Mickey and Pup throw a well deserved elbow
Roar Guru By Cameron Larkin, 14 Mar 2013 Cameron Larkin is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, Shane Watson
I spent time in the Australian Defence Force and one factor was continually drilled into each member: everyone should be prepared to take over command if required to.
Secondly, after each exercise, conduct an After Action Review (AAR).
These two essential elements were failed by James Pattison, Mitchell Johnson, Usman Khawaja and Australian vice-captain Shane Watson.
So I strongly disagree with The Roar expert Joe Karsay’s opinion that the Test teams “culture was dealt a significant blow this week by Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur”.
Doesn’t the action the captain and coach took strengthen the culture? Or a better question, what is the current teams culture? According to coach Arthur, the team has grown comfortable with a “back-chat” and “giving attitude” culture.
Now I’ll be honest, cricket is far from my favourite sport however this is an issue of leadership and attitude, and less of the bat and ball
What’s disappointing was Watson’s reaction within the awaiting salivating media.
“I think it’s extremely harsh to be able to be suspended from a Test match for your country, you know, in any circumstance, whether we’re two nil down or whether we’re going very well…I’ve got different opinions to the leadership group. I obviously expressed my extreme disappointment with the punishment.”
This from the man who would lead the national side if Clarke was to go down injured.
The Australian cricket team needed a dramatic shake up and that is exactly what happened. Hall of Fame basketball player Bill Russell was advised by former coach Red Auerbach to throw an elbow in a nationally televised game to send a message to his adversaries who continually fouled the big man rather than being dominated offensively.
In football (pick any code), it would be the coach storming into the rooms at half-time, flipping a table and going on a tirade – only once however. It’s a statement.
This was Arthur’s message that things need and must change. There is more to winning than simply talent.
If Watson was let off the hook here and kept in the team for the remaining matches, what message would that send to the entire team, particularly the younger players? Arthur has an inkling suspicion.
“Being late for a meeting, high skin folds, wearing the wrong attire, back chat or giving attitude are just some examples of these behavioural issues that have been addressed discretely but continue to happen. If we’re deadly serious about getting back to number one in the world, all players need to raise the bar and lift their game.”
“If not, we must be content at being number three or four or five in world cricket because we won’t get any better. The players won’t learn and we’ll continue a vicious cycle.”
Professionalism is key. If any player is not up to or open to improving, upholding the strive for excellence, then they shouldn’t be in and don’t deserve a position within the the national side.
I tip my hat to Mickey and Pup for standing up when they knew that they would cop it from all sides.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, Shane Watson
March 14th 2013 @ 8:38am
Jayden said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I think this article is the best opinion piece on this topic yet, well done.mate.
I think the main concern is not their attitude (with readers/viewers) but that they were an integral part of the team, or had been campaigned to be so. (with exception to Johnson)
I’m not sure if the punishment was ‘right’ per se bit in the circumstances it was probably the only one that would send a string enough message through the team
March 14th 2013 @ 8:42am
Cameron Larkin said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Cheers Jayden for those words.
It’ll be interesting to see how the team now reacts/comes out and plays – not just the next few matches but the 12 months ahead.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:11am
chris b said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Yes but the problem with your view is that assumes those in charge are always right. Mate work in any modern corpoate job and you get so many daft, pointless orders and directives that anyone with half a brain must ignore some and argue others.
The world is being taken over by control freaks, the footy codes have long been semi-fascist states. I’ve always looked on cricket as being a haven for the eccentric, but even this window seems to be closing in the modern age of “professionalism”.
It pains me to think that so many great players in the past wouldn’t make it today as they don’t dot every bureaucratic I and cross every T.
Skin fold tests, geez, I could name 10 great bats off the top of my head who would fail every time.
No wonder playing standards are dropping.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:35am
Cameron Larkin said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:35am | Report comment
@ChrisB, I work in the corporate sector and appreciate your point. I also agree with you re skin folds etc however today’s teams/cultures are different from the past. Leadership/management put their stamp on a team and players need to push and do everything to maintain those levels.
If you let the little factors slide, so will performance.
March 14th 2013 @ 12:05pm
Andy_Roo said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
There may well be many daft and pointless orders given in any organisation and many should be argued against.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to argue against them and it seems that many within the Australain team are arguing against them in the wrong way.
March 15th 2013 @ 11:35am
kid said | March 15th 2013 @ 11:35am | Report comment
But what if the things a coach may want you to do will impact on your playing style? for example: If the coaches say you have to do weights sessions that then changes your body shape and suddenly you can’t swing the ball anymore, pretty sure its not the coach thats going to be dropped.
March 14th 2013 @ 8:42am
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:42am | Report comment
The proof will be in the pudding as they say – this series is gone, but the Ashes results will be telling.
Personally I don’t think Howard, Inverarity or Arthur can be part of the solution to the problems with cricket in Australia.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:36am
Timmuh said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Cameron, a well argued piece. I agree with the thrust of it, but not necessarily with the outcome produced in this case. Those in command, if you like, set a task. It was up to each player to follow it, even if the task was of dubious value; and in the circumstance I’m not sure it was so dubious. Its not the military, so players had every right to question the value of the task, but it was assigned and as professionals they therefore had an obligation to do it.
Failure to complete was not worthy, however of suspension. All suspending the players; particularly Pattinson, the others are no real loss anyway; does is make the task of winning a (probably unwinnable) match that bit harder.
It punishes those who did the right thing by taking away one of the team’s best weapons. Its not as though failure to produce a few lines of thoughts upset other players preparation for the match.
Yes, applying a penalty was fair enough. If it is true that it has been part of a pattern of lax behaviour on the tour then it may have been required. But not suspension that hurts the whole group.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:55am
Cameron Larkin said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:55am | Report comment
@Timmuh, “All suspending the players; particularly Pattinson, the others are no real loss anyway” – Does this mean that there should be two different standards?
“It punishes those who did the right thing by taking away one of the team’s best weapons” – it’s a team game and if an individual doesn’t uphold the standards etc, the team as a whole losses out. This isn’t swimming.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:06am
Timmuh said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:06am | Report comment
No, I didn’t mean a double standard should apply, just that in this case Pattinson is important and his absence hurts the team. If any double standard should apply it is to Watson, who by virtue of his leadership position has a greater responsibility to uphold standards than other players. I highlighted Pattinson because his absence hurts the team more than any of the others, not because he should get more lenient rteatment.
It is a team game, and the team is hurt more by the unavailability of players than by their failure to produce a few lines of commentary.
A punishment, whether that be a fine, a bigger requirement on the next task, actually doing the set task but to a higher standard, or whatever, or a combination of those and something else, can be deemed in order. I just believe any such penalty should be one that affects the players in question – not everybody else; the rest of the team, the fans, etc; who now share a penalty despite doing the right thing; and that suspension from a Test match is over the top in and of itself anyway for this type opf indiscretion.
March 14th 2013 @ 12:02pm
Rob from Brumby Country said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Cameron, nobody is questioning the need for some sort of disciplinary action to have been taken against the players, the real question mark is whether the action taken was appropriate to the circumstances.
To use your militaristic analogy, could you ever imagine one third of an active battalion being stood down from service in the middle of an ongoing operation? What if that operation had been going as badly for the soldiers as this tour has been going for our cricketers? Cricket is not as uncompromising as warfare, but there are still objectives that are being placed into jeopardy as a result of these reckless suspensions.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for disciplinary action to be taken. But you don’t conduct your court-martials out in the field.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:52am
jameswm said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Timmuh it was the last indiscretion of a series. This alone would not have been enough for a suspension.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:01am
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:01am | Report comment
No it was the latest example of indiscretions from the squad. It was not the final indiscretion Arthur was willing to put up with from these particular players. Clarke and Arthur have both come out and said the actual players were not even discussed at the meeting where the decision to suspend was made. This alone was enough for the suspension.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:36am
Amith said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Yes it was the latest example of discretions and as Kev mentioned the actual players were not even mentioned in the meeting, so its important to focus on the entire squad and not just the gang of 4.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:37am
rl said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Cameron, I don’t disagree with the sentiment expressed, but this whole issue has been handled unbelieveably badly.
With your background, would your leaders have willingly gone into the field knowing that there were unresolved issuses within the unit? What impact does it have on morale within a group if there is an underlying concern amongst the group that some members shouldn’t be there? If a unit is out in the field, and there is a complete breakdown in discipline, that to me would indicate a failure in leadership, no?
Within the military there is sufficent rigid discipline that these issues might be overcome or set to one side. But I’m sure if the leaders of a group are about to enter a situation where lives are in the balance and they know there are some members of the unit not lifting their weight, there’d be some pretty direct action to head it off. If Invers, Mickey and Pup thought there were some issues, these guys should not have been taken on tour in the first place. Far more appropriate to take strong action back in the barracks, than out in the field I reckon.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:54am
biltongbek said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I think Cameron has it spot on, if the leadership is shunned by the players one of two things usually happens, the “attitude” will escalate, or you sort it out.
It is easy to sit on the sideline and criticise without knowing the full story.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:23am
Paul said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:23am | Report comment
In all honesty, this is cricket.
One individual bowls the ball, another individual takes a swing at it, and another individual tries to catch it or stop it from rolling away.
The only time when teamwork comes into play is during fielding.
Otherwise, it’s individual performance.
What were they meant to have come up with? Bowl better? Bat better? Catch the ball more? It’s not as if they can say “we can have two midfielders run into space” or “the strikers and midfield can co-ordinate their passing and running so we don’t get flagged for offside”.
It really smells of scapegoating, as those responsible for overall tactics and field positioning failed dismally and didn’t want to be held to account. Or you could just admit the bleeding obvious – that the opposition are just a lot better on their home turf.
For heaven’s sake, this is India. Even as an Australian of Indian (Goan) background and having been there several times in the past, I always find a trip there pretty rough and tough to endure. I challenge anyone to go there and NOT find yourself running to the loo twice a day.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:27am
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:27am | Report comment
The Australian team’s run-out stats this summer would like to point out that scoring runs by any means other than a boundary requires significant team-work albeit in the form of a partnership rather than 11 people at once.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:48am
Amith said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Agree 100% Paul
March 14th 2013 @ 10:55am
Bunratty said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Very nice piece! The times are/and have changed.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:17am
Cameron Larkin said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Cheers @Bunratty – it was the right call, it sent a message that the little things must be completed or else. The players now know what is required and it should change some attitudes. It’s their full time job and they get paid very, very well for doing it. They (sports people) get let off far too easily today. It is a business and they’re the staff, act like it!
March 14th 2013 @ 11:17am
sheek said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Cameron,
Well written & there is a lot to like about it.
i recall the scene in ‘We Were Soldiers Once And Young’, when Mel Gibson’s character pauses an exercise & walks over to a chopper about to disgorge its soldiers. He points to the team leader, “you’re dead”, plus also one or two others.
Continuing the exercise, the remaining soldiers must now quickly adapt to a new leader & rapidly changing circumstances.
I agree with those who suggest you assume the management team was right even if they were wrong.
If in battle, your commander makes a poor decision that leads to unnecessary loss of life, does everyone just shrug their shoulders? Like the scene from Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail’ when Sir Lancelot (John Cleese) accidentally kills the wrong group of people, then works around humbly apologizing among the wounded & moaning survivors, “sorry, sorry, sorry,” as if that’s all there is to it.
Where’s the accountability in these situations?
Very few doubt that there is a culture problem within Australian cricket. However, the manner in which Arthur & Clarke have gone about this is totally wrong. Rather than solve the problem, they have merely added to it.
The idea is to change people’s poor habits without incurring residual resentment.
This is hardly a recipe for good governance.
Fortunately, sport is not war. At least, not yet. But who knows, as our instant gratification ascends no bounds & we get more & more bored with the status quo, then the ‘Hunger Games’ scenario might become real in another 100-200 years…..
March 14th 2013 @ 11:38am
Amith said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:38am | Report comment
No doubt for me that the manner in which Arthur and Clarke have handled this situation was wrong, singling out 4 guys in public for the team’s issues was wrong, it should have been done behind doors and in a team forum with everyone there.
March 14th 2013 @ 12:27pm
sheek said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Amith,
It was the wrong course of action from the start. Whoever has heard of written homework? Perhaps for quarterbacks in the NFL maybe!
What the hell is the purpose of the meeting room? This is where you thrash out team problems & team strategies. There’s very little that happens in a team environment that the players don’t know about.
Everyone inside the team knows who’s been sleeping in, who’s been missing team meetings, who’s been late for the bus, who’s been tardy at training. There’s no need for names. Arthur gives the whole team a collective blast & has a quiet, or maybe not so quiet word, with individual transgressors.
Forget this “line in the sand” stuff. If you don’t want to be part of the culture, or can’t offer a better alternative, you’ll be out of the team soon enough. That ought to be sufficient motivation to compromise.
Culture is reinforced, fines imposed if & where necessary. Now, let’s clear the air, anyone with grievances, let’s hear them, work on common solutions. In a team environment, everyone should know the thoughts of others (up to a point, of course).
Everyone knows how it works, if you don’t buy into the team culture, or want to part of this team culture, you won’t be in the team much longer. That’s the ultimate punishment – banishment.
Now that we’ve sorted the individual stuff out, let’s look at the strategies & tactics required to win the next test, to do better. What can the batsmen do with their technique to improve, to score runs? Ditto the bowlers, what can the bowlers do with their technique to capture more wickets? How can we better set our fields?
All in-house. The media knows nothing. Results on the field speak for the new attitude, nothing else.
That’s how it’s done.
However, Arthur decided to go public, to publicly belittle members of the team, irrespective of the rights & wrongs. I get the impression Arthur is coaching by media, & letting his bosses know he is doing a fine job by advertising what he’s doing through the media.
It’s a “look at me” style of leadership. Sadly, Clarke has followed suit.
This is apparently how you do things in the new world of corporatized sport.
March 14th 2013 @ 6:30pm
chris b said | March 14th 2013 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
Sheek, out of thousands of comments on this topic this is far and away the best.
No doubt there are lazy cricketers in the oz set up right now, but they are, and will be, exposed by poor form and lazy play, not by passing (or doing) a written exam.
The overreaction by the same management team responsible for astoundingly poor team selection was ridiculous and reflected badly PN all concerned.
For those with a pop culture bent, it reminded me of Lord Rees-Moggs famous editorial “To break a butterfly on a wheel” in response to the Rolling Stones’ drug bust, where he castigated another silly establishment response.
Wonder what he’d make of homework-gate?
March 14th 2013 @ 8:00pm
sheek said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Appreciated, Chris b.
While I’m usually quite happy to cut across the grain on many topics, I’m gratified to see many more people share the same views as I than don’t.
i notice even Boycs (treat the players as adults & keep it in-house) is saying much the same thing!
March 14th 2013 @ 11:41am
Cameron Larkin said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Well said @Sheek. The spotlight will soon be totally on Pup, nothing to do with his ability to score runs etc but his ability to lead the team, not just lead the teams scoring!
March 14th 2013 @ 11:43am
Renegade said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Great article Cameron and one of the best pieces written on it so far.
I think we (the public) still haven’t received the full story in regards to what has been happening within this team however i believe your assessment of the current situation is spot on.
At this stage, i stand by my prediction that we will be the number 1 side in the world in 2015
March 14th 2013 @ 11:53am
Australian Rules said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Good stuff Cam.
What struck me (after social media went into holwing meltdown) was all the respected cricket scribes who are closest to the goings on in the team (guys like Craddock, Conn etc) applauded the Team Mgmt for its stance.
And you crystallised an important point when you said that Watson is meant to be “the man who would lead the national side if Clarke was to go down injured.”
It’s a scary thought.
March 14th 2013 @ 12:29pm
Pope Paul VII said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Australian journos are in the main not critical of the team management or legendary players over these last 5 years or so.
I think they are partly responsible for Clarke’s sainthood.