Jimmy Adams: Doing it his way

interview by MICHELLE McDONALD

He retreated to South Africa after being discarded by the West Indies selectors, following an unimpressive series in Australia. That was 2001, the same year that Jimmy Adams then popped up on Sky Sports, signalling the start of his TV career. "I was contacted by Sky and asked if I fancied coming in and doing some work with them during that series [WI vs South Africa]. I had the time so I decided I would see what that was like," said the former West Indies captain.

He liked it and they liked him. As a commentator, Adams is content to do things his way. As he said during this recent interview at Lord's "you can't separate who you are from what you do." What he is not is controversial, or a poster child for negativity, but does it mean he wouldn't critique a friend?

MM: Have you patterned yourself off any commentator?

Jimmy Adams: Not really. It's basically people asking you to give your opinion in your own way, your own style. There is a fair bit to learn about timing and how to put it together in the context of the programme, so you need to pick up on that. That is a learning process, but essentially what they want is you to give the listeners or the viewers your view in your particular way.

Who took you through the ropes and showed you what to do?

A lot of times you turn up on a day and people like the producer and the director will give you what they consider to be relevant information. The people who you are working with – your co-commentators and your presenters – will ease you through that process and they are generally very very helpful, because it is in the interest of the whole programme for you to pick things up as quickly as possible. So there is no shortage of good advice and good feedback coming from these people.

Of course they want you to look and sound good on television...

Well at the end of the day, they covered that before they approached you. They see you, they hear you doing an interview years before, and they think you might be somebody that they might be interested in, so you basically covered that ground before you are even approached.

How do you approach TV commentary?

I think that anything that I do, or anything that you or anybody else does, you are basically being yourself. I don't think you can separate what you do from who you are, so I don't think the approach or the general philosophy to doing anything you do is any different because your role has changed. Your basic philosophy towards anything remains pretty much consistent.

I'd like to think that at the end of the day, I can transmit a general feeling of having a fun or love for what I'm watching or what I'm speaking about, and that you can transmit that to people listening, so I don't set about doing any of that consciously. Basically you come here on a day and you tell people what you think, give them your views and your impressions and do it your way. Well you can't do it any other way, but you're getting paid to do it your way; that is what they want and that is the simple equation in a nutshell really.

I didn't see the interview that you did with Brian Lara but lots of people have said that it was excellent. How did you approach doing that interview, what background work you did, etc.?

People call it an interview. What it was for me, it was pretty natural in that it was just having a discussion with Brian. I would have had a set of questions that I thought would have been applicable to what we were getting together for – he was opening his exhibition here at Lords – and I would have been given instructions from my employers about some of the content they would have liked to be involved in it, and then it's basically tying all of that up in a conversation with somebody who I know very well.

So it was more just having a chat with a good friend. The fact that people appreciate it, I enjoy that kind of feedback but I am not going to go on as if it was rocket science or you had to train for 15 days to do it. It was just basically having a talk with a 'bredren' and it just flowed.

There is television and there is your coaching. Do you see any conflict arising in the future that will make you have to choose one or the other?

I don't know. I don't know what the future will hold. The fact of the matter is that I am enjoying what I'm doing and I enjoy the TV work that I've done up to now, but I also enjoy coaching. I've done quite a bit of it over the years. As long as there's time to enjoy both, I will do both. If the day comes when a choice has to be made, I will cross that bridge when I get there. I'm not setting out my stalls at the minute to say this is where I'll be in 5 or 10 years time.

A lot of times, life after professional sports doesn't allow that. You sort of go with the swings and the roundabouts for a few years before that happens, so at the minute I am enjoying both and having a good time.

What was your plan for life after cricket?

To work. [laughs]

Yes, obviously, your parents aren't going to look after you. [laughing]

Exactly!

Is this how you saw it?

No, I didn't have any plans really. I think in a very general sense, I just wanted what cricket had given me for the better part of 20 years - a job doing something that I enjoyed and I would like continue doing that until it's all over. I'd like to wake up on a morning, looking forward to whatever it is I'm doing on the day, and I'm still doing that now. The fact that I can't plan it for two, three, four, ten years in advance doesn't take away from the fact that I'm still waking up on a morning enjoying what I'm doing.

Do you find that being on television as a commentator, you have to temper any comments that you might want to make on controversial topics?

Not really, not really. I think all the commentators, myself included, are in effect being themselves whether they are on camera or not. Certainly the ones I know, they don't suddenly go from a Jekyll to a Hyde. I don't think I am any different. I don't go anywhere looking for controversy. I don't go anywhere looking to be anything I would hope other than positively trying to sell the game.

This has been a fantastic journey for me and I would hope that just by saying the right words at the right time, people watching and listening might pick up that it is a fantastic game to be involved in, whether you're playing or watching. There are times when you might critique either a team, or player or anybody who's involved in the cricketing fraternity; it's part of your job that you're going to critique that person, but I'd like to think that the choice I make is to do it in a way that is positive, rather than in a negative fashion.

I'd like to think that most people would take it that for me, I am just having fun. I had a great time when I was there, and I want everybody else to have a great time and ultimately that will fashion how I relate the game to people. So no, I don't have a problem, you call it controversy, I will be more specific; sometimes you have to critique performances. It is part of what I do.

So would you critique a friend, for example, Brian?

Yes.

On television?

Yes. There have been times when I haven't agreed with tactical decisions, but I would also temper that by saying that usually when I was on the cricket field under any captain – Brian, Richie, Marlon Tucker, Courtney Walsh – there were many times……I mean we used to have a joke in the Jamaica dressing room – When Adams wins the toss he wants to bat; when Walsh wins the toss he wants to bowl.

Now there are valid cricket reasons for both, but there are many times when I would be walking out behind Courtney and you just look at Sabina Park and you're thinking what could be happening if you were batting this morning, instead you're going to have to be standing up at gully. Now usually Courtney Walsh would make inroads in the first session so he'd be justified in his decision, but if you asked me, I wouldn't do it.

But now in the commentary box, by the same token, if it's not something that I would do or suggest or recommend, then if I didn't say that, albeit in a positive way, I think I would be taking people's money for nothing, or taking it under false pretences, because they are asking you for your opinion, delivered in your style. You might have some commentators who people might say are very abrasive, but the people who run this business have asked them to come in and do it their way. They see something about them that would add value to the way in which cricket is delivered to the public, and they put a value on it.

No acting required.

Not yet, not yet. It's sports commentary, it's not really Hollywood, you know what I mean [laughing]. There are a few who could be good actors and you get somebody like a David Lloyd who is fantastic. He has his special way of delivering, that millions of people around the world love, and he draws a wage on turning up everyday and delivering it like that. If I tried to do it like that, they would fire me. If he tried to do it the way I did it, they would probably fire him as well!