Short Pitch: Lessons from World Series Cricket

The following excerpt is taken from page 81 of Gideon Haigh's wonderful book The Cricket War, and describes the Australian tour to England in 1977.

Generational problems in the team had been some time coming... nine players [in the back row of the team photograph] had a combined eighteen Tests between them.  Among the team's nominal seniors ... only the captain and vice-captain Chappell and Marsh were genuinely risk-averse selections: Walters had never succeeded in England, McCosker's jaw might not have healed, Thomson was a medical miracle, and none of Walker, O'Keeffe or Davis had been first-choice players a year earlier.  Premature Australian retirements in the preceding two years had divided the team before Packer's intercession.  As Ian Davis remembers: "There was literally no middle age in that side.  You had me and Hooksey, and Serj and Kim Hughes in our early twenties, and then all these other guys round thirty.  Unless you were a very strong personality, you were just in awe of them". 

A page later, Haigh continues regarding Greg Chappell's captaincy:

The captain pined for the do-it-yourself ethos of his brother's time: cricketers who didn't need to be told ... As his virtuoso skill proved insufficient to inspire, Chappell withdrew.  The senior players closed ranks around him, instinctively protective but inadvertently widening their distance from the ranks.  Everyone felt aggrieved, nobody felt responsible, individual isolation was universal.

Sound familiar?

It's fair to say that in the dozen years following the Centenary Test, Australian cricket struggled to reclaim anywhere near its best form.  The hard-bitten culture instilled by Chappell or Allan Border has been minimised by subsequent captains who - while the logical or best choice - didn't have either the same horses to choose from, nor the psychological skills to maximise their performance.

A case in point - would any Australian dare disappoint Chappell or Border?  Recently, we saw players "try" their captain and face the ramifications.  With the most effective Australian captains of old, expectations were communicated through personal relationship, rather than rules.  It is within this environment that players like Lillee, Thomson, Warne and McGrath flourished and under which Australians traditionally perform best.

Australian cricket took a decade to recover from such a fractured dressing room.  Similar stories abound of the 1989 Englishmen and the post-Richards West Indians; one wonders whether it will take Cricket Australia another decade to understand the value of powerful and incisive leadership - on and off the field.

On the Australian Captaincy

Steve Waugh has recently questioned the Australian selection panel in regards to their handling of the captaincy and of ousted wicketkeeper Brad Haddin.  He is well within his right to, considering his personal achievements and stature in the game.

Up until Ricky Ponting - the man whose temporary institution he contests - the opinions of most Australian captains are considered continuing testament to the spirit of cricket.  It speaks volumes of the man that Waugh's thoughts are said to represent the spirit of the game moreso than any of his contemporaries.

While Brad Haddin has reasons to be aggrieved regarding his "resting", Waugh's comments regarding the Warner/Ponting captaincy dichotomy are far from accurate.

Cricket Australia, especially post-Argus, has several structures in place to ensure strong leadership.  Although these structures are in place for a reason - in this case, ostensibly Warner's education - the fact is that he doesn't command the tactical respect of his comrades.  While Ponting's tenure could hardly be described as strong (c.f. Fabio Capello) he still inspires ultimate respect both as a cricketer and as a cricket brain.

The fact is there is no clear leader emerging to succeed Clarke.  There needs not be at this point, as the Australian captain is 30 and with several years of high-class cricket in front of him.  A second statement could be equally true: there is no need for a clear leader to emerge with Clarke at least five years from retirement.  This is especially true considering his reign as le dauphin could quite accurately be said to have destabilised the Australian team rather than the intended opposite.

Indeed there is somewhat of a leadership vacuum in those players of Clarke's vintage.  George Bailey, Andrew McDonald and Cameron White fail to command a place on form, while a possible logical successor, Steve O'Keeffe, is yet to make his mark on the national team.  Warner, who captains the Big Bash's Sydney Thunder, is the best of those in the current framework: a guy who regularly looks to hook wide bumpers the first ball after drinks breaks.

By extension, Ponting is the best candidate for the job - especially now Clarke has cemented his authority.  There should be no quibbling about the next generation or confusing structures, but the captaincy is such an award we should be careful to whom it is awarded.  It needs to reward for effort and talent, not a prize given for potential.  Do we want to be like England of the 1980s, where the likes of Chris Cowdrey fronted up to toss the coin?

Although Warner has achieved much in the past six months, he does not deserve - yet - the honour of leading his country in what was once the world's leading form of cricket.

Mourinho's greatest failing a lack of discipline - but not from him

Jose Mourinho has many gifts. For organisation, for having team buy into a philosophy, for quick quips and irritation. It's perhaps fitting that a master of hyperbole has been pilloried by the more rampant sensationalists in the British media concerning his antics during and after the Spanish Supercup.

courtesy: topnews.in

As the four Clasicos in seventeen days last season proved, these teams have no love for each other - on or off the pitch. After their loss in the Champions' League Semi-Final in (April/May), Mourinho made statements which, if he had his time again, would probably re-consider. Barcelona thought about legal action, but opted against it.

After a horrendous tackle by Marcelo on Barcelona new boy Cesc Fabregas, benches cleared. Mourinho is now under scrutiny for an incident involving Barcelona assistant Tito Villanova (bear in mind this analysis does come from the Daily Mail, well known for sensationalism). The Sun - also known for siutational amplification - also suggested Mourinho is approaching Real's tolerance threshold. Even the more moderate Daily Telegraph and The Independent questioned The Special One's tenure at the Bernabeu.

Comments branding Barcelona "a small team" didn't help and, alongside his paranoiac mania following their Champions' League exit, contribute to an image of a man either on the edge or who plays mind games at a black belt level. His comments more and more mimic those of dictators - strong, usually charismatic leaders with a firm grasp on a tiny part of the world - but from the outside viewed as small-time.

courtesy: tardis.wikia.com

More accurately, his words resemble Davros' - "Once more my Daleks will rule the universe.  Once more they will become the Su-preeeeeme Beeeeinnnngggs!".  If only it wasn't for that pesky Doctor Messi/Xavi/Iniesta.

In today's Guardian, a spokesman for Los Merengues' manager says his role in the stoush was "defending Real Madrid's interests". The Independent - and Paul Hayward - have asked if Jose is still worth his antics. When each match between the two best teams in football descends into a melee, it is a fair question.

Even Real Madrid, a club not known for patience and lenience with their managers, would be rash to fire the man who has transformed them from also-rans into an outfit who will challenge Barcelona. The side has apparently improved markedly over the offseason, fuelled by more spending (Fabio Coentrao and Nuri Sahin) and another year's acclimation to Mourinho's tactics. In the match in question, most observers had them slightly edging the match until defeated by a typically classy Messi goal.

Jose may feel pressure to succeed and consequently just be acting out more. This is unlikely given his past posts and the high expectations he must have shouldered there. He may feel the mindset of his squad is so fragile it can't bear a defeat to Barcelona without attendant, media-diverting controversy. Maybe his ego has become so large that he's lost some perspective. Any increase in his antics is due to a combination of all three factors.

It would be folly to ignore the lack of discipline and leadership Jose Mourinho has received from the Real Madrid front office. Perhaps more than anything else, this has empowered Mourinho to say and do what he likes. Given his results so far, it would be wrong if he were made to fear for his job. But he should be made to respect discipline - UEFA's, La Liga's or from Perez himself.

Since his Chelsea days at least, Mourinho's modus operandi has been to instill a siege mentality about his players, defending them from media scrutiny and removing any pressure from his boys by deflecting or absorbing it himself. By doing so, he's produced remarkably successful units at Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and now Real. At the Bernabeu, however, once former General Manager and blatant Jose-antagonist Jorge Valdano was removed, he's received only minimal leadership from the front office. He has not been censured for his actions, some of which should have desperately deserved it.

Indeed by removing Valdano, Mourinho's only internal source of dissent, Real President Florentino Perez has actually served as an enabler. Corporate, family or political leadership - real leadership - comes not from money, but from making tough decisions. In this, Florentino Perez has failed as Real Madrid President. While Jose Mourinho is mandated to bring success to Real Madrid on the pitch, it is Perez's responsibility to make sure he does so in a manner worthy of his institution.

To draw parallels from politics, were Perez the head of a government and failed to adequately discipline a general he would risk his own career. In a non-entertainment business role - well, just look at what happened at the News of the World. When people whose job it is to get results don't get guidance from above their practices can slip into the unorthodox, unpleasant and sometimes the illegal.

Jose Mourinho hasn't done anything illegal during his status at Real. What he has done, though, is get (some) results and inflame an already-heated rivalry by being boorish. If Florentino Perez is happy to make that tradeoff, theirs shall be a match made in heaven. The only alternative is for Perez to man up and act like the leader his position says he should be.