Out of all the media buzz words that have greatly infuriated a disaffected public, the one that irks more than anything else is that misnomer called ‘professionalism’.
What does it even mean anymore? Is it the traditional meaning of the term that implies providing a good or service at cost that supplements a career?
Or is it the notion the term itself can be loosely applied in circumstances that favour the preconceived agenda in which we’re all a part of this, but no one is responsible?
Sadly, Australian cricket has become known for the very quality of mixed messages and innuendo sans commonsense.
It’s really hard to take sides on this one. If you are in the Arthur/Clarke corner, you’re advocating for players to self-reflect on pieces of paper upon their performance, even if said performance involves drinks carrying.
To take this side, you advocate the selection of Xavier Doherty on a tour to India with an average of 80 ahead of Stephen O’Keefe. Or a decently performing Rob Quiney was consigned to human shield to protect a currently struggling Phil Hughes.
Those are just two examples. To continue on this diatribe would be to miss the point at hand.
On the other side, you have Shane Robert Watson – a man who has had more reincarnations than Lord Vishnu.
It is hard to even fathom what Watson thinks of himself, given the selectors’ previous propensity to consider him the centrepoint of Australian cricket.
But given his decision to pack his bags (supposedly to be present for the imminent birth for his first child), Watson himself has epitomised the petulant childishness of Australian cricket.
The tragedy isn’t that Watson has been stood down due to not following team orders – but for being considered good enough to be required to complete such an arduous task in the first place.
So who’s side should we take? We all dabble in talk about professional integrity, but surely there is none if all no one takes the consequences of bad decisions.
Clarke will get all the plaudits for his batting and captaincy, but no blame or penalty for having the gall of picking Doherty above O’Keefe.
Meanwhile, a Shane Watson can count on being picked regardless of performance or fragile fitness. And the criteria for selection for an Usman Khawaja becomes impossible to rationalise.
The naive person in me would like to think everyone wants Australian cricket to do well and that a simple game has become overcomplicated.
But that makes it, well, too simple. What is likelier is every party has decided that Australian cricket can go to hell when it comes to their own self-interest.
How professional of them.
JMW
Guest
Seriously, give it a break. You don't always need to have the last word, do you?
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
I'm happy to claim this article as mine mate, as I'm not using an alias in claiming my viewpoint (regardless of how informed or ill-informed it is - that's for the beholder to determine). So I solely and happily bear whatever responsibility that comes with it. Whether it is an excuse or justification (again, a subjective matter), there are reasons for the view I have taken. I accept yours on the point of how performance is based on the characteristics you mention. The Indians were good enough to exploit our weakness in facing spin and aggressive enough with bat in hand to completely dismantle our tactics. Kudos to them. I won't go into the mentality of the BCCI - that's a completely different topic that requires separate study. But I will pose the question as to what we can do better. This series has exemplified how the powers that be in Cricket Australia have made questionable selections and even more ridiculous rationale (Xavier Doherty as one example) to justify their position. What has come out of it? A 4-0 whitewash, and a team bitterly divided between the authority figures in place and the people answering to them. Please don't tell me that isn't worthy of scrutiny. Otherwise, we can simply flap our hands and accept the fact that we'll beat them here, they'll beat us there, and that the status quo between two proud cricketing nations is unlikely to ever change. And thanks for the journalistic feedback. I'll table that along with everyone else's two cents over the years :)
JMW
Guest
Hey Vas - it looks to me as if I have hit a "roar" nerve or two! Firstly, avoiding responsibility is not singularly an Australian trait. It seems to me, based on your lengthy riposte that your lengthy reply is an avoidance of your responsibility and a justification of sorts. You can't presume to know these players personally or be knowledgeable about their attitude. You are making grandiose assumptions about what they think without any evidence. I'm very proud of their fight back and this test isn't over yet. They look concerned enough to make an effort to me despite the series score card. Better teams than this have visited the sub-continent and lost. It's a competition after all and one team will prevail. Academics recognise that performance is based on two characteristics, without exception. They are competence and commitment. If our boys had the same level of experience and the competence it imbues then you may be entitled to question their commitment (aka motivation and attitude). They don't! Short of sending a representative team from the Northern Territory that play in they same energy sapping heat and ply their trade on similar rolled ant bed pitches, I wouldn't expect us to dominate the conditions. No excuses, just facts and common sense. Secondly we know the money is in India and they delight in bullying the ICC nations. Facts again point to specific examples. It still rankles with me the diabolical debacle that ensued from that disgraceful Harbajan's racist treatment of Andrew Symonds and the threat by the Indians to cancel the tour. The blunt refusal to fall in line with DRS usage is another example where many are relevant. Listening to their giggling and parochial boasting in the commentary is also galling. Your writing does need work. I respectfully suggest you proof read and concentrate more on critical analysis which is more entertaining intellectually than generalised statements based on uninformed opinions. Give it a try Vas - practise what you preach and demonstrate some responsibility without justification, blame and excuses. Good luck mate! :)
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
"Here's another example of the sub-continental bully boys of cricket having a free swing at the struggling Aussies when we're down". First, I am an Australian cricket fan for the last 20 years since I discovered what cricket was. If your description me as a "sub-continental bully boy" was based on my name plus the overall critical tone of this story, then the fool is you for making ill-advised presumptions. I'm not surprised we (that means Australia) struggle in India either. I've seen us struggle in the 1996 one-off Test in Delhi, the 1998 series when Tendulkar tore Warne to shreds, the 2001 series when we did not seize the big moments, and then in 2008 and 2010 where bad tactics let us down. Even 2004 had its moments of struggle, but we survived them well enough to take the series. But in every one of those series, the Australian team looked like they had an ounce of fight in them. Even if they were not scoring runs, they would fight like hell to preserve their wickets, or try and keep the runs down by some tight bowling or a bit of fielding brilliance. These attributes have all but disappeared in this series. I will never forget Steve Waugh's fighting 67 in Delhi 96, Mark Waugh and Mark Taylor's hundreds in Bangalore 1998 to stave off a whitewash, Matt Hayden's titanic 01 series, as well as Ponting's fighting hundred in Bangalore 2008 that all showed the fighting spirit of our team. Apart from Michael Clarke and at times James Pattinson, none of the players out there looked like they wanted the win badly enough. That's an attitude problem which I have been referring to in this series, hence the article. I hope I am enamoured with the written word JMW, having been writing on and off for the last 10 years. I'm okay with you having a go at my journalistic style, as I'm not seeking to please everyone. But please let go of the stupid assumption that my name and the critical tone of the story makes me a "sub-continental bully boy", if that's within your reach. Cheers.
JMW
Guest
I'd also like to see Butterworth rewarded. I think his style of bowling would be perfectly suited to English conditions and his more than handy lower order contributions with the bat would be welcome.
JMW
Guest
What a wandering verbosity for the inanely vague! Here's another example of the Sub-Continental bully boys of cricket having a free swing at the struggling Aussies when we're down. You can't appreciate the peaks without the troughs and all countries have them! Frankly I'm never surprised that we struggle to make an impact on dust bowl pitches. It is an environment completely foreign to our experiences. Maybe we should consider selecting a fit for purpose team from the rich red outback that have honed their skills toiling their craft on ant bed pitches? It makes perfect sense to me that established greats of our game such as Greg Chappell were selective about the countries they played in. Results in India and Pakistan were never of consequence to me or my fellow cricketers when we were playing. We were only concerned with the Ashes, the Windies, beating our cousins and more recently giving it to the Boks! The sub-continent was akin to an alien world and undoubtedly still is. Footnote: Vas, you're clearly enamoured with the written word. Consider proof reading and economising together with a grammar check next time. Good day.
Jason Cave
Guest
It's not just England who are laughing at Australian cricket after the drama at Mohali- there's also the AFL. Cricket Australia are 20-30 years behind AFL when it comes to planning and team behaviour on and off the field. The Sydney Swans are a perfect example of it.
buddha9
Guest
Vas not surprised you didn't get a lot of responses to this but you are still 100% correct
Hairy Pear
Guest
Good points there. You only have to look at Mike Hussey to see someone that dedicated years to getting a baggy green and when he finally did, he made the most of every chance to wear it. It's a pity his hunger & love of the baggy green doesn't seem to have been transferred to some of the new caps.
Hansie
Guest
Yep, where's the professionalism of the NSP?
buddha9
Guest
Vas i agree with this a 100% -- professionalism is such a dumb get out of jail word for press hacks and under performing coaches, but what exactly does it mean in a world where mates pick mates and hard work and dedication get sidelined and ignored? What does it mean when under performing hacks get picked for filling out a form while guys like Pattison who have bowled their guts out get dropped? Why should players, in a atmosphere of mistrust and cliques, in which the coach so openly sides with certain players, fill in a form rating their teammates when they haven't even played in the game and when the coach at some point could use it against 'em later on? Who's got any guarantees they won't do it either, given the situation of cliques and no trust? Its the coaches job to create a atmosphere where players can flourish, where teammates trust and support each other -- has Arthur done that? What's Usman meant to say? "I didn't run the change of gloves out fast enough maybe i can improve?".
James
Guest
Completely agree Kev. Look at Cummins - 3 first class matches 7 wickets at an average of _59_ before he played his first test. Yep. Under 3 wickets a game at a ridiculous average. Compare to the unfashionable Butterworth who has taken over 200 wickets at an average of 23 including being the top wicket taker in the shield in 2010/11 (with 45 wickets at 17.5), 7th top wicket taker in 2011/12 (with 31 wickets at 23.3) and is currently second on the wicket taker list this season with 41 wickets at 18.3. Also averages 27 with the bat and steps up for the big matches - in his 5th game which was the pura cup final in 2006/07 coming in at number 8 when the score was 6/173, he scored his maiden half century. Backed it up with 4/33 and then scored 106 in the second innings. He has clearly done the hard yards and has been successful on a long term basis but he will never be selected to play for Australia. Doherty actually hasn't done as badly in the shield as people seem to think. In the past few seasons he has played limited games but has done pretty well really (2011/12 - 5 matches 19 wickets at 24, 2010/11 - 8 matches 22 wickets at 28, 2009/10 - 3 matches 12 wickets at 24.25). Personally, I'd still pick O'Keefe. Look at Johnson picked for the Perth test this year. Apparently he was "back" as he took 4/103 against Tasmania. In the same match, Bird took 7/86, Butterworth 5/68 and Faulkner 3/51 and Tasmania won by an innings and 118 runs.
Red Kev
Guest
Really good article Vas. There is another good one in the SMH saying there is a feeling that the young squad don't take enough pride in their baggygreens, don't respect it enough. I would say why should they respect it? What have Smith, Maxwell, Henriques, Doherty done to really earn their call up? Even before that, what had Cummins or Warner actually done before their call up to earn it? Khawaja (in 2011), Cowan, and Bird were the last baggygreens to actually earn and deserve their test call ups. How can they respect something they didn't work for? You can bet Usman will treasure his when he finally gets another shot and this punishment may even be a good thing from that point of view, but I still can't support the exercise or the punishment.