For what it’s worth, my opinion remains as it has for some months
The back-and-forth over the past week over the perceived attitude of the Australian Test team on the field in the recent white ball cricket and how they should conduct themselves over the upcoming Test series at least filled a void in the cricket scheduling as the public waited for this Test series to begin. It also gave Michael Clarke some valuable airtime given he will be missing from our TV commentary teams this summer. While nothing seems to have been solved during this little spat, it shows just how much the incident at Newlands in March has affected both our national cricket team and those that follow it, because opinion remains divided to the point that a desire to improve the behaviour of the team in aspects of their actions is being interpreted as becoming meek on the field and thus enraging some of our past ‘heroes’.
The current squad led by Tim Paine and Justin Langer have probably made a couple of errors along the way. The requirement to have a written preamble that the team wishes to abide by came across as a lame statement that was unnecessary. Words were unnecessary, actions is what this team would judged upon, as more than one former cricketer suggested. Few Australian supporters could deny that watching our national team play had become uncomfortable in recent times, often cringing at the way some of our cricketers carried themselves on the field against their opponents. Not only did it seem that it was an all-out offensive to berate opponents, but it became much worse when the team was suddenly under the pump and unable to be in the ascendancy. It was obvious in India, it was obvious in Australia, and it most definitely reached a crescendo in South Africa.
As Andrew Ramsey wrote last week on cricket.com.au, “… belligerence is no longer an acceptable manifestation of passion. Instead, anger directed at opponents when luck runs dry and events conspire to deny is interpreted as arrogance and, at worst, an ugly excess that reeks of privilege.”
The current squad led by Tim Paine and Justin Langer have probably made a couple of errors along the way. The requirement to have a written preamble that the team wishes to abide by came across as a lame statement that was unnecessary. Words were unnecessary, actions is what this team would judged upon, as more than one former cricketer suggested. Few Australian supporters could deny that watching our national team play had become uncomfortable in recent times, often cringing at the way some of our cricketers carried themselves on the field against their opponents. Not only did it seem that it was an all-out offensive to berate opponents, but it became much worse when the team was suddenly under the pump and unable to be in the ascendancy. It was obvious in India, it was obvious in Australia, and it most definitely reached a crescendo in South Africa.
As Andrew Ramsey wrote last week on cricket.com.au, “… belligerence is no longer an acceptable manifestation of passion. Instead, anger directed at opponents when luck runs dry and events conspire to deny is interpreted as arrogance and, at worst, an ugly excess that reeks of privilege.”
Just so.
The culture of the team had to change. The players often spoke of ‘the line’ and ‘knowing where the line is’ and ‘not crossing the line’ – all of which was based on THEIR interpretation of this 'line' and where it was. This appeared to differ significantly from what other people interpreted it as, and it seemed to move depending on the situation they were facing. One wonders just what position ‘the line’ was at when it came to deciding that ball tampering was a perfectly reasonable thing to attempt. We have still received no answer from Cricket Australia or its players as to how it was possible for a member or members of our national cricket team to reach the conclusion that it was an acceptable thing to ignore the laws of the game completely, and take sandpaper onto the cricket field with the sole focus of altering the condition of the ball in complete contempt of the game of cricket. And here is where the difference in belief and perception over the past week comes from.
The former players in Clarke’s corner this week believe these two things – ball tampering in a Test match and an aggressive in-your-face attitude on the field – are separate and not related to each other. They see what happened and are obviously completely against the fact that it occurred and fully in favour of sanctions being handed down against the perpetrators. However, they also cannot abide by an Australian team toning down its intensity on the field as a result of this incident because they fear Australia will become a rudderless ship, unable to strike fear into the hearts of the opposition if they do not play hard and aggressively. This is where the accusation of ‘being in a bubble’ is close to the mark. It is obvious to (almost) everyone that the increased aggression that some Australians were showing on the field and its volatility, and the fact that it was not being kept in check by anyone – the captain, the coach, Cricket Australia – was a major factor to how we got to the point that ball tampering was seen as a solution to winning a cricket match. And as this was a symptom of what eventually happened, then it was absolutely vital for Australian cricket that this was terminated immediately. Not the playing hard to win, or standing firm against your opposition, but removing the idea that swearing at someone to their face because they played and missed at a ball, or running in and gesticulating wildly at a batsmen when they are dismissed is an acceptable look for Australian cricket.
When all is said and done, I believe Australia will be hard and tough in the Test series starting on Thursday, but without the overt public slanging on the field that was most certainly a part of at least the previous 2 years. There’s no doubt that our bowlers will not take a backward step in attempting to win matches. They will not be backward in bowling fast and short if they feel it is necessary. Unfortunately, it will still be the talk of the summer should Australia not perform on the field. The cricket itself will be of the highest intensity, and should India prove to be too good it will not be because Australia are not sledging their opponents enough, or that our players are not vociferously in the faces of their opponents enough, no matter what some of our past champions may say.
The culture of the team had to change. The players often spoke of ‘the line’ and ‘knowing where the line is’ and ‘not crossing the line’ – all of which was based on THEIR interpretation of this 'line' and where it was. This appeared to differ significantly from what other people interpreted it as, and it seemed to move depending on the situation they were facing. One wonders just what position ‘the line’ was at when it came to deciding that ball tampering was a perfectly reasonable thing to attempt. We have still received no answer from Cricket Australia or its players as to how it was possible for a member or members of our national cricket team to reach the conclusion that it was an acceptable thing to ignore the laws of the game completely, and take sandpaper onto the cricket field with the sole focus of altering the condition of the ball in complete contempt of the game of cricket. And here is where the difference in belief and perception over the past week comes from.
The former players in Clarke’s corner this week believe these two things – ball tampering in a Test match and an aggressive in-your-face attitude on the field – are separate and not related to each other. They see what happened and are obviously completely against the fact that it occurred and fully in favour of sanctions being handed down against the perpetrators. However, they also cannot abide by an Australian team toning down its intensity on the field as a result of this incident because they fear Australia will become a rudderless ship, unable to strike fear into the hearts of the opposition if they do not play hard and aggressively. This is where the accusation of ‘being in a bubble’ is close to the mark. It is obvious to (almost) everyone that the increased aggression that some Australians were showing on the field and its volatility, and the fact that it was not being kept in check by anyone – the captain, the coach, Cricket Australia – was a major factor to how we got to the point that ball tampering was seen as a solution to winning a cricket match. And as this was a symptom of what eventually happened, then it was absolutely vital for Australian cricket that this was terminated immediately. Not the playing hard to win, or standing firm against your opposition, but removing the idea that swearing at someone to their face because they played and missed at a ball, or running in and gesticulating wildly at a batsmen when they are dismissed is an acceptable look for Australian cricket.
When all is said and done, I believe Australia will be hard and tough in the Test series starting on Thursday, but without the overt public slanging on the field that was most certainly a part of at least the previous 2 years. There’s no doubt that our bowlers will not take a backward step in attempting to win matches. They will not be backward in bowling fast and short if they feel it is necessary. Unfortunately, it will still be the talk of the summer should Australia not perform on the field. The cricket itself will be of the highest intensity, and should India prove to be too good it will not be because Australia are not sledging their opponents enough, or that our players are not vociferously in the faces of their opponents enough, no matter what some of our past champions may say.
No comments:
Post a Comment