So I’ve read the report. Hindsight is also a wonderful thing to have, but this is what I get from it.
The gulf between CA and the players is enormous, and little is being done to actively narrow that gulf. As long as there is this much vitriol between the two parties then nothing good can happen to Australian cricket. The influx of business people onto the board of CA has brought with it a manner of looking to increase profits as its major focus, thus reducing the game to a ‘win-win-win’ culture at the expense of the glory of the game of cricket itself. It also put its own players offside by attempting to take even more profits for itself in the last collective bargaining agreement, a process that drove a wedge between board and players the likes of which hasn’t been seen since World Series Cricket. With such lack of trust or communication on both sides, it certainly allowed what happened in South Africa to occur without proper governance. The rapprochement of these two bodies must be the number one consideration and should be done with immediate effect, and both sides must be willing to do so without prejudice if they are both true to their word that they have the best interests of Australian cricket at heart.
Player behaviour not being stopped before it got out of control contributed highly. CA didn’t do enough to restrain the increasing poor behaviour of both individual and team on the field. The dressing room – including coach, support staff and senior players – also did little or nothing to reign in this behaviour, and by not doing so gave the impression that it was acceptable. This appeared as though it gave the group a feeling of independent superiority in the way they approached the game, on and off the field. Neither CA or the players seemed to understand how uncomfortable it became for their fans to watch what was going on during the game because of the sideline of sledging and errant behaviour, and this lack of connection with those that watch their games was a major oversight. There needs to be a better system and understanding in place as to what behaviour is accepted and not accepted on and off the cricket field.
Both sides talk about ‘grass roots’ cricket, but what is actually being actively done to keep kids in the game, and keep adults participating as well? Kids are dropping out of the game before reaching Grade level, and less players are actively playing every year. Anyone who has seen how fans have flocked to watch Smith in Grade cricket, and how they have reacted to him making himself available for autographs and photos, must understand that this is where the lost generations can be attracted once again. Getting all international players back to the roots of Grade cricket and have them mingle with kids and older fans alike is the best possible publicity for cricket. The same should occur in domestic one dayers and Shield games. It may be a pain for the players, but the end result is surely more important that some inconvenience for these players for a few times during the season.
It is inconceivable that David Peever can retain his position. The fact that he refused to release this report until he was confirmed for a second term of three years is abhorrent. That he can hold onto his position given the damning nature of what has been released in just not possible. Mark Taylor needs to be the leader. He no longer has TV commentary taking up his time, and he can take on the role he has been groomed for since his playing retirement. As a familiar face and voice trusted by the general public, he can surely hasten an agreement between the board and the players association. As a known commodity and leader throughout the cricket world he can also raise confidence in Australia’s governance by being its figurehead.
The selection Process as it stands is flawed. It is not necessarily performance based, which leads to disillusionment of both players and supporters. This is at all levels, not just international level. While everyone views cricket differently and has different points of view on what kind of player will succeed in different environments, surely performance should be rewarded with higher selection rather than a feeling that a particular player who has done less may succeed in a certain situation. In the past players missed out on international careers by the sheer brilliance of those in the Australian team at the time. Now players who are topping aggregates consistently can’t seem to get a chance in front of others who are seen as having the ‘talent’ to succeed without actually having those performances behind them to justify it.
While it has been seen that the length of penalty handed out to the three players in question may have been excessive, any change to that now after the release of this report would be damning. No matter how much CA may have been seen to have been a part of the surrounding story that led to the ball tampering in South Africa, the individuals involved are (as far as we know) the only ones who conceived, acted on or covered up the actual event. They may be contrite over their actions, but cutting the ban short only looks like a weak response to this release of this report. They should stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment