciliation and to attempt to move forward together.

It was unfortunate that the reference became somewhat confused, but Greig spoke of Nelson Mandela and the honour in which he is held by peoples everywhere – a man who was wronged, yet rather than wreaking his revenge when coming to power, did what he thought was best for the nation of South Africa. Mandela's global legacy will be one of reconciliation achieved through his struggle both as one of the oppressed and as a member of the powerful.

It's almost never perfect, and it doesn't solve everything, but reconciliation is an action of forgiving debts. It's a big ask because often those wronged have been so unfairly treated, and it certainly doesn't excuse or wipe clean past actions.  Though clumsy in his execution, Greig's suggestion is that giant steps can be made when parties approach each other not with self-interest but collective growth at heart.  Thinking of him altruistically, he then contends that because the BCCI (and by extension, India as a whole) holds so much power in the game, leadership on that nebulous issue of "Spirit" must come from that them.

The reason Greig's speech focused so much on India – how I wish he had said BCCI! – is simply because the BCCI are now the global creditors of cricket and find themselves in such a position after being mistreated for a long time.  In my opinion, Greig's point is valid and his premise strong; however he can be condemned for failing to separate the game's governing body from the nation as a whole. He has called for reconciliation, yet in some ways made it harder to achieve by misnaming those he hopes to entreat.

It was entirely Tony Greig – observant yet flawed, an exercise in his humanness.  Far from perfect but also far from an attack on India or their cricket.

Because Greig's speech was on the Spirit of Cricket it behoves us therefore as supporters and fans of the game to accept it with the grace inherent in that same Spirit of Cricket. That doesn't mean automatically redressing each of his suggested action points, but accepting his point of view – as his perspective if not a comprehensive one. Believe it or not – and the internet would love us to believe “not” – it is possible to accept someone's point graciously but still disagree with it. To shout him down is neither in the spirit of the game nor any decent spirit.

Some may suggest that Greig deserves no grace because his speech was delivered with none. Personally, I'd disagree with that, but surely – and to my mind, this is Greig's take-home point – if someone has operated without grace then the higher road, the more constructive path, is to be gracious in return rather than seek vengeance or simply dismissing them. This simple dictum is the core of many religions. From a global perspective, how often is revenge or even “getting mine” the way forward?

Lessons from the Past

When installed as captain of England in 1975, Tony Greig had a plan to revitalise his adopted country's Test form. After their innings defeat in the first Test at Edgbaston had cost his side the Ashes, he felt the batting was a misery - as collapsible as an accordion and just as flamboyant. As the new leader of the England cause, he decided to approach the problem in his own manner.

It was simple enough: Greig went straight to the best bowlers on the county scene and asked them who were the toughest players to dismiss. The answer came back unsurprisingly that inimitable Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott was one of the hardest. The second name that came back was a veritable shock - it was "The bank clerk who went to war", Northamptonshire's David Steele. A prematurely grey middle-order bat, thirty-four year old Steele sported a first-class average of only 31 and at AJ Greig's insistence was promptly selected to play against the two greatest attacks of the era, Australia and the West Indies. Boycott remained in exile, refusing to play for England in protest at being looked over for the captaincy.

Steele only played eight Test matches, yet averaged just over 42 for his Test career and the Anglocentric cricketing tome Wisden named him Cricketer of the Year in 1976. He scored 45 and 50 on debut and followed it up with his only hundred against the Windies the following year. It was a transitional time for the England squad with newcomers Mike Brearley, Graham Gooch and Bob Woolmer sandwiched between veterans Snow, Lever and Amiss. But Steele gave the England batting some spine sorely lacking and showed, more than anything, the youthful Gooch and Woolmer how to be a professional.

Gone are the days where shotgun selections pay the most benefit as every country's team has access to footage going back ten years. By reaching for Michael Beer in the hopes of uncovering another Peter Taylor, the Australian selectors showed their hand devoid of trumps. The first step in developing a team's fortunes is to make them hard to beat and though Australia's bowling stocks aren't anywhere near their nadir, the batsmanship on show has been laughably inept. As Mike Hussey ages there have been many questions as to his longevity in the national squad and now it may be in Australia's best interests to retain him as long as possible to help show the next generation how to prize one's scalp.

With Ponting probable to miss the Sydney Test and Phil Hughes's immediate status in jeopardy, the selectors could do worse than partnering Shane Watson and Hussey with other batsman who treasure their wicket. The current intent on playing to a certain style - getting on the front foot early, dominating the bowlers, scoring runs quickly - rather than just doing what best suits the situation is hurting Australia's prospects of a quick recovery from their current Test doldrums.