|
ALAN BUTCHER
We caught up with the under-fire
Surrey manager following the four-day game against Sussex at the Brit Oval,
which ended in a draw, and talked about the disappointment of Surrey not getting
to a position where the follow-on could be enforced. We also talked about the
Chairman's Evening, which had taken place a few night's earlier following Roger
Harman's letter to the members apologising to them for the team's performances
in 2008.
Marcus Hook: We could talk about the declaration, but I guess the die was
cast when we failed to make Sussex follow-on.
Alan Butcher: It's a problem we've had all season. The chances were there,
certainly in the first innings to enforce the follow-on. But we dropped catches
and missed chances. On a good pitch, I thought the seamers bowled extremely well
all game.
MH: I agree, especially Jade, who one member said at Thursday night's
Chairman's Evening is never going to make it.
AB: He's done really well, despite some of the members' doubts the other night.
But I'd say what he's produced since he's come in and had a regular run. What
he's produced in the one-day format, points to somebody who's going in the right
direction. Anyone who watches the game closely ought to recognise that. I've
said all along that our biggest problems have been not enough support for Ramps,
with the bat. Some people, like JB, who got a good hundred again, and Mark, who
was playing well before he got injured… But in and around that we have two
blokes who get major scores and there's nothing much to kick us on to getting
500 or 550. The fact that we didn't get 500 really was a question of confidence.
A lack of confidence in the batting line-up means that we can't score as quickly
as we would like to, therefore we end up having to make a dart for the line at
the end and then we lose wickets.
MH: We looked at one point as though we were making a dash to get to 400
before the end of the 130th over, but when we didn't, I didn't mind because at
that stage it looked as though we would get 500.
AB: We decided it was probably worth sacrificing one point to make sure we got
to 500. Unfortunately we ended up doing neither and that was disappointing.
Then, as I say, I thought we bowled pretty well throughout their first innings.
I thought we bowled really well, but we keep dropping catches and keep spurning
chances. So, when we get to what could be match-winning situations, they turn
out to be… it was a bit like the Kent match, where you come into a situation
where you're saying: "Look, we've got to try and press on to give ourselves
long enough to bowl them out." But we're not batting well enough to do that
with any real confidence and in the end we lose wickets and suddenly you're
thinking: "Blimey, we could get bowled out and they could be looking to
knock off 240."
MH: Our attempts to set a target went out of the window last night when we
lost two early wickets and again this morning when four went early.
AB: Who knows, in the end it may have been to our benefit to have been bowled
out 240 ahead, because then Sussex would have had to play some shots. If you
don't get points for the draw it throws you even further behind. So, you're
trying to give yourself the opportunity to win, but you're still mindful of the
fact that points for a draw are at least keeping you in touch. At some stage
we're going to have to go hell for leather and go for broke.
MH: I thought Sussex showed a lack of ambition. Despite taking four
wickets at the start of the day they only bowled 28 overs before lunch.
AB: I was a bit surprised by that but they… I thought they might have wanted
to push a little bit harder, but perhaps, this morning, when they formulated
their plans…
MH: May be victory wasn't in their plans this morning.
AB: I don't know about that. I suppose in the end there was always going to be
the number of overs in the day. Because their over-rate was so good they had
sort of, I'm not going to say earned the right - because it's not good cricket
to slow the game down quite as much as that - but they'd given themselves the
opportunity to do that. I'd have to say that Nash and Hopkinson played well. I
thought they'd obviously worked out their method, how they were going to play. I
thought that we would create more chances, especially our spinners, so that was
disappointing. But, again, we missed a couple of opportunities. They may have
come a little bit late in the day, but you never know. If you take them and you
get new players in, sometimes…
MH: May be they would have switched off.
AB: They may have done and very often if you have a partnership on a pitch
that's spinning, new players come in and bang bang bang and you knock people
over. But, again, we didn't take those opportunities. I'm at my wit's end there
because whatever we do, however much we practice, nothing sticks. I am aware
that we probably don't have that many natural close catchers in the side. It's
something that obviously is a problem because if you do have a regular quality
set of slip fielders and close catchers, who do it all the time, you catch more
catches, you take more chances and, therefore, your bowlers are bowling people
out for fewer runs. I think at the moment the bowlers are having to get fifteen
wickets an innings.
MH: So, it's four matches to go now in the championship, but Lancashire
have had a tough four days down at Canterbury where they lost, so… and the
weather forecast for Blackpool looks pretty reasonable.
AB: I did have a look at the 15-day forecast to see whether it was worth taking
my kids up to the beach, but decided not to.
MH: Normally you don't need a great deal of time at Blackpool. I think
seven out of the last nine games there have ended with a positive result.
AB: So one way or the other… But, once again, I can't fault the guys' effort.
They've worked hard and showed fight, but…
MH: One thing I was surprised by on Thursday night was that some members
felt there was no morale. What they didn't appreciate is that you can talk about
confidence, but confidence and spirit are two different things.
AB: Exactly. I did mention that didn't I.
MH: I think the people who see the boys regularly see that they're trying,
but, at times, when you weigh the squad up against the Durhams and the Somersets
and may be the Kents, you have to say it's a very competitive division.
AB: But, again, Kent, that was a game we should have won. Catches there, even
with the fact that we'd played so poorly in the second innings… If we'd caught
our catches we would have won the game.
MH: And Notts are up there, scrapping for the title, but we could have
beaten them if we hadn't lost most of the first day up at Trent Bridge.
AB: At the end of it, whatever happens, we'll be where we are because of how
we've played and because you can't blame bad luck for dropping 45 catches. But
it also doesn't necessarily make you as bad a team as some people are trying to
make out. The number of chances that go down has an effect on the bowlers'
confidence, because they then think that they've got to hit the stumps. They go
for more runs because of that and team's get bigger scores than they should do
because you miss so many chances…
MH: But you're going to have to take risks over the last four, that's what
you are saying. That will become an even bigger factor - taking risks when you
wouldn't normally want to.
AB: No, but we will have to. It's just a question… This morning, we were going
to take a bigger risk than we eventually did. But losing three wickets so
quickly meant that we couldn't, because to carry on trying to get the number of
runs that we were looking to try and get, might have meant that we'd get bowled
out for fifty-odd or sixty-odd fewer. But I still felt when we started bowling
that we would probably create more opportunities than we did seeing how the
pitch had turned in the morning. But, again, you'd have to say Sussex played
well. They worked out a method of how they were going to play and stuck to that.
So, you've got to give them credit.
MH: So, you faced the music at Thursday's Chairman's Evening. I did hear
that you weren't originally due to be on the panel.
AB: I did hear that rumour, but I did feel strongly that I should be there a)
because you want to know what people are saying and b) because, if other people
are answering the questions, you don't know what they're saying. I thought that
Mark and I were best placed to answer those questions.
MH: It also showed that you're not ducking the issues.
AB: Exactly. I felt that would have sent a really bad signal if we hadn't been
allowed or we'd be told not to turn up. I think it was felt that it would be
better to spare us the evening, but as it turned out I quite enjoyed it in a
perverse sort of a way. It was also nice to experience the fact that, although
there were a lot of people there - obviously a lot of people who were interested
- there was also a fair degree of support and understanding. Also, that when, on
the odd occasion, there were people who tried to turn it personal and nasty,
there were people prepared to shout them down and steer it on to a more
objective tack. So, it was good to experience it, to know that we haven't got
all 10,000 members out there against us. I don't look at your website…
MH: Actually, compared with previous seasons it's been fairly bland this
year and I think, and I hope it came across on Thursday night, that generally
speaking supporters and members - unlike in 1995 - aren't saying Surrey should
be winning trophies. The other night, it wasn't so much about why aren't we
winning trophies, or Surrey has a right to be in Division One because of its
financial status, it was more about what does the future hold. The Matthew
Spriegels, the Stewart Walters and the Jade Dernbachs aren't going to become
world-beaters overnight. It's going to take time, so where do we go from here?
AB: It's a difficult one because people talk about Surrey as the biggest cricket
club in the country. Financially, may be we are and if that translated into
football speak that would mean you'd have the biggest clout in the transfer
market. But in cricket there isn't a transfer market. So you can't just go out
and buy whoever you want, so you do have to produce your home grown players. It
was interesting, I was listening to a football programme on the radio and they
were talking about the problem of giving young players opportunities to play.
Someone was talking about Manchester United when the Beckhams, Scholes and Butts
came through and won the title, and they were saying, regardless of their
ability, one thing that they had was opportunity to play. They were given
opportunity, they grabbed it and that built the side that's gone on. But even at
United because of the Champions League it's more difficult now for young players
to get the opportunity and, therefore, more difficult to produce England players
because even at the best clubs where you have good youth training schemes those
kids don't get the opportunities they used to. I feel strongly, and this might
annoy some of the members who think we ought to be winning trophies, that if
most of your finance comes from revenue created by the England team it's morally
wrong to be spending that money on overseas players and Kolpak players and
letting it go out of the country. That might mean that, in trying to do that,
Surrey don't win trophies for a period of time, but that will be because for
that period of time we haven't got that quality of player. I find it difficult
to equate that football ethos to cricket because the situations are totally
different in that, in football, the big clubs generate their own money and can
therefore buy who they want. But that doesn't mean that I don't feel competitive
and passionate about winning cricket matches. We want to do that. We have signed
and will have to sign people, but to me, as I say, there is a moral issue.
MH: And it's likely to become more and more difficult to get Kolpaks.
AB: I think that's a good thing.
MH: And given the fact that Gidmans, Kirbys and Moores don't want to come
here, aligned to the fact that Kolpaks are likely to dwindle, because they can't
get work permits as easily as before, and overseas players are going to be
difficult to nail down because Test cricket is now being played around the
world, 12 months a year, to me, the policy we should be adopting presents itself
and, a bit like Manchester United we have to identify our Beckhams and Scholes
and make them the nucleus of the next dominant Surrey side.
AB: I think that has a wider context. Until we start doing that no one in
England is going to know what the standard of our cricket is like because it
keeps getting propped up by people from overseas. So, although people tell me,
and I'm not totally convinced by it, that the standard of county cricket is
higher than it's ever been, that isn't because of the quality of English
players. I firmly believe that until we know what that level is it's difficult
to go forward.
MH: So you said the other night that you enjoy the challenge and it is
going to be a challenge over the next month or so.
AB: Of course it is. It's going to be a challenge over the next month and
whatever happens after that is not going to be easy whatever the future holds.
MH: But from your point of view, your job hinges on results. Do you ever
think that results are likely to determine whether you will still be Surrey
manager next year?
AB: Possibly. I don't know that. No one has said anything.
MH: There haven't been any names mentioned, but I have heard rumours that
the club is looking at other options. With this managing director of cricket
job, if they ever get around to appointing someone presumably he'll want to put
his stamp on things.
AB: Looking at it, realistically, that's not going to happen before the end of
the season. I don't know. I would hope that won't be the case, but I'm realistic
enough to realise that it's a possibility. But in the meantime we must keep
trying to do what we need to make sure that we stay up.
MH: As you said the other night, other teams you have been involved with
would have folded under the pressure the players are under now, so what makes
you relish the challenge?
AB: Because of that as much as anything else. There are players in the side that
I've been involved with for some years, for a long time. There are other people
I have had less time with, but I believe I have got good relationships with.
Therefore I want to keep fighting and being positive for them. The thing I've
tried to do as much as possible is to try not to let them feel that I'm under
pressure. Because if I do that, that puts more pressure on them. They're under
enough pressure as it is. I can't pretend that I'd be enjoying it a whole lot
more if we were up the other end of the table…
MH: But how can take so much flak and not pass some of it down the line?
AB: All I can say is that's what I am trying to do. In a couple of meetings
we've had certain players have mentioned that they've appreciated the fact and
understand that I must be under pressure and I haven't passed that on to them.
But we're all in it together and we're all trying hard to sort it out.
MH: The day you took over from Steve Rixon, I recall that you said certain
things had been allowed to drift at this club, plus I was aware that there were
factions that had built up in the dressing room. The dressing room is together
now, from what I can see, and yet, ultimately, you're going to be judged on
results.
AB: In the first year we had a lot of success in terms of sorting that sort of
stuff out and people understanding that had been a problem before. In my first
two years in the job I felt that if we had luck with injuries and if people
played to their potential we could challenge for the championship. A lot of
people and players in the game thought that when we went up from the second
division we'd do really well. Now, we didn't. We had people, who were the planks
of the strategy, who got injured, or didn't play or didn't perform, so then you
think: "Okay, it's not going to happen so we need to get people out and
younger people in." I've done that, but because there isn't a transfer
system and because you have budget restrictions it's very difficult to replace
everybody all in one go, and there aren't so many people out there…
MH: A lot of people come to the end of their contracts, but very few of
those of any quality move. The sort of players who move are the ones who have
already been with two counties and are looking for a third.
AB: A lot put themselves about a bit, because they're on these lists, and that
encourages their home county to add a little bit on to their salary. What I said
the other night is perfectly true…
MH: But I just cannot understand why nobody wants to move to London.
Perhaps it's because I have lived in South London all my life and don't know any
better, but we must be offering them more money than the county they're with
already.
AB: We are. Somebody like Steve Kirby, for example... I suppose I could have
chucked another twenty grand at him, but he said: "Look, I can't believe
the offer you have made me." The offer was "astounding." But he
said: "My family don't want to live in London. I can't come without my
family." Mark got accosted by somebody, on the way out the other night, who
said: "You've just told us a lie about people not wanting to live in
London." She said: "I live next door to Alex Tudor." So Mark
said: "Well he lives in London. He didn't have to move to London!"
It's not so bad for overseas players. You can get overseas players who want to
come and live in London, but you can only have one of them. In team building
when you need to entice three or four people to come then it's more difficult.
Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad, Jon Lewis. I mean it's stupid in a way, but I suppose
it's supply and demand. I suppose if we offered them two hundred grand to come
and play then they might.
MH: But then there would be an onus on them delivering for that money. If
you paid a bowler £200,000 a season you'd be wanting them to take 50 wickets.
They could get injured in the first match and then you'd be criticised for
paying them top dollar.
AB: I had to laugh about the Chris Lewis thing, about him coming on a fat
contract. He was on a match by match. He hasn't played, so… It was a gamble.
It didn't come off, but we didn't have many options. So, we thought: "Okay,
give him a whirl." But it didn't come off. Chris Lewis wasn't the reason
why we didn't perform in the Twenty20.
MH: Even if we had, with the Indian authorities' stance on ICL players we
wouldn't have qualified for the Champions League if we had won it.
AB: But still it would have been nice. Even so, on most occasions we tended to
be fifteen runs short. If you look at that we lost Benno and Butch, who hasn't
played in the competition much, but has done well when he has. Schoey, who is
the main plank of your bowling, was injured and suddenly… and we played
poorly. Look at the side who won it. Middlesex had a good bowling attack, but if
you looked at their batting line up you'd think: "Well they can't win the
Twenty20." But sometimes things go for you and that's how it goes. But if
you're not playing well things don't go for you. You make your own luck. If you
play well, you tend to be lucky. There were one or two occasions early on in the
season when we played the victim a bit, and I've tried to make people aware that
if we do that then there's only one way and that's down. But, since then, we
have kept our heads up and if you do that then eventually you deserve things to
turn around.
MH: With Lancashire struggling, the game at Blackpool next week could go
either way. May be it's a question of getting that first win, then you can go on
to Canterbury, then you can entertain Hampshire, who are struggling even though
they have found this leg-spinner from somewhere and Tomlinson is still taking
wickets…
AB: Tomlinson was someone we thought long and hard about, but you thought:
"We've got some young bowlers, we need some experience, so we'll go with
Pedro. He's a left-armer and he's got a good record." It was certainly
easier to sell from a committee point of view than Tomlinson. Then he goes and
takes fifty wickets. Good on him. Good luck to him. He deserves it because he's
had a tough time with injuries.
AUGUST 2008
|
