The Chinese communist government of the 1970s had a problem with a gang of four and it’s now a similar situation for Australian cricket.
If consecutive one-sided losses, questionable selections, a spluttering top-order and a dearth of quality spin bowlers weren’t enough for Cricket Australia to deal with, things have gotten infinitely worse in the past 24 hours.
A bombshell of Bikini Atoll proportions was dropped yesterday in Mohali, with Australian coach Mickey Arthur calling a special media conference during which he announced that four players were not under consideration for the third Test – Shane Watson, James Pattinson, Mitchell Johnson and Usman Khawaja.
The ‘crime’ that saw their eligibility terminated was the fact they had not furnished the coach with a response to a request he made following the innings defeat in Hyderabad.
The players were given five days to come up with responses to what could be done by the squad across three key areas – technical, mental and team – to arrest the rapidly escaping series.
Arthur stated, “a lot of guys came to my room and did a presentation, a few guys have written fantastic emails, some guys put notes under my door, it was their preference.”
However, four of the squad chose not to supply any thoughts whatsoever.
And the four – following deliberations by Arthur, captain Michael Clarke and team manager Gavin Dovey – were stood down for the Mohali Test.
The plot soon thickened when vice-captain Shane Watson packed up his gear and headed to the airport.
It was mooted a few weeks back he may have headed home around this time anyway as his wife is shortly expecting their first child.
But when buttonholed prior to his departure, his comments indicated he is far than enamoured by the treatment he has been dealt by tour management.
“Any time you’re suspended for a Test match unless you do something unbelievably wrong, and obviously everyone knows what those rules are… I think it is very harsh,” Watson told Sydney Morning Herald.
“At this point in time I’m at a stage where I’m sort of weighing up my future and what I want to do with my cricket in general, to be honest. I do love playing, there is no doubt about that, but at this point in time I’m going to spend the next few weeks with my family and just weigh up my options of just exactly which direction I want to go.”
The comments were hardly what the powers that be at Cricket Australia’s Jolimont headquarters would like to hear.
It appears Watson is an angry and disillusioned man.
How the other three players in question have reacted is yet to be made public.
It is hard to imagine this one episode required such a strict penalty to be handed down.
While Arthur, at his media conference, alluded to the fact this was an isolated stand-alone incident, Clarke shortly after said otherwise.
“I want the public and the media to understand, don’t get me wrong, it’s not just about one incident.
“I know it is a tough day, a really tough day and it’s a tough decision, but at the end of the day if people are not hitting those standards there are going to be consequences.”
It is certainly a case of mixed messages from the two men at the head of the team.
Twitter has gone into overload with many suggesting or demanding Arthur be given his marching orders.
Yet it is worth remembering he was not the sole judge, jury and executioner.
The skipper also had a massive say in whatever penalty was to be levied and his comments show that personally he was far from happy with several issues during this tour.
Chairman of selectors John Inverarity left the squad following the second Test and, at the time the story broke yesterday, his replacement as selector on tour Rod Marsh, was in Dubai in transit to Mohali.
Such a serious penalty would surely not have been meted out without some form of approval from CA’s senior administration back in Australia.
Arthur dubbed the move as a “line in the sand” moment.
What impact it will have on the team’s output and morale over the next two weeks is anyone’s guess.
It could galvanise those remaining in the camp or it could see the birth of splinter groups who feel their teammates have been too harshly dealt with.
Either way, much of the focus will be on Clarke.
Over the past 12 months he has carried Australia’s batting fortunes on his own shoulders while at the same time trying to tactically position them for victory.
Many have given him a pass mark for his captaincy nous but it is about to face a test that few could have imagined.
There is no doubt he will have made some enemies in the past day.
Just how many though is currently unknown.
And whether the four that have been called to question are willing to forget and forgive in the short term remains debateable.
Already Clarke has had highly publicised falling outs with the likes of Simon Katich, Andrew Symonds and Damien Martyn during his time in the Australian team.
Rumours abounded earlier this summer with regard to Clarke having been the man who put a line through Michael Hussey playing in the one-day series that followed the Sydney Test during which he retired.
Speculation will no doubt be rife over this latest episode and Clarke’s role in it.
Arthur said at his media conference the quartet would be eligible for selection for the fourth Test at Delhi.
The coach made those comments before Watson checked out of the team hotel.
Whether his return to Australia will affect his immediate future is yet another unknown with regard to this still unfolding saga.
Many have questioned the need for an international coach to seek such detailed feedback from his squad.
But, in essence, such actions are not unusual.
Many coaches have sought such feedback from their charges in times of collective stress and poor performance.
Indeed, many of those who preach effective man management practices support obtaining a buy-in from the troops.
But never has there been such a reaction should a player fail to provide his thoughts.
On the one hand it may seem to be a rather old-school – if not, in some people’s eyes, a primary school – way of handling things, it is also fair to say that what was asked for was hardly arduous.
12 of the 16-strong touring party appear to have had little issue as to what was required.
Where the ‘gang of four’ have let themselves down badly is not confronting the coach during the five-day period during which they were asked to mull over the situation and air their personal concerns over what they were asked to do.
If they simply chose not to do it and effectively thumb their nose at the coach, no matter how you read it, they have done the wrong thing.
But, having said that, a one-Test ban does seem to be an overreaction, although the captain has stated this may well have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
If that is indeed the case, the fans deserve to know the full reason that four players have been axed from the side.
With Australia’s parlous batting display in the opening two Tests, and Phillip Hughes’ (24 runs at 6) in particular, Khawaja was pretty much guaranteed a Test comeback.
Pattinson has clearly been the side’s most effective bowler thus far and Johnson would have been under strong consideration.
And as for Watson, who has had his place in the top-six questioned by many, ironically Mohali is the venue for one of his two Test centuries during his 41-Test career, having made 126 there in 2010.
We now sit and wait – for further information on the other on-tour misdemeanours; the impact the axings will have on the side for Mohali; and what aftermath may flow from this saga in the months ahead.
One thing is for sure, there is no such a thing as a dull moment at present with regard to Australian cricket.
ShakaZulu
Guest
Guts is to speak up at the time - not just keep quiet and then leave! Not the fellow to have next to you in the trenches it appears. And when are we going to see some tangible evidence of this prospective great all rounder? Perform first, then you may be able to command some true respect.
Renegade
Guest
No Glenn, It was all a ploy...just ask Sanjay and Red Kev. Khawaja is the greatest human being on earth.
Renegade
Guest
Sanjay, That is absolute rubbish....take your I love Khawaja posters down and actually look at the situation FFS.
buddha9
Guest
professional is an easy word to toss around Glen -- we've only got mickey arthur's side of the story -- these things are better dealt with by general team meetings but there has to be a quality of trust involved and clearly thats not the situation now -- Arthur's got a track record of this sort of divisive behavior as has clarke -- its also been clear for a while that selections aren't based on form but rather on mates pick -- Arthur is responsible for the team but he seems to be acting in a very partisan manner here -- clearly the team is not performing and acting in this OTT manner hasn't helped anyone -- I also suspect that Arthur's main talent is for covering his arse. There's a million other more positive ways to have handled this and all the management have done is make a weak team weaker.
Troy
Guest
Well said. Spot on!
Stephen
Guest
Selection in this tour have been wrong Richard, I would have gone for Lyon in the second test and would have got Khawaja in, but once again Khawaja misses out, lets hope common sense prevails and he is back in the 4th test. Honestly, how much reviewing can Khawaja and Johnson do when they haven't played all series? Arthur could not come across as more childish if he tried. Anyone who thinks this punishment fits the crime you are kidding yourselves. If Watson thinks this is a farce, I hope he speaks out against it and doesn't take it meekly like so many seem to have lately.
Stephen
Guest
Both these guys were not part of the first 2 tests, they are hardly responsible for the first 2 loses and have simply been made scapegoats
Stephen
Guest
Yes Gen Y are not the best to ask for homework. I would also like to see a team meeting, a few beers and discuss as a group. Arthur is not doing things the Aussie way
Stephen
Guest
Yes i have no doubt that Khawaja and Pattinson will be back in the Dehli test. Both will be key for us to win here and in the ashes. And as for the responses. Mickey,here they are... From Pattinson: 1 - Bowl as well as I did, 2 - Bowl as well as I did, 3 - Bowl as well as I did. From Watson: 1 - Let me open, 2 - Let me open, 3 - Let me open. From Khawaja: 1 - Pick me, 2 - Pick me, 3 - Pick me. From Johnson: 1 - Pick me, 2 - Pick me, 3 - Pick me. Crisis over, all this is a bit of a joke and very badly handled by Arthur and co.
Stephen
Guest
Glenn i have to agree with Sanjay, Khawaja hasn't played a single game this series, what can he contribute, the pressure was on folks such as Hughes, Cowan, Watson who have failed in 2 tests to list how to improve, it seems that once again selectors are finding reasons not to pick Khawaja, the guy can never get a fair crack.
Stephen
Guest
Well said Julian, this punishment makes no sense and now i notice that Arthur is leaking more information on why they did this but not saying which players made the mistakes, it seems that these 4 have got the punishment for mistakes that other folks have been making as well. I just hope Pattinson and KHawaja are back in consideration for the 4th test as we will need them both
David M
Guest
I can't believe these guys couldn't be bothered to put 5 minutes thought into improving theirs and the teams performance. This alone is worthy of a suspension - they are paid exceptionally well. The coach was looking for feedback and ideas but this process is also an opportunity to teach - after all, the squad is relatively inexperienced. In my view, Watson is an overrated test cricketer and I don't believe he will be missed. Having said all this, I am not so sure Clark is the captain some of us first thought he might be.
Stephen
Guest
This lack of support by Clarke for his VC could be his downfall. Its a real tragedy that youngsters such as Khawaja and Pattinson who are our future stars have been caught up in issues between the captain and vice captain
Richard
Guest
It appears a player can have their career potentially cut short for not doing homework between games. More importantly then, it follows that the selectors should definitely be under the same threat for not doing their homework between series. Did they pick the right bunch of players for this tour? Everybody agrees they didn’t. Where was SOK? where was a solid No6 with leadership experience like Bailey to cover for the retiring Hussey. Why pick know lousy players like Maxwell and Smith? You need some older wise heads brought into a callow team. Verdict: fail With what they had did they pick the right team for the first test? Everybody agrees they didn’t. Why pick three inexperienced seamers on a raging turner of rolled dried mud in India. Why wasn’t Clarke showing some courage and leadership by moving up the order in this inexperienced team. Verdict:fail In the second test why wasn’t Khawaja exchanged for Hughes who was clearly all at see against spin, why was Lyon dropped for Maxwell? Verdict: fail This team is being failed by its leadership. No wonder they are not following directives. This is a desperate attempt by failed leaders to look like they are doing something and an attempt to sheet home blame for their failed decision making on to the players. We are being led into total oblivion!
JB
Guest
+1
Blaze
Guest
Maybe if Watson was performing and breaking records in sheer weight of runs or the team itself was even slightly looking like they valued their wicket then you would have some weight behind your argument. Fact is Watson is in no position to pick and choose where he bats never mind having the privilege of being VC. The request was more than reasonable! It's not as if they asked for their first born, the team as a whole is under performing on a grand scale and this exercise/survey is a pretty common way of getting feedback of people involved. If you can't be bothered, then why should they be bothered to pick you to play? You obviously aren't committed to fixing the problem on a small scale, what makes you think they will be bothered on the grand scale? Seems to me the players have had it all their way for too long, Clarke and Arthur have had enough, and quite frankly so have I, you can pick all the domestic players you want, but if they treat a tour like a holiday instead of having a win at all costs mentality then nothing will change. One strike suspensions will get the point across pretty fast, and if you don't like it (Watson) then enjoy state cricket.
Dr NRL
Guest
I agree that all players need to take responsibility for their actions, and I still don't know why the 4 didn't just scribble something on paper. It looks like the import of the assignment (if that was even how it was sold to them) was not impressed upon them. I disagree that Watson's woeful shot, for that is what it was, was any worse than Cowan and Warner being bowled around the legs by an off-spinner bowling over the wicket, not bothering to even cover the pitch of the ball let alone the enormous spin. Watson might have expected a half-tracker to bounce more than knee height. Equally, the two left-handers might have anticipated a spin bowler would spin the ball. All of them were appalling, as was the Wade/Henriques runout. The coach is out of ideas if he needs his team and reserves to tell him what they bring to the team, and that's why success for this team will continue to be pushed out as long as current management stay in place. Forgeting the assignment is not an excuse, but neither is the coach or captain neglecting to so much as chat briefly about it with their players at any stage over 5 days (I believe that was the time frame), including the so-called vice captain. That is what a real coach does. If it was that important, they would have checked in at least once to see how they were going with it, whether they understood what was required, or if they needed any assistance. A team environment is fostered and nutured, not decreed by diktat. For them not to bother talking to their team mates indicates that the report either wasn't that important (until it became a chance to make a point), or that the internal atmosphere is too toxic for even grown men to have a civilised conversation. It boggles the mind to wonder what any of these guys talk about on a daily basis. I can't blame a coach for poor player decisions in the heat of battle, yu are correct. However, it is the coach's job to instil the positive habits that avoid this. Is there an other reason coaches like Wayne Bennett in the NRL can exceed wild expectations with a very similar roster to a coash preceding him? rgds,
albatross
Roar Pro
+1
Botticelli
Guest
Glen, you seem to be assuming that the decision by Arthur and Clarke to request input was reasonable. The four players concerned may have felt the problems lay with selection and the leadership, and they may well be right. Perhaps this had been expressed by the VC on a number of occasions but not well received by Clarke and Arthur. In such a situation, the request to provide feedback about personal improvement seems rediculous as it will do nothing to improve the situation. In fact compliance would entrench the leadership dysfunction. At this point a man has to take a stand. He risks losing, which seems quite probable in Watsons case, but at least he followed through. The interesting factor here is that there were four of them. This should be enough to cause a review of Clarke and Arthur's role in the affair and their leadership performance. Watson is VC and needs to be included- not excluded. To start with he should be able to select his batting position, much like Clarke can. Cowan could easily play number 3.
dasilva
Guest
From the recent Howard interview "Howard would not detail the list of previous indiscretions by players and admitted it may have been the first breach by some of the suspended quartet." I guess the whole past indiscretion thing has been officially debunk and this was a one strike suspension policy at least for some of the players