Even if they're trailing 0-2, Australia would've been the happier side when the first ball of the Mohali Test was bowled. The events leading to the Test match weren't the most encouraging ones for a side already in doldrums. The decision of coach Mickey Arthur to sack four players for not doing there 'homework' is open to scrutiny as it can either make or break a unit. The perfect mantra though is a balance between giving players the leverage where as taking them to task when required, writes Amit Chaudhary
Mister Spock of the famous Star Trek series once said that the needs of the many overweigh the needs of the few. Or the one, replied Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
That forms the very basis of a team sport — a group of completely different individuals, with different cultures, languages and aspirations coming together to achieve a common goal. It makes for a spectacular view to watch eleven people (or whatever the number) working in tandem towards a singular goal.
It's completely different from an individual sport. Here you are not alone. You contribute in the collective success or failure of the whole group. Every move you make affects the performance of the whole group. You don’t work for personal milestones, you work for the success of the group. You share the disappointment and the celebration with others. And, more than anything else, it's a good feeling to be a part of something much more bigger than yourself.
But there are challenges as well. After all, they are individuals of contrasting natures. The seldom on and off-field clashes are the constant reminders of the human nature and its frailties, the pressure of intensely competitive profession and the insecurities that come with it.
Since they live away from their families for weeks at a stretch and under constant media watch, they are bound to feel the absence of a support system. And when they go through a lean patch, it amounts to frustration. Surrounded by the people who are aiming for that coveted place in the first eleven, they can't always share their problems with anyone. The bonding is bound to be hit.
Perhaps, that's where some of the Australian cricketers find themselves. Perhaps, that's where the leader, whether captain or coach, failed. It's their job to put a hand on the shoulder of a struggling player and guide him towards a defined aim. All the good leaders have done that. Be it Clive lloyd, Imran Khan, Steve Waugh or Sourav Ganguly, they knew that the team’s fortunes depended on how well they could use the talent at their disposal. They were good at making the players feel important and comfortable.
Harbhajan Singh, who is now struggling to keep his place in the Test squad, blossomed under Ganguly. Between 2001 and 2005, when Ganguly was at the helm, Harbhajan took 217 wickets at an average of just over 29 in 49 Tests in comparison to his 162 wickets at around 35 in 40 Tests between 2008-13 when Mahendra Singh Dhoni led the side.
It is important to see the recent fiasco involving four Australian players — Shane Watson, James Pattinson, Mitchell Johnson and Usman Khawaja — through this prism. These four players, as the Australian coach Mickey Arthur announced on Monday, were dropped from the team for the third Test in Mohali for not completing their ‘homework’.
After losing their second Test in Hyderabad (by an innings and 135 runs), Arthur asked the whole team to go back to their rooms and reflect on their own and team’s performance and come up with three points which they thought needed to be implemented to improve their individual as well as team’s performance in the remaining matches of the four-Test tour. The three-point presentation could be given in any format. They could scribble them on a piece of paper, text or write an email. Thirteen players did that but the ‘Gang of Four’ — as they are termed by the media — failed to comply with the task. And Arthur, with the support of captain Michael Clarke, drew the ‘line in the sand’ to send out the message that team’s interests are over and above every one.
The sacking didn't seem an instinctive decision, as it was made to look by the reactions of former players and fans. Rather it was a culmination of a series of problems that the coach and captain wanted to end before it became incurable. And to be fair to Arthur and Clarke, they were right in their attempt to arrest the slide at its initiation. Team rules can’t be different for different players. Team values are sacred, they can’t be sacrificed. Players need to respect that.
But what they failed to do was to assure the players of their talent, place and importance. Watson, for instance, is a gifted player but injuries at regular intervals didn’t let him attain what he could have. A good top-order batsman with the ability to bowl at around 135 kmph, he is a rare commodity in international cricket. But the failure, probably, has made him insecure. Same is the case with Johnson, once Australia’s lead seamer now finding it difficult to break into the first eleven. And Khawaja finds himself on the bench more often than not.
When the team is winning, these things don’t come to the fore because the struggling players get more chances, a team can afford that. But when a team starts to lose, a bad performance feels like an albatross around the neck. Players feel insecure and can become selfish. It is during this period a player needs the support of the team management. He needs the confidence of his coach and captain. Not the punishment.
The issue, however grave it is, needs to be tackled with maturity. The iron-fist attitude of the Australian board can spoil things. Of course, they can't be too soft because too much leniency can instill a false sense of security in the players. That is also dangerous for a team.
Understanding is the key to all the Australian problems. The management needs to understand that every player is different and needed to be handled differently. While players need to understand that only a disciplined team can become champion. It is in the mutual interest of all the parties that they understand their roles well and act accordingly.