England captain Tony Greig is introduced to the Queen by Cecil Paris, the president of the MCC

Colonial cousins: The South African captain of England, Tony Greig, shakes hands with Queen Elizabeth at Lord's while the West Indian players look on, 1976

© Patrick Eagar/Getty Images


The shades of 1976

Forty years later we can understand that famous English summer in a more nuanced way

Sankaran Krishna |

For a 16-year-old Indian obsessed with cricket, the contest between Tony Greig's England and Clive Lloyd's West Indies in the summer of 1976 was a morality play in black and white, if you'll pardon the pun. Greig, South African born and raised, and as blond and white as one can get, had rashly promised to make West Indies "grovel". That a privileged child of apartheid could use such a word when about to commence a Test series against a team comprised of the descendants of slaves and indentured labourers was breathtaking in its lack of political or historical nous. Forty years from the events of that tumultuous time, it is an opportune moment to see how things looked back then and in what ways our perspectives may have changed.

The two teams could not have been more different when it came to charisma. England was a veritable Dad's Army with the likes of Brian Close, John Edrich and David Steele manning their top order, and even their younger lot - Peter Willey and Bob Woolmer for instance - seemed stodgy and reliable at best. West Indies, on the other hand, oozed flamboyance: Viv Richards, Alvin Kallicharran, Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, Roy Fredericks, Collis King and Michael Holding, to mention only some. Like most teenage fans across the world, I did not merely want West Indies to win the series, I wanted to see them annihilate England.

Greig's relocation to England to pursue his dreams was an index of the racial privilege that secured him easy transit across the white Commonwealth

My images of that summer were largely from the BBC's commentary accessed via a short-wave radio that was, to put it mildly, on the temperamental side, and Khalid Ansari's Sportsweek magazine with its superb line-up of syndicated columnists and black-and-white photographs. It was almost better than being there, because your imagination had to work overtime to create reality. I mainly recall Richards and Greenidge repeatedly savaging the English attack, Greig's stumps sent cartwheeling time after time - and that Holding spell to Close that made your blood run cold.

I had thought it a one-sided contest, with England on the ropes all the time. Yet, as I pored over the scorecards recently, I realised the series had been better fought than I remembered. The first two Tests were drawn, with England having the edge in the second. They did get blown away in the third, but the fourth was close: Greig made 116 and an unbeaten 76 and England fell 55 runs short. West Indies romped home in the fifth Test for a final scoreline of 3-0, but 2-1 would not have done injustice to the merits of the contest.

There was something quintessentially English (and utterly daft) about preparing to face some of the world's fastest bowlers by enlisting the services of a 38-year-old opener (Edrich) and a 45-year-old (Close) to bolster the middle order. It was as if amid a tumultuous decade marked by race riots, miners' strikes, economic strife and England's seemingly inexorable decline toward a querulous post-imperial mediocrity, the selectors had decided they would quite simply turn the clock back and restore the old order through sheer denial. Send in the old guard and keep the restive hoi polloi in line, as it were. What I had forgotten, and the scorecards now reminded me, was that until they were dropped for good after the third Test, Close and Edrich did better than most of their younger counterparts in dealing with the West Indian fast bowlers. The experiment with geriatrics wasn't the dismal failure I had thought it to be.

Tony the showman: Greig charms the Eden Gardens crowd in 1977 by dramatically falling to the ground after a firecracker burst

Tony the showman: Greig charms the Eden Gardens crowd in 1977 by dramatically falling to the ground after a firecracker burst © Patrick Eagar/Getty Images

The third Test, at Old Trafford, has become infamous for the post-tea session on the third day, when the West Indian fast bowlers, Holding in particular, unleashed a barrage of bouncers that seemed intent on maiming Edrich and Close (promoted to opener in this Test) rather than getting them out. The fearsome shellacking they took that evening, and especially Close's refusal to show the slightest sign of fear or pain despite wearing many a ball on his ribs, shoulder and forearms, has justly gone into legend.

It was an evening of colliding masculinities in its own way: the young, fit and lissome figure of Holding, rocking to the rhythm and riding on the waves of a cheering Caribbean crowd in England, versus the dogged, dour and bald Close, defiantly refusing to concede his wicket come what may. Empire held - at least for the duration of that evening, as Edrich and Close saw the day through without being parted. The next morning England's capitulation was swift and complete, in large part because the West Indian fast bowlers tried to get - rather than knock - the batsmen out.

There is little doubt that Greig's "grovel" comment united and enraged the West Indian players, as it should have done. But any notion that a single utterance can efface the realities of class, race or ethnic divisions, and unite a team for years to come, as Stevan Riley's Fire in Babylon documentary, among others, implies, is simplistic. When Kallicharran reflected on what toughened him up for the challenges of the game at the highest level, he ascribed it not to a fictive West Indian unity forged in the crucible of resistance to white colonial domination, but in the fractured racial politics of post-colonial Guyana:

"Guyana unfortunately became a divided country since we were born - between Afro-Caribbeans and Indians. So it became a divided country racially. How are you going to be successful? … Obviously the Afro-Caribbeans, you got to understand that they are more athletic and they have got rhythm and they are quick. So basically they become the quick bowlers that made West Indies cricket successful. We being Indian boys growing up in the villages, we are not used to this kind of life. You should sit in the dressing room and you hear the comments. 'You Indian boys are too weak. You are not strong enough. You can't do this. You eat dal and chawal bhaji [pulses and rice and vegetables]. You boys must go and eat beef.' It became an intimidation. For me, I took it as [saying that] I've got to work harder if I am going to be successful. That is what I did. I used to train harder. I used to run and run and run. So that played a big part in my athleticism. At the end of it I became one of the best fielders in the West Indies. I am not complimenting myself. That is what made me, and the hardship became easy."

Kallicharran's recollections complicate the narrative of black versus white that dominates the discussions around 1976. That narrative, perhaps unwittingly, throws into shade the struggles of Indian and other minority cricketers in the Caribbean to find a place in the sun.

It has taken me a long time to view the actions of at least some cricketers who went to play in apartheid South Africa in a slightly different perspective

Kallicharran's reminiscences jive well with the memories of my Guyanese Indian friend and fellow cricket tragic. He remembers his dad turning up the volume on the radio commentary back in Georgetown when Sunil Gavaskar or Mohinder Amarnath batted well against the West Indian fast bowlers - not because he wanted to hear it better, but because he wanted his Afro-Caribbean neighbours to hear it better. That was his way of showing them that the notions of Indian weakness against pace were a myth. There were more racial divides at play than just those between white and black in 1976: some were merely more visible than others.

Greig's South African-ness played a huge part in the animosity that his comment evoked, and the West Indian players and fans were explicit about that. In the late 1960s and early '70s, few issues divided the cricketing world as intensely as the need to boycott apartheid South Africa, and it seemed to the coloured nations that England (and Australia) had to be dragged kicking and screaming to see the light in this regard. Greig's relocating to England to pursue his dreams was an index of the racial privilege that secured him easy transit across the white Commonwealth.

A 1983 news report on West Indies players choosing to tour apartheid South Africa

A 1983 news report on West Indies players choosing to tour apartheid South Africa © Sydney Morning Herald

Indians of my generation had watched with chagrin as we forfeited the chance to win the 1974 Davis Cup because our opponents were South Africa and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi decided we should forfeit the finals rather than legitimise the apartheid regime by playing there. It galled us that the tennis authorities would not call for a boycott of that nation and that instead we had to penalise ourselves. English cricketers like Graham Gooch, Geoff Boycott, Alan Knott, John Emburey and Mike Gatting lost all credibility with many fans of my generation when they were lured by apartheid South Africa's coin on the rebel tours. And it vexes me no end that today the likes of Gooch and Boycott are feasting merrily at the subcontinent's generous table as media analysts, coaches and consultants. Once a mercenary, always a mercenary, I think with some bitterness. These guys weren't journeymen cricketers who desperately needed the money to get through the off season but players who had had reasonably long and successful Test careers.

On the matter of boycotting apartheid South Africa and on a host of other issues pertaining to imperialism and its complex legacies, England exemplified the amnesia so wonderfully expressed by Whiskey Sisodia, a character in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, when he stutters, "The trouble with the Engenglish is that their hiss hiss history happened overseas, so they dodo don't know what it means." Having invented the game and spread it to the far corners of the world through conquest, England seemed to display a strange and provincial inability to see how its actions might appear to others, leave alone own up to the responsibility that came with Empire.

It was an evening of colliding masculinities in its own way: the young, fit and lissome figure of Holding versus the dogged, dour and bald Close

It has taken people like me a long time to view the actions of at least some of those cricketers who went to play in apartheid South Africa in a slightly different perspective. The rebel tours by non-white teams from Sri Lanka and especially the West Indies were important in this shift. Holding, Lloyd, Richards and others who criticised their compatriots who went to South Africa in 1983 sound a bit sanctimonious once you consider the dire economic circumstances in which many of those rebel tourists found themselves. They included Kallicharran, Lawrence Rowe, Bernard Julien, Collis King, Sylvester Clarke and Colin Croft - guys who in their prime were among the best in the world, not just the Caribbean. A sportsman's shelf life is extraordinarily short (well, unless you were an English batsman in the 1970s) and could be rendered briefer through injury. Committing to sport at that level could mean you forwent other marketable skills or educational qualifications, especially if you were from a poorer country and an ordinary socioeconomic background. I now have a tinge of sympathy for those West Indian and Sri Lankan cricketers who broke rank. Their economic circumstances may not have allowed them the luxury of hewing more closely to their ethical principles.

The issue of apartheid was the backdrop against which Greig's "grovel" comment gained salience. He should have known better than to have used that word, and as a 29-year-old he couldn't exactly use youthful ignorance as an alibi. Yet it was hard for me to square Greigy with being racist. He had endeared himself to Indian fans both on the 1972-73 and the 1976-77 tours (the latter as captain), and unlike many of his team-mates who acted as if they had been frogmarched to the subcontinent by their cricket board, he seemed to enjoy India's heat, dust and the heaving crowds that thronged the stadiums. His career as a commentator only confirmed his love for the game irrespective of the colour of those who played it. His ebullient voice became the soundtrack for Sachin Tendulkar's brilliant knocks against Australia in Sharjah and Sri Lanka's charge to victory in the 1996 World Cup. The contrast between his even-handedness and the one-eyed partisanship of many Australian commentators on Channel Nine was stark. With the passage of time, I am less inclined to be as judgemental of Greig's outrageous comment as I once was. It was flip, ill-advised and freighted with a painful history - but it may not have been malicious, let alone racist.

Need a battalion, not a bat: England batsman John Edrich hands over an extra-large bat brought to the field by a spectator to West Indies keeper Deryck Murray, Old Trafford, 1976

Need a battalion, not a bat: England batsman John Edrich hands over an extra-large bat brought to the field by a spectator to West Indies keeper Deryck Murray, Old Trafford, 1976 © Patrick Eagar/Getty Images

It is strange to think that the larger-than-life Tony Greig has joined the firmament of deceased cricketers long before his time. Despite leading players off to Kerry Packer's World Series and breaking the trust reposed in him by the English establishment, and despite his most un-English effervescence, he was welcomed back into the fold before his death. His wryly thoughtful Cowdrey Lecture is well worth a read. Holding's Jamaican drawl is now the distinctive voice of English commentary, and his measured calm is such a contrast to the terrifying spell he bowled back then. Close recently joined his skipper Greig in the world beyond, and remains synonymous with the sort of insanely courageous batting that we may (fortunately) never have to witness again.

And though black pride and the fire in Babylon endured for an impressive two decades after that tour, that very success is now used to indict contemporary Caribbean ineptitude in the longer format of the game. A multiracial South African team is back in the cricket fraternity, the centre of the game's gravity is in India, and the ICC is headquartered in Dubai. That almost none of this might have seemed conceivable in the uncharacteristically hot summer of 1976 should remind us that what makes the future the future is precisely the impossibility of anticipating its trajectories. And in that, it resembles nothing more than a keenly fought cricket match.

When not teaching political science at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Sankaran Krishna writes on cricket for ESPNcricinfo's Cordon. @SankaranKrishn





  • POSTED BY Yankindc on | December 17, 2016, 1:34 GMT

    I read this article today. It brought back great and very fond memories. I was almost 13 growing up in Bangalore and went to watch my very first test match which happened to be WI vs Ind in Bangalore. I was super excited to witness Viv Richards and Greenidge's VERY FIRST test match, their debut! Lloyd clubbed 163, Greenidge made 107, 93, and Viv 0, 12. WI crushed India. It was jaw-dropping to watch Andy Roberts' run-up. This was before the days of Holding, and Marshall. I remember it 42 years later.

  • POSTED BY Harsh on | August 28, 2016, 14:48 GMT

    In 1976 Viv Richards blazed away as no batsmen did arguably since Bradman doing a medley of past batting greats like Headley, Weekes, Worrel and Sobers.He blended the power of a bulldozer with the imagination of a painter.Gordon Greenidge merged technical skill and agression as few opening batsmen had ever done before with imperious driving,pulling and hooking.Andy Roberts took bowling variations to it' s highest zenith while Michael Holding made the art of fast bowling look like sheer poetry more than any paceman ever.The West Indian team's emphatic win at the Oval gave them the cutting edge over past triumphant sides under Worrel,Sobers anbd Kanhai,establishing their supremacy as a champion team.In many ways it laid the base for West Indian domination of cricket after the humilation they faced in Australia the previous winter. This team blended the creativity of a musician with the skill of an acrobat and the agression of a tiger.

  • POSTED BY Harsh on | August 28, 2016, 14:15 GMT

    This 1976 West Indian team defined a new era in the history of their cricket.Although the 1963 or 1966 teams which triumphed in England may have been more talented with the likes of Sobers,Kanhai ,Worell,Gibbs,Hunte Nurse etc they did not reveal the determination,agression and collective spirit as the 1976 team did.Clive Lloyd nurtured a bunch of talented individuals into a world -beating unit.No past West Indian team blazed the spirit of the 1976 team who revealed vengeance against racism and competitiveness at it's highest zenith Worrel's team of 1963 behaved like gentleman exuding grace lwhile Lloyd's men resembled an army batallion seeking revenge on the enemy.The power of Greenidge,the imagination of Viv Richards,the craft of Roberts and the poetry of Holding illuminated England like no touring cricket team previously .

  • POSTED BY Ray on | August 11, 2016, 18:46 GMT

    (2 of 2): As the author points out, England in 1976 was not a happy place socially or economically and the future of the likes of Knott and others was anything but assured. Although similar issues faced the non-English rebels, it might even be argued that they were in a better position financially. As overseas county (and Sheffield Shield) players, they would also have earned decent money which when repatriated would have had greater spending power in the Caribbean than in the UK.

    For the record, I agreed with the ban on sporting links with apartheid SA in 1976, and I haven't changed my mind 40 years later. IMO all those who took part in the tour(s) - whatever the nationality or colour - were morally bankrupt.

  • POSTED BY Ray on | August 11, 2016, 18:44 GMT

    (1 of 2): This is an interesting piece and I certainly learnt a few things. For example, whilst I was aware of the inter-island rivalry in the WI, I had little idea (and truth to be told, had given little thought to) the racial differences in the WI team. Unfortunately, the value of the piece is diminished for me by an inconsistent and over-simplistic analysis: The English players who went on the rebel tours are labelled as 'comfortably-rich' mercenaries while the non-white players are excused any wrong-doing because of the dire economic circumstances of their homelands. IMO all those who went on the rebel tours should be judged by the same yardstick: Boycott, Knott and other English players were at the end of their careers. While they had probably enjoyed decent wages during their playing careers, I doubt very much whether they would have made sufficient money on which to retire.

  • POSTED BY Gulu Ezekiel on | August 11, 2016, 18:36 GMT

    Srinivas, just to set the record straight: Sportsweek (1968-89) and Sportsworld (1978-94) were not 'sister publications. The former was published by Inquilab Publications owned and edited by Khalid Ansari from Bombay, the latter was published by Ananda Bazaar Publications, edited by Tiger Pataudi. I have almost full collections of both.

  • POSTED BY Richard on | August 11, 2016, 7:53 GMT

    A very interesting article that brought back many memories. I would question Indira Gandhi's decision that India should forfeit the finals of the 1974 Davis Cap because it would mean playing South Africa. Consider what South Africans of all races would have thought had India beaten South Africa. It could mean that she was afraid of the implications of India going and LOOSING. Gooch, Boycott et al are accused of being "lured by South African coin on the rebel tours" but then we are told "these guys weren't journeymen cricketers who desperately needed the money." There were cricketers who objected to the ban on going to South Africa. After all, if governments really had wanted to defeat apartheid it could have been achieved economically, but "business" in the broadest sense of the word continued as normal. It is also worthwhile bearing in mind that early in the 1970s private tours to South Africa had included coloured cricketers and eyebrows had not been raised about that.

  • POSTED BY Krishnaswami on | August 11, 2016, 5:31 GMT

    As an Indian, I can definitely say that there is love and respect for the WI cricketers here in India. In this way I am with the author of this article. Anytime an article involving WI comes up, I jump in. Those Short wave commentary days!!!! Wonderful. Wonderful to listen BBC and ABC commentaries with WI on song. In India, Stadiums used to be full and I heard stories from my friends how they planned their trip from far off places to be in Chennai for 6 days for test cricket. Having met lot of Guyanese in Florida, I can safely say they have respect for the cricketers of India/Pak origin. And they were proud of WI cricketers. I am rooting for an even contest in the current series and that is because I want WI back to be the force of the past.

  • POSTED BY Anthony on | August 10, 2016, 18:49 GMT

    That was a lovely piece, very evocative and beautifully written. However I think it gets the class politics a little awry. Weirdly, that England team was more working class - in the sense, at least, of being state rather than privately educated, than the current team. Cricket in the UK has become (like many sports) dominated by public school educated people. And, truly the establishment always distrusted Greig. But these are quibbles - really enjoyed this.

  • POSTED BY michael on | August 10, 2016, 15:32 GMT

    I have one serious issue with this piece. Please do not try and justify going and playing in South Africa during the apartheid regime by using financial considerations and who was poor and who wasn't. If being poor was a good reason to endorse the apartheid regime, then being poor is a good excuse for stealing and committing other crimes for financial reward. As far as I am concerned going there and doing business with that regime is endorsing their behaviour and that's as big a crime as one could commit. Go and ask the then oppressed people of South Africa what they thought.

  • POSTED BY Edwin on | August 10, 2016, 14:03 GMT

    Why no mention of the self-imposed exile of England's best batsman - Boycott? We'll never how different results may (or may not have been) had he made himself available.....

  • POSTED BY ken on | August 10, 2016, 13:36 GMT

    Wow....as a guyanese cricket enthusiast...you are spot on with your assessment on this piece. Lovely piece of writing and you bring nostalgic memories to all of us. Its amazing how everyone loved the West Indians cricket as a kid. Keep writing these beautiful pieces...good job

  • POSTED BY mohammed on | August 10, 2016, 11:26 GMT

    Another opportunity to engage in Tony Grieg bashing!! I was also 16 and watched the whole test series on TV. Yes Grieg was wrong to say what he did but that was 1976 and we didn't have all the political correctness we do now. But I remember his interview in full and very well. It was on Sportsnight ( Wednesday nights) and he also said that "WI were magnificent cricketers but when they are down they grovel and I intend to make them grovel" He had seeen the WI perform very badly against AUS in 75/76 so there was some merit in that but unfortunate use of words. It was more so as he was white South African. He spent the rest of his life apologising!! and indeed went on his knees in front of the WI fans at the Oval, a fact many overlook. His subsequent life showed what he did for every modern cricketer by joining the Packer "circus". Grieg came to England to study not just to play for ENG.Boycott is now fetted in India but refused to tour there and is much more culpable

  • POSTED BY bhanu67325088 on | August 10, 2016, 11:25 GMT

    Thanks for bringing the memories back Krishna.Those were the days when one had to rely on radio commentary or the next day newspaper for updates.I remember asking the gentleman living downstairs in my hometown for regular scores and when the Windies were doing well I used to strut around with big satisfaction!!Players were not well paid during those days, it was natural that they found touring South Africa lucrative.Even I was pained when many of my favorite West Indies players opted for the South African tour but now its evident monetary considerations forced them into taking the decision.Excellent piece of writing and oh yes the pictures of the West Indies vs England series in the Sportsweek and its sister publication Sportsworld are very fresh in the memory...!!!!

  • POSTED BY Cricinfouser on | August 10, 2016, 10:46 GMT

    Ahh...those were the days: the sound of leather on Brian Close. England had a pretty good side - add Snow, Willis, Underwood, Knott and Amiss to the names you've given. All except Amiss would walk into any side in the world today, so 2-1 probably would've been fair.

  • POSTED BY Giles on | August 10, 2016, 8:52 GMT

    That is just a wonderful, wonderful piece.

  • POSTED BY Chris on | August 10, 2016, 5:43 GMT

    i thought i was the only one who remembered timur mohammed. but i remember him mainly for one bad match. it was against the touring english, and, i'm not sure, but i think it was played in trinidad. i remember my older brothers talking about how it was trinidad opener richard gabriel's best/last chance to get into the test side. skipper timur dropped two straightforward catches in the slips while england piled up runs, then, with gabriel on 35, timur ran him out. i remember the commentators saying as gabriel walked off "if looks could kill". i got a copy of the 1979 cricket annual that year, and his picture was in it for a knock of 93, not for that match though. that was also the time of the supertests when lloyd (197) and roberts (89) put on 226 in 211 minutes to crush australia [what things stick in your memory]. that was in that issue too.

  • POSTED BY Ashok on | August 10, 2016, 5:25 GMT

    To be fair to English cricketers who went to South Africa, the manner in which the holier-than-thou establishment treated its players in that era would have generated little (if any) sense of loyalty. They too had a future to secure, much like their counterparts elsewhere.

  • POSTED BY jaswant on | August 9, 2016, 22:40 GMT

    I remember Timur Mohammed,a talented left handed batsman who occasionally bowled leg break.I saw him made a beautiful double hundred at Canje Rosehall. In that match Roger Harper made a spectacular hundred. It's a long time ago. Coming back to those days,it was the turning around of WI cricket which saw them almost effortlessly beating the world.The chance of being selected in the WI team was tough,Timur though a good batsman could not find a place. It was like a renaissance period in the rejuvenation of WI cricket. Check the scroll and every name was huge. They had the best batters and a four prong attack which lasted effectively for nearly two decades. I do not want to address the racial aspect as it was not a one way road. Most of it were as a result of politics and foreign influence.

  • POSTED BY Aubline on | August 9, 2016, 21:16 GMT

    Your more nuanced view still seems to accommodate some rather ill conceived ideas about England. In the decades before Grieg moved to England to 'pursue his dreams', countless others of all races and from all parts of the world had already done the same. By 1976, immigration had fundamentally changed every city in Britain. Greig certainly had an easier transition into British life than most but so did D'Oliveira and other overseas cricketers. This was on account of their profession, not 'racial privilege'.

  • POSTED BY fizala9202934 on | August 8, 2016, 3:28 GMT

    Great article Sankaran, you touched on a number of issues here. Growing up in Guyana in the 70's, one can relate to the Black-Brown conflicts, and how it played out on the cricket field. The Indians in Guyana rooted for the touring Indian and Pakistan team, some say it was because how the Guyanes Indians felt excluded from West Indian team, our guys were not getting selected. That may have some merit in it. Timur Mohammed being an example, however that being said most of the Guyanese indians saw themselves as affiliated with the touring Indian and Pakistani teams. I remember my grandfather who did not care much for cricket has framed photo of the 50's Pakistani touring team prominently displayed above the door way of his home. When Pakistan toured Guyana in 77, I stood outside Bourda cricket ground and watched as the Guyanese Indians ignored Roy Fredricks who was standing outside the ground and treated the Pakistanis as some sort of royals, all due to cultural and ethnic affiliation.