Australians return to hostility as a way to beat humiliation
by Neil Manthorp,
2014-11-11 06:26:31.0
THE vast majority of Australian cricket fans will no doubt have been heartened to hear the national skipper reaffirming his commitment to a policy of uncompromised "aggression on the field" following what many would have regarded as a chastening thrashing by Pakistan in two Test matches in the United Arab Emirates over the past fortnight.
Michael Clarke called on the universally recognised and accepted Aussie qualities of unapologetic hostility and the refusal to take a step backwards as his way of treating the humiliation and moving towards a return to winning ways during the imminent series against SA and India which precede the World Cup.
After all, they worked for the decades in which Australia dominated world cricket. Why would they not work again?
From Allan Border to Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath to Shane Warne and Matthew Hayden, the stars of the national team have been so far up their opponents’ faces as to be mingling with their nasal hair.
And the results spoke for themselves. The few defeats they experienced along the way were soon solved with an increase in irritation and disrespect for the other team — on the field only, of course. Or mostly, anyway. Professional cricket is "a hard game" and you have to expect the occasional stepping "across the line." It’s only natural.
Of course, it was never the case that the entire playing XI agreed with the philosophy, but they kept their thoughts to themselves and were careful not to disrupt the team ethos, if that’s the right word.
For many years, under different captains, the Proteas had a similarly inflexible attitude towards playing the game. It was based on the Puritanical, even Presbyterian, notions of unrelenting hard work, self-denial and an unwillingness to speak out or consider an alternative approach.
In truth, the Proteas didn’t have "a way". Or at least, not one that suited them and their increasingly diverse backgrounds. The blueprint for the way they played the game might as well have been handed to them directly by the colonising missionaries and Voortrekkers who arrived 200 years ago. Not only was it a little long in the tooth, it was as pliable as granite.
The long-overdue process of finding "a way" to approach and play the game for South Africans took more than four years and required players, administrators and coaches to swallow their pride, stop concealing their feelings of inadequacy, speak out about what made them proud — and then come up with a way of mixing the ingredients into one substance. The result was "Protea Fire".
It would be understandable if the majority of cricket followers were still not more than superficially aware of what it means. To be fair, the campaign, on the surface, doesn’t look like much more than the next, inevitable, marketing campaign.
A rebranding. Or, actually, a branding.
But they may be surprised if they have five minutes to spare during their next coffee break. Watch AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla or Dale Steyn — or any of the national squad for that matter — talk online about the "Protea Fire" and what it means to them. Whatever they make of the content, they’d be hard-pressed to doubt its sincerity.
It’s a strange phenomenon in sport that we say, "He only knows one way", as if that’s a good thing. In most other walks of life, one-dimensionalism is regarded as a serious weakness.
Whatever the perceived strengths of the "one way" are, it should be desirable, if not compulsory, for leaders to be aware of the paths and options they are eschewing.
Has Clarke considered that "aggression" may not suit some of his players? That it might make them less likely to perform at their best? That its success may have been more to do with a rare generation of unusually gifted players, many of whom coincidentally enjoyed bullying their foe?
Perhaps, just maybe, the present Australian team would perform better if they were allowed to follow their individual instincts and concentrate on what they do with the bat and ball rather than their body language and what they say about the opposing player’s hair. Or parentage.
Picture: THINKSTOCK
THE vast majority of Australian cricket fans will no doubt have been heartened to hear the national skipper reaffirming his commitment to a policy of uncompromised "aggression on the field" following what many would have regarded as a chastening thrashing by Pakistan in two Test matches in the United Arab Emirates over the past fortnight.
Michael Clarke called on the universally recognised and accepted Aussie qualities of unapologetic hostility and the refusal to take a step backwards as his way of treating the humiliation and moving towards a return to winning ways during the imminent series against SA and India which precede the World Cup.
After all, they worked for the decades in which Australia dominated world cricket. Why would they not work again?
From Allan Border to Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath to Shane Warne and Matthew Hayden, the stars of the national team have been so far up their opponents’ faces as to be mingling with their nasal hair.
And the results spoke for themselves. The few defeats they experienced along the way were soon solved with an increase in irritation and disrespect for the other team — on the field only, of course. Or mostly, anyway. Professional cricket is "a hard game" and you have to expect the occasional stepping "across the line." It’s only natural.
Of course, it was never the case that the entire playing XI agreed with the philosophy, but they kept their thoughts to themselves and were careful not to disrupt the team ethos, if that’s the right word.
For many years, under different captains, the Proteas had a similarly inflexible attitude towards playing the game. It was based on the Puritanical, even Presbyterian, notions of unrelenting hard work, self-denial and an unwillingness to speak out or consider an alternative approach.
In truth, the Proteas didn’t have "a way". Or at least, not one that suited them and their increasingly diverse backgrounds. The blueprint for the way they played the game might as well have been handed to them directly by the colonising missionaries and Voortrekkers who arrived 200 years ago. Not only was it a little long in the tooth, it was as pliable as granite.
The long-overdue process of finding "a way" to approach and play the game for South Africans took more than four years and required players, administrators and coaches to swallow their pride, stop concealing their feelings of inadequacy, speak out about what made them proud — and then come up with a way of mixing the ingredients into one substance. The result was "Protea Fire".
It would be understandable if the majority of cricket followers were still not more than superficially aware of what it means. To be fair, the campaign, on the surface, doesn’t look like much more than the next, inevitable, marketing campaign.
A rebranding. Or, actually, a branding.
But they may be surprised if they have five minutes to spare during their next coffee break. Watch AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla or Dale Steyn — or any of the national squad for that matter — talk online about the "Protea Fire" and what it means to them. Whatever they make of the content, they’d be hard-pressed to doubt its sincerity.
It’s a strange phenomenon in sport that we say, "He only knows one way", as if that’s a good thing. In most other walks of life, one-dimensionalism is regarded as a serious weakness.
Whatever the perceived strengths of the "one way" are, it should be desirable, if not compulsory, for leaders to be aware of the paths and options they are eschewing.
Has Clarke considered that "aggression" may not suit some of his players? That it might make them less likely to perform at their best? That its success may have been more to do with a rare generation of unusually gifted players, many of whom coincidentally enjoyed bullying their foe?
Perhaps, just maybe, the present Australian team would perform better if they were allowed to follow their individual instincts and concentrate on what they do with the bat and ball rather than their body language and what they say about the opposing player’s hair. Or parentage.
Post a comment