Capello's greatest failing

With Fabio Capello’s recent statements to the Italian media concerning John Terry’s fatal reign as England captain, he has once again displayed his most obvious characteristic as England manager.  Although no-one has tipped England to succeed later this year, Euro 2012 betting markets have become less murky in recent days – why would you bet on a team that can’t win? 

As a squad devoid of leadership, England can’t win anything.

The Italian General has said he has little regard for who wears the England armband.  His most public statements to that effect were two years ago after he removed Terry from the captaincy in the aftermath of the Wayne Bridge affair.  Capello has since backtracked on that decision, reinstating Terry only thirteen months later – a period in which the player attempted a poorly-marshalled coup d’etat during the 2010 World Cup.

As soon as this occurred, Capello lost much of his credibility as England’s leader.  What little repute remained has since evaporated.  To openly disagree with the FA’s decision smacks of a double-standard: he removed Terry because he thought him “divisive” – seemingly failing to understand the gravitas of the current allegations thrown Terry’s way.   

Now it appears he sacked Terry from a leadership position two years ago because he had transgressed Fabio’s moral code.  Terry now faces a charge arguably far worse than the allegations of early 2010, meaning Capello has flip-flopped like a revolving door.  An appropriate term, because it also describes his selection policy. 

Capello has been uniformly inconsistent almost since arriving on English shores.  It has been his greatest failing and has undermined his leadership to the point where now there is an enormous void at the top of the English coaching tree. 

In his great book “The Coach: Managing for Success”, master-manager Ric Charlesworth lists the five traits that a coach simply must display.  He says that a manager must be knowledgeable; diligent; open and flexible; honest and consistent.  While scoring highly for many of these characteristics, Capello fails miserably on the last.  In so doing, his entire role has been negated.  Players look to a manager for dependability - the England mob has failed to receive.

This has never been more apparent than in the curious case of the captaincy.  One moment he cares about who is captain and the next he does not.  At any point John Terry could be integral to the team or irrelevant.  His team selections have vacillated between the uber-experienced and the untested.  There has been little discernible method to Capello’s war-room, but simply reactionary moves that don’t behove his status as a coaching great.

In simplest terms, inconsistency from above indicates an absence of leadership.  Because of this, England will splutter and drown at Euro 2012.

Patience and time

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time” – Leo Tolstoy

Cricket is a game that exists and occurs while affording every respect to time. Yet the peripheral influences afford no respect and errors are regularly made.

You may have noticed that Ricky Ponting has relinquished the Australian captaincy recently. Good, you say, how could we afford to continue to be led by a man who has lost three Ashes series as captain. But take five minutes and actually review his captaincy record, he has a greater than 60% success rate in test matches and even better in limited over internationals. He won as captain the record 16 test matches on the trot and two World Cups. Of course he had the greatest 'wind up' cricketers of the generation in Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, throw them the ball and they just did the job.

But do you really think it was that easy? Do you think that Warne was easy to captain given it was him who was overlooked for the role in favour of Ponting? Warne may have been the greatest leg spinner of all, but he was and potentially still is the most narcissistic character in and around the game. Warne also played no part in the World Cup victories, and in reality did his best to derail the 2003 tilt with his tournament eve 'diet pill' fiasco. Granted McGrath was probably not as difficult as Warne, but he was a strong character on the field and crossed the line a few times behaviourally. Ultimately as well one of the Ashes defeats included both these men in the touring party (albeit McGrath was limited in playing capacity due to injury), it just isn't a done deal to criticise Ponting's captaincy.

On the Ashes lets reflect on where this great duel was in the mindset of cricket fans. Australia walloped England again in 2002-03 and the cries for the series to be reduced to three tests in favour of extended series against stronger teams got louder. This was unlikely due to the great historical significance of the Ashes, but it reflected just how far the disparity was between the two teams. It is just a hypothesis, but I believe the win by the English in 2005 really saved the series in terms of being a competitive attraction for spectators, the Ashes now for the two countries remains the greatest prize in test cricket regardless of their world rankings. Had Ponting led Australian sides to a 4-0 record in Ashes series rather than than a 1-3 record it is not stretching it to say that he wouldn't have been exactly feted for having done so – everyone else achieved that. Certainly the inverse proportion of credit to the criticism he has actually received would not have been as much.

We cannot write obituaries for Ponting the batsman either because he remains dedicated to playing on, and playing competitively. A five minute glance at his batting record of a plus-50 test average and a plus-40 limited over average shows he is above the barrier that separates the good from the great batsman in both forms of modern cricket. He is Australia's greatest batsman of the modern era, and some would argue him being second to Bradman for Australia of all time.

As now he moves to the expected 'renaissance' like the greatest batsman of the modern era Sachin Tendulkar has had in the past year. Its worth taking time to reflect on where our expectations should lie. Let's reflect that Tendulkar had the best part of 10 years post his dabble with captaincy that wasn't to his taste before his phenomenal past 12 months. Do not hear me wrongly here – Tendulkar is no doubt the greatest batsman of the modern era, but abdicated the captaincy early to maintain his greatness with the bat. Where Tendulkar has focussed on his game without captaincy for 10 years, Ponting will have had barely two weeks before the first match. Let's then temper our expectations of how big this 'renaissance' could be, but I for one hope to see Punter in full flight once again.

In probably the greatest display of impatience Cricket Australia has barely let the temperature drop slightly on the chair before thrusting Michael Clarke the job full time. Hang on, aren't we supposed to be taking time out during this winter to review the state of Australian cricket and asking what went wrong? What would have been the issue in giving Clarke the captaincy temporarily for this brief (and meaningless without a test match being played) tour of Bangladesh pending the review of Australian cricket? Clarke would have been 90% certain to be allocated the job on a full time basis come August so why not do the due diligence and fully back him in the future knowing that all are 100% behind him? Clarke isn't going anywhere. He wouldn't dream of giving up a test career petulantly nor can he request to be transferred as he could in club based sports. The cards were with Cricket Australia and because of impatience they may have played them too early.

Australian cricket is now entering a review asking what the problems are with Australian cricket with a board not going anywhere (despite strong calls for a spill); a Chief Executive rooted in his position because of his willingness to sell the game's soul repeatedly for fast income; a chairman of selectors and selection panel who, under some illusion, think the world of themselves and still are under no pressure from their employers; a coach who is contracted for now two and a half further years; and now Clarke who probably is the right man for the job but cannot be said to have the full backing of the cricket community. Where will responsibility be apportioned for the cricketing failure be laid with so much locked in for the future?

Given great time, many seem destined to continually waste it.

Finally the AFL season can start

This offseason has probably been the most dramatic in recent AFL history. And, not a moment too soon, the break ends tonight as Carlton take on Richmond at the MCG. Thank goodness - because as car-crashingly enthralling as reading about the "St Kilda Schoolgirl" and her ... err ... exploits has been, it will be blessed and welcome relief to jam match coverage in amongst the tabloid-style back pages to which we've become so accustomed.

The offseason of 2010-11 for the AFL really started over twelve months ago when it became apparent that "Little Gary" would not sign a contract extension with Geelong, meaning he would effectively become a restricted free agent at the end of season 2010. Since then, AFL off-field shenanigans have included (in no particular order) Mark Thompson's lie-induced burnout; Ablett's inevitable re-enactment of the LeBron James masterpiece "Leaving Cleveland"; Brendan Fevola's self-destruction; Nick Riewoldt's wang; Zac Dawson's disco biscuits; the creation of a new franchise; a Collingwood premiership and subsequent uprising of the Magpie army; the gutting of the National Rugby League as Israel Folau and Greg Inglis changed (or threatened to change) codes; James Hird's Second Coming as Essendon coach; further rumours about stars leaving their clubs for what amounts to GWS slush-funds; Ricky Nixon's precipitous fall from grace and finally, thankfully, nothing at all about Port Adelaide or Fremantle.

Andrew Demetriou must surely be relieved that Melbourne, a town notorious for it's blanket coverage of AFL-related issues, will finally have actual deliverable content to space out the negative headlines. Aside from the form of Ricky Ponting - and how many words can you print daily on that? - the scarcity of sport worth speaking about has left Melbourne newspapers with little else on which to speculate throughout the Summer. Had the ignoble misadventures of Ricky Nixon, Sam Gilbert, Fevola and the horribly overpromoted Melbourne schoolgirl occurred in the Summer of 2007 amidst a 5 - 0 Ashes victory, the Melbourne Victory's phenomenal second season and the retirements of Warne, Langer, Martyn and McGrath, the AFL's offseason of new frontiers may well have garnered only a fraction of the attention it did this year.

The spotlight thrown on this off-field malarkey was only intensified by Australia's performance in The Ashes and waning public interest in cricket. As most sport becomes fully and painfully professional, they lose much of the larrikinism and fun which attracted the mug punter to them in the first place. Faced with the choice between a team full of bullies, pouters and bores or following the World Game (with very little television coverage), Joe Public decided it was best simply to re-invest in the coming Aussie Rules season. The league revelled in the exposure, initially falling victim to the old adage that any publicity is good publicity. This theory was recently discounted somewhat in The Economist; the AFL was only to learn how wrong that statement can be in February as first Brendan Fevola, then Ricky Nixon committed professional seppuku.

The AFL plays the politics of sports much better than any other code in Australia. No other competition in the nation felt obliged to have its say on the bidding process save the AFL, yet Demetriou managed to sound both condescending and patronising to football's governing body all at once. The failed FFA bid for the 2022 football World Cup meant only more airtime and column inches. The League invited - and loved - the attention, yet as the summer wore on it became obvious that those at League headquarters couldn't wait for the season to begin. The stream of life malapropisms committed by AFL brethren had made life in the public eye nigh-on unbearable. What were once a player's endearing foibles now appear glaring character weaknesses. Football's never been played by saints - but now media coverage and the blogosphere mean for better coverage. What was once left uncovered rarely remains so now.

Finally, the season is upon us. Now perhaps we can get around to covering what really matters: the game itself.

England's - and Capello's - Captaincy Dilemma

As much as John Terry is unlikeable, he is a good on-field leader. This is why Fabio Capello performed a back-flip this week by announcing his reinstatement as England captain. It seems Terry, who was stripped of his title last year amidst a swarm of accusations about his private life, is the least of eleven evils. In a news conference on Tuesday, Terry admitted to "not being everyone's cup of tea". In a poll today on The Guardian's website, apparently he's only 15.9%'s beverage of choice.

There's almost no question the Chelsea skipper has all the best capabilities for the job - experience leading a team to trophies, is the biggest alpha-dog available to England, is amongst the best central defenders in the country and he'd look great with a bandaged head, Terry Butcher-style. Could you picture Rio Ferdinand or Matthew Upson standing in front of Joe Hart, screaming "You Shall Not Pass!" like Gandalf ? No, I couldn't either. In fact, on racking my brains for at least a minute, the only other Englishman I can think of who fits both the Butcher and Gandalf criteria is West Ham's Scott Parker.

There's a good argument that no defender or midfielder regularly available to England inspires like Terry. The only forward who does so is Wayne Rooney, who - though improving - is enduring probably his worst season ever and boasts off-field decisions which make those of the newly reinstated captain seem positively Yoda-like. England, it seems, are bereft of leaders worthy of the armband and this has forced a Capello flip-flop, which also sounds like a rather nice brand of ice-cream. All the positive steps the Italian was supposed to bring have now sunk finally, inexorably under a pile of Nutella, French Underwear Models and Boredom. The famous Capello discipline has, sadly, failed.

Capello was brought in to administer England for a number of reasons. Firstly, he has won everywhere he's been. This leads straight onto the second reason - his success and manner made him the best qualified choice to manage a nation suffering through a trophy drought now forty-five years long. That's thirty-nine years longer than Arsenal's current drought, ten years longer than City's dry spell and was three years shorter than Birmingham City's before the League Cup. Finally, it was thought that Capello's rigid sense of discipline would allow for better performances after the pally reign of Schteve McClaren turned into schemozzle.

The Three Lions responded magnificently early in the Italian's reign but this petered out with an awful World Cup during which there were rumours of a rebellion led by Terry. It's beginning to seem though nothing totally defeated him before, Capello has finally met his match with this group. It's fitting commentary that a man renowned for strong principles has perhaps been challenged most strongly - and terminally - by this group of players whose ideals often remain ... fluid.

Terry was stripped of the captaincy for personal rather than professional reasons. At the time, it was thought unlikely he would regain the position - the colossus centre-back gave way to his ball-playing counterpart Rio Ferdinand, who has rarely been healthy since. Rumours persist that he may never be fully healthy again. The gaffer manager (doesn't seem like the type to enjoy the title "gaffer", does he?) was then forced to reconsider his options and, probable personality issues and all, John Terry is the outstanding candidate.

Every other Three Lions regular - Ferdinand, A. Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Hart, Rooney, Barry, Milner - either doesn't have the force of personality to be the dressing room alpha dog or the talent to justify the appointment. Those who do have the personality and skills either boast injury reports the length of Terry Butcher's bandage or a personal life making Terry's seem meek in comparison. As much as it's probable Capello would have liked to move forward, the only younger prospects worthy of regular England consideration are Jack Wilshere and Andy Carroll. The manager's hands were tied on this one - it's not a back-flip solely because he changed his mind, simply that there are no more options left to him.

Ponting Punted?

Perhaps it all came about as a result of his run-in with Steve Smith. Maybe three Ashes defeats from four have finally taken their toll. It could be that his recent form - stunningly unresembling his best - may have marked his cards. But the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Ricky Ponting's captaincy career could be in for its most stern boardroom test when the team returns from their World Cup campaign. The current tour could be his last as Australian captain.

It's fair that Ponting's reign is thrown into question both for his recent results and on-field attitude. His ascension to the captaincy seemed a case of "right place, right time": he was the standout candidate of a middling field when selectors last deemed generational change necessary. For the first time since Ian Johnson's departure, Australia lacks a clear successor. Of course the plan was for Michael Clarke to follow in his footsteps as the best choice available, but his performances in late 2010 and charisma (that of a moose) haven't endeared him to either public or selectors. In the SMH article which brought this issue to light it is suggested his stock has recovered somewhat.

There's nothing wrong with change for its own sake. Indeed given the recent re-emergence of his always-prominent petulant streak, it could be his teammates support him because of what he was, rather than what he now is. This is an admirable position and his achievements as batsman and leader demand that acknowledgement, but the stance is quite possibly flawed. It's eminently possible that Ricky Ponting is no longer the best man to lead Australia; it may even be that he's only kept the position recently due to a dearth of suitable successors.

What Ponting must remember is that stepping aside now would not be a sign of weakness, nor a commentary on his his success as captain. Context in sport, in life, is all-important. He was charged with the difficult task of maintaining supremacy with a deteriorating team; his record reflects the challenges he has faced. He started his reign as one of a half-dozen World Class players in the Australian team and ended it the only one. In twenty years, we will not look back and say "Ricky Ponting lost the Ashes three times", though it will be true. We will say he did a good - but not outstanding - job in trying circumstances and wanted to better his record right up until the end.

He's always been honest and open, yet it could be that his tenure should end for no other reason than it's just time to go. After leading his country for nine years in the most high-stress job in the country outside Prime Minister, perhaps it is time Ponting surrendered the position. He first led the Australian Test team on 8th March 2004, meaning he could well be facing cricket's equivalent of the seven-year itch - and feels it's time to move on to new challenges but is yet to recognise and submit to those desires. His outward stance is that he's not finished. The inward position could be very different.

In the excellent ABC cricket documentary "Cricket in the 70s", Greg Chappell recounts being told by his brother Ian that he was resigning the captaincy. Ian Chappell, one of perhaps a handful of the most influential figures in Australian cricket ever, was only captain of his country for eight series over just five years; on telling his brother - and heir apparent - he was retiring he just said "Mate, when you know, you'll know". Chappelli had burned out, just as Greg would do in the early 1980s. Kim Hughes would suffer the same affliction in 1985. All three - and Border and Ponting, too - had been subjected to stresses never experienced by Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor.

Ponting's reign is beginning to resemble that of Greg Chappell: great batsmen weighed down by expectation as captain. Chappell rose above it to finish on a high, but captained Australia only in forty-eight Tests. Ponting nearly doubles that total with eighty. He's also slightly older, with a slightly more ropey technique and has nearly 360 ODIs to his name. It is fair and understandable that he is tired, tetchy and irritable.

The physical signs of stress are obvious to outsiders. Barack Obama has vast quantities more silver hair than he did only two years ago and, back home, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have both aged markedly while leading Australian politics. The US system of government allows a President to serve only two consecutive terms for two reasons - to share power and for the health of the President. Ponting looks old and tired.

These may be the last days of Ricky Ponting. If he goes, he won't be the first or last player to be "nudged" by the powers-that-be. It's a sad way for a star to go out, but the results of him hanging on may colour his captaincy even further in gloomy shades of blue.

Let's play the captaincy lottery!

The news that the Australian dressing room is split into camps for and against Michael Clarke's fait-d'accompli ascension to the captaincy is hardly surprising. Rarely is there a clear-cut situation after a captain departs the International scene, it just happens that Australia's Golden Age of cricketers were born spread out enough to produce three fantastic individual performers in Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting, who was each the natural successor to the previous captain.

The Australian cricket team does not resemble those strong teams of the past. Indeed, it resembles more the squad of a divided central board: a board that plays favourites and is looking only towards short term results. Clarke has been management's Golden Hair'd Boy since before his elevation to the captaincy of Australia A in 2003 over more experienced teammates. True, he's been about the only certainty to retain his place in the national setup Post-Ponting, but his lack of ability to lead publicly - like the current Aussie skipper - only casts more doubt on his ability to be effective in a role which infamously shoulders nearly as much pressure as the Australian Prime Minister.

It was news to me that Marcus North and Callum Ferguson was considered by corners of the dressing room a more worthy Test captain than Clarke. That Cameron White - he of nearly ten years' Victorian captaincy - was also named was less surprising. (We actually posited on the best selections for captain here and World Cricket Watch did here) But after the last few months it's emerged that Clarke is no longer unanimously the best choice to captain Australia after Ponting's abdication.

Are there any more questions as to why? Watch one of his pressers and you'll know. He's about as transparent as shopfront glass and just as interesting. It's not just that though: it's his lapsed romance with "Australia's Classiest Lass" Bingle, it's also his dressing-room confrontation with Simon Katich after a win last year and especially his veiled criticism of IPL-playing teammates in such a "holier-than-thou" manner. That he's nearly thirty and still bears the nickname "Pup" speaks volumes about his standing amongst his teammates: nicknames like "Rookie" or "The Kid" tend to disappear as the player assumes more authority but not in this case.

At present, both North and White are flawed selections, however. This is simply because neither of them are able to justify their place in the Test team through their performances. If a captain is unable to lead publicly then they must do so via their on-field prowess. This, particularly, is what makes Clarke's case compelling - he is now rivalled only by his openers as a Test batsman. North and White, though both decidedly more affable and having more domestic leadership experience, have been unable to establish themselves in the Test side due to a lack of consistency, skill, opportunity or New South Wales blood. In order to justify his position as skipper, a captain must deliver on-field and cricket history is rife with examples of leaders picked for their interpersonal or schmoozing skills but lacking the requisite on-field graft: Mike Brearley. Brian Booth. Lee Germon. Mike Denness. Darren Sammy. Chris Cowdrey. It's no coincidence that three of the aforementioned are English, installed by an MCC board attempting to still the waters of revolution. The revolution is coming again: this one Free Agency, pioneered by the West Indies, if only this time by necessity and money rather than by any pioneering spirit.

There always remains the ability to grow into the public leadership role as Alan Border did. Border, a notoriously private man off the field, grew taciturn at even implied criticism yet was able to turn his media discomfort into an advantage as he created a whole new persona for himself as "Captain Grumpy". The problem with Clarke is that that he's had International leadership experience now for the best part of five years and has yet to grow into this role. He hasn't shown a maturity of personality that's come with this experience, just a realisation that his performances have to justify his exalted status and as such he withdrawn into himself both on the field and off. Rather than grow and expand his focus outward, Clarke has retracted with his eyes firmly on himself. It's not selfish, because I'm certain he sees himself as leading via performance rather than by inspiration.

And that's not to say that one must choose to lead by performance or by inspiration. Both Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh were able to do so successfully. So were Clive Lloyd and Sir Viv Richards - in fact, all the great captains were able to combine the two elements. Border grew into leading both ways. It's just one tends to, by their own experience, develop - value, even - one style more than the other.

Ponting's imminent pasturing is not the real reason to sweat on a new captain. The skipper has shown no signs of wanting to retire nor would it make any sense for him to play on under a new captain, so if Australia wants him, the get him as captain. The greater concern is that unlike their famous "We love the Underdog" mentality, the turmoil surrounding the national team corresponds with dramatically falling interest levels in cricket in Australia. The current squad doesn't need an heir apparent, it needs stability to come from anywhere: performances, selections, the future. A captain with the ability to combine performance and attitude will emerge in time, but perhaps not in time enough to still Australia's slide into cricketing no-man's-land.