Former Australian cricket team captain and coach Bob Simpson passed away on Saturday, aged 89.

Simpson made an indelible mark on the game as an opening batter, brilliant slips fielder and handy leg spinner; and as a respected and long-serving coach, including of the Australian men’s team.

The legendary Aussie also penned a widely loved column for Sportstar in the 2000s called Cricket Corner, which involved his take on erstwhile issues facing the game globally. Here are some excerpts:

No point in comparing different eras [March 11,2000]

There has been much conjecture in recent months about just how good the current Australian team is and where they rank in the best ever Aussie squad. Steve Waugh is on record as saying he believes they are up with the best, including the 1948 Bradman Invincibles. He also claims that the present group are the best one-day team that he has played with. This is a natural thing for a captain to suggest, but I believe that he may be just carried away a bit.

Certainly, this is a fine era in Australian cricket and they have performed creditably since winning the World Cup. But the best he has played in! That is another matter, particularly when the three most senior players, Shane Warne, Steve and Mark Waugh, are not playing as well as they used to. In Steve’s case he was, in my view, one of the finest one-day bowlers I have ever seen and undoubtedly the best in the death overs. These days he hardly bowls at all and he has only scored one 50 since the World Cup in one-day internationals. Mark Waugh has also struggled for most of the season with the bat, while Shane Warne is a good rather than a great bowler he was only a couple of years ago.

With the present programming I have grave doubts whether present teams will ever reach the allround performance of the past. These days teams are not allowed the luxury of acclimatising to the conditions in overseas countries. At one time when tours were longer, teams arrived early and played five or six first class matches in the new country before the first Test and had a chance to get used to local conditions.

The excellent West Indies of 1960-61 were a classic example of how extra time enabled a team to come to terms with foreign conditions. They arrived in Australia with a big reputation, but didn’t win a match when they visited the five mainland States before the first Test. Their form and attitude were terrible and so worried were the Australian cricket Board that Sir Donald Bradman, the then Chairman of the Australian selectors, sought Richie Benaud’s permission to speak to the Test team at our dinner the night before the first Test.

His message to us was very clear: Australian cricket is in the doldrums, the West Indies are in terrible trouble, we need a good series and I want this team to play the most entertaining cricket possible. He wasn’t suggesting that we take it easy, just play attractive cricket. He needn’t have worried. The West Indies adapted to the local conditions, played brilliantly in the first Test of the series and the 1960-61 tour was perhaps the best ever.

These days it is a different situation with the programming allowing the teams only a minimum number of games before the first Test, generally one or two, particularly in the sub-continent. As a result they find it very difficult to play well early. This has been already demonstrated on Australia’s last tour to India and Sri Lanka. India easily accounted for them in the first two Tests and it was only in the third when it was far too late that Australia played well and won a belated victory. It was much the same in Sri Lanka. The home team easily won the first Test in Kandy, were on top in the second when rain washed out play and it was only in the third and last Test that Australia got on top before rain again washed out play.

Australia dominated both India and Pakistan in Australia, but battled to a 3-2 win against the weak West Indies in the Windies in early 1999. A realistic look at these performances shows it hasn’t always been one way for the Australians. They have dominated with a wonderful new ball attack on the faster Australian pitches, but our batsmen have struggled on the slower and often turning wickets overseas.

In many ways present day Test players get it tougher than the teams of the past. They are certainly better paid and often get a chance to build up personal performances against the new and weaker Test nations, but frequent tours to almost every part of the cricketing world with inadequate preparation can make it very difficult. It is brilliant when a player is in form and prospering, but very tough when you are out of sorts and on foreign often difficult local pitches.

That, however, is also why it is impossible to compare one era with another. I have always thought it was a useless exercise and never have done it. There are too many different factors involved, such as playing conditions, strength of the opposition, weather and changes in the laws. My attitude always has been, ‘let’s enjoy the spectacle and skill of the modern players, for that is what we have on display’ and no matter what some old-timers may say, they are generally pretty good. 

1985 was the beginning of explosion [February 3, 2001]

It appears that every second day or so a record is broken in international cricket.

No, make that more definite, a record is broken every few days. Such is the volume of international cricket now being played.

This of course is immensely helped by the new countries that have been admitted to the International brotherhood. I, for instance, never even have played a Test match against New Zealand. Such was the arrogance and insular attitude of the Australian Cricket Board that they deemed New Zealand not good enough to play against Australia even though other nations had been playing against them for decades. In fact, it wasn’t until the 70s that international cricket was regularly played between New Zealand and Australia.

Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia, even though they were a separate country, played in the South African local first class competition and the likes of Colin Bland, perhaps the finest field- represented South Africa.

Bangladesh in my time was still part of Pakistan, while Sri Lanka or Ceylon as it was then known, was only a place to play cricket when the ship stopped for eight hours or so on the way to England. 

Now, of course, all these countries are full fledged international competitors with varying standards. How then are records and statistics relevant both at Test and One-Dayers level? Vary according to the coverage it receives in the media. 

As a comparison basis, however, probably not as useful as it was in the past. At one time, it was said, and probably quite accurately, that if a player averaged a certain figure in one era he would probably do it in another, I could accept this, for with the lengthy time I spent in cricket I felt I was reasonably equipped to judge whether a player who averaged say 45 per innings in the fifties was the equal of another player who averaged the same in the seventies. As a general rule I would say yes.

Now I am less sure, for it is much harder to judge with so many weaker countries around and the extraordinary number of not outs secured by the batsmen.

For instance, Don Bradman was not out every eight innings and Gary Sobers every 7.6, while Allan Border was not out every 6 innings and Stephen Waugh every 5 innings. Obviously the more not outs the better the average.

Personally I feel there should be a cut out system with two groups, those who finished their careers say before 1985 and those after. Nineteen eighty five was the beginning of the explosion and also about the start of the introduction of new teams. It would also. I believe, be a more accurate showcase of comparison of players’ talents, for batsmen as well as the bowlers.

It is generally agreed that it is almost impossible to compare eras and I have always refused to do this or even try to select the best team ever, for I always felt it was a pretty futile exercise. Conditions, rules, circumstances change so much. For instance, up to the middle 30s batsmen could only be out LBW if the ball pitched on the stumps. Now of course you can be out LBW if the ball pitches outside the off stump and the batsman is struck in front of the stumps. This was a big plus for the bowlers.

On the other hand wickets were uncovered so bowlers often had the advantage of sticky dogs to bowl on. New balls were not always taken after 80 overs or so and in the late 40s the new ball was taken every 40, eight-ball overs.

In the 30s, often referred to as the Golden Age of cricket, Sir Donald Bradman told me the pitches were as perfect for batting as he had ever seen. Now wickets generally have deteriorated and countries are more inclined to fiddle the surface for a home team advantage. Balls have changed or rather the seam has been altered and in England in particular, the seam has been lowered and raised, particularly in the last two decades or so. Now, of course, we have a third umpire in the international scene being called on to make judgment on certain types of dismissals, such as run outs and stumping. I personally find this a very equitable situation.

Undoubtedly, international umpires and referees have helped raise the standard of umpiring throughout the world and claims of bias in away series are much more muted than they once were. Comparisons of averages and aggregates are generally futile, for they are so affected by the above points but they can often be intriguing. For instance, if we took the average of a batsman as a starting point and used it in comparison with players from one period to another it is quite revealing.

For instance, if Bradman played as many innings as Allan Border using the above premise, he would have scored 26,484 runs. Sir Garfield Sobers would have scored 15,311 runs and Viv Richards 13,271. Now what about a comparison of the greatest all rounder ever – Sir Garfield Sobers. I will use, as a comparison once again, Allan Border’s long career.

Allan Border played in 156 Tests, the most ever so I will use this as the bench mark and average out Sobers _ wickets and catches as if he played as many Tests as 3 AB. m Sobers took 109 catches in 93 Tests, an average Z of 1.17’2 per Test. If he had played 150 Tests he would have taken 182 catches. Bowling in 93 Tests, Sobers took 235 wickets an average of 2.526 per Test. Once again if he had played the same number of Tests as Border he would have taken 394 wickets. Just think about it: Sobers, G. 15,311 runs. “ “ 394 wickets. “ “ 182 catches.

Can you imagine just how much hype those figures would create today? But you cannot compare or can you when you are talking about a genius like Sir Garfield Sobers?