Stephen Waugh recently made a telling assessment to The Australian on the chances of Australia, captained by Michael Clarke, winning back the Ashes:
“Australia has to learn how to win … They just don’t quite believe in, or know how to, win again. It really is a habit.
“England have become really good at winning and really good at not losing. They fight hard.”
Waugh played his cricket and thinks about it as hard as his name sounds. And there are two important points to his analysis.
First, it is important to win Tests in the Ashes series. But is also important not to lose Tests.
Every Test not lost is another Test that doesn’t have to be won just to keep the ledger on the right side.
One of the problems, among many, of Clarke’s baggy green caps is they have lost Tests that should have drawn, and allowed England to draw Tests that Australia should have won.
This is what Waugh means when he says England are really good at winning and really good at not losing.
England regard draws as half-wins and fight very hard and successfully to draw Tests that they are liable to or should lose.
This bring us to Isaiah Berlin’s essay ‘The Hedgehog and the Fox’. The essay is a study on history and historical figures, centreing on Tolstoy’s famous novel that embraces Napoleon’s attack on Russia, ‘War and Peace’.
Berlin takes his title from a Russian proverb: ‘The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.’
The argument he develops through contrasting Napoleon’s military and mercurial genius with the stubborn, single-minded scorched earth tactics of the Russian generals is that hedgehog leaders generally defeat fox leaders in drawn-out campaigns.
You can take this argument and apply it to cricket.
Stephen Waugh is the epitome of the single-minded captain (and player) who used the brutal tactic of mental disintegration of the opposition as the motif of his captaincy. He was involved in eight Ashes series triumphs, including two as captain.
He was never rated as a captain by the pundits (including myself, unfortunately). But he was a winner because everything he did on the field and off it was calibrated to ensure England’s morale would be destroyed before and during the Ashes battles.
There was a clarity to his captaincy. He wanted his team to score their runs quickly, at the rate of 300 a day. Australian bowlers were continually putting pressure on the England batsmen.
None of this was pleasant for England, on and off the field. When Waugh’s team were in the position of putting their boot (metaphorically) on the throat of the England team, they ensured the other boot was used to smash their faces as well.
The difference between the single-minded hedgehog Waugh and the clever fox Clarke is startling.
It is not only a massive difference in style, it is a massive difference, as captains, in Ashes series victories.
My objection to Michael Clarke as a captain is he is praised for being clever, personable and cheerful, on and off the field.
But these are qualities that virtually ensure his failure as an Ashes captain.
If you go through the successful Ashes captains on both sides, you would be hard-pressed to find one, on either side, who was a pleasant, laughing fox on the field. About the closest to this type I can think of is Richie Benaud.
But Benaud was ruthlessly tough as a captain and when his tactics are analysed they are more attritional hedgehog tactics than clever fox tactics.
But leaving aside Benaud, who may be an exception to my hedgehog-fox rule, the successful Ashes captains have generally had distinct hedgehog tendencies.
Think Douglas Jardine, Sir Donald Bradman (read Malcolm Knox’s book on the 1948 tour of the UK by Australia to see how disliked by the English players and some of his own team), Sir Leonard Hutton, Ian Chappell (ask Ian Botham), Allan Border (the original captain grumpy), Stephen Waugh, Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cooke.
The last two England captains have been criticised for their unimaginative captaincy. They have captained sides that have several South Africans, the epitome of the single-minded hedgehog, in the sides.
South Africans don’t play games for fun. They play to win. Then these winners become grinners.
In the last Ashes series in England, Clarke got all the plaudits from the pundits for his imaginative, clever captaincy.
Cooke was criticised by the same pundits as being one-dimensional and boring in his captaincy. And Cooke’s England side won the series 3 – 0.
So Michael Clarke needs to drop the ‘good guy’ image. He needs to become a Captain Cranky in the Stephen Waugh and Allan Border manner.
No more bantering with the opposition, especially on the field.
No more love-ins with his own bowlers on the field and more tough love. When they don’t bowl the mean line and length expected of them, don’t give them a hug, give them a bollocking.
Think Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath and the way they strangled opposition batting line-ups to a slow, sometimes violent, death with their unrelenting hostility in everything they did on the field.
Stop trying to impress the pundits with smart-arse tactics and field placings. Just get the bowlers to bowl in the areas where their deliveries are most dangerous and get mad at them if they don’t.
Get mad at batsmen who throw away their wickets when they have the bowlers at their mercy.
Don’t fraternise with the England players until the Ashes series has been won.
Give batsmen hell if they don’t dig in to ensure a losing Test is drawn rather than lost.
Make life miserable for the England batsman, from the openers to the tailenders.
Graeme Swann doesn’t like bouncers, so bounce him and the others like him – Jimmy Anderson and co.
Copy what Stuart Broad does when England really needs a wicket. If you have to bowl negatively to ensure a draw rather than a loss, then bowl negatively.
Remember that Test cricket is a long game, so captains must play the long game to win a Test. But Tests can be lost in a matter of minutes.
So Clarke has to have his players at their best every second, every minute and every hour of every day.
Think of a boxing match. It can be lost in a flash with a knock-out but can generally be won by fighting out every round.
Gideon Haigh has a fabulous take on the zen of the Ashes series for Australians when he says, “The Ashes series gives Australians a licence to hate the English.”
Let this be the guiding principle behind every decision taken by Clarke as captain.
I once heard a distinguished English amateur batsman and MCC captain Dennis Silk talk about how the proper attitude of a captain towards a visiting team should like the husband who cut off the tail of his dog before a visit of his mother-in-law, so there would not be a skerrick of welcome for her when she arrived.
This is a bit drastic. But it reflects the right attitude for Clarke to take for this Ashes series.
Cricket is a gentleman’s game played best by batsmen and bowlers with the playing inclination of thugs. We don’t want the Australian team to be loved, we want them to win. The love will come out of the victories.
That’s why I say that Michael Clarke needs to make Waugh to win back the Ashes from England.
Join The Roar’s Brett McKay at 1pm today for an interactive Ashes Q&A.
Bearfax
Guest
I would almost agree with you Lroy. But I think Warner and Smith are fast catching up to the English batsmen and I expect within a year England will be wishing they had batsmen like them.
Steve
Guest
Yes, it's interesting how the idea of using aggression and raging hostility to compensate for weaknesses in ability and depth can be applied to writing about sports as well as playing them.
Steve
Guest
No denying that South Africa are absolutely the best Test side at the moment. Just perhaps breaking the lazy stereotype that 'South Africans are winners'. It's ridiculous to say that about any nation in general, but particularly one that has under performed at the major tournaments for many years.
Lroy
Guest
Interesting article. Im not sure Australia has the players to put England under pressure for long enough to win the series. None of our batsmen save Clarke is good enough to play for the English side, I dont rate our left arm slinger at all, he should never have been picked again after the 2009 Ashes debacle. I recall there was a lot of tough talk just prior to the 1984 West Indian series, Rod Marsh said we should send them into bat and give them some chin music. We did, they scored 400 in a day, bowled us out twice inside the next 2. England have betIter players than us, its that simple. Going to be a long summer for the Aussies methinks.
Brian
Guest
The all out to win approach is ok if you have the players to back it up however Clarke has the inferior side. As a result a Stephen Fleming approach might be better. Make the most of what you've got at every opportunity and annoy the opposition.
James the Elder
Guest
Those blushing Proteas remain undefeated over 7 series away from home including India. If they do that for just another season they would have achieved something that not even the great WI sides managed. Keep your cabinets. This is not pyjama cricket. This is the real thing!
jameswm
Roar Guru
Nah getting under their skin was a factor. He strangled them with his bowling, then reminded them of it with chirps. All of it combined put great pressure on the batsman.
jameswm
Roar Guru
No I don't agree. Cricketing ability is only part of it. The rest is attitude, concentration, consistency, toughness etc.
JohnB
Guest
Hard not to agree with the traditional approach of going all out to win, but when that becomes impossible/improbable, go all out to not lose. Not convinced that was actually Steve Waugh's strength as a captain.
jameswm
Roar Guru
I agree except for this: "Stop trying to impress the pundits with smart-arse tactics and field placings". They aren't smart-arse tactics, they're tactics to take a wicket. And he's pretty good at that too. Don't take away one of his captaincy strengths.
Steve
Guest
Agree that McGrath was able to do things no-one else could. That is my point though. That is why he was so good, not because he used to get under the skin of the opposition. It's because he could do things with the ball no-one else could. Bowl line and length, with slight lateral movement.
AlanKC
Guest
Part of the problem of the last few years rests, imo, in the high scoring expectations developed under Waugh. With the team he had at his disposal 300-400 runs a day was achievable even if they lost early wickets (or a cluster of wickets on occasion) and they developed an 'attack from anywhere' mentality. Teams in recent times appear to have attempted to emulate the strategy but with a lot less natural ability and have therefore lost games they should have drawn or won. Until they resort to playing a more realistic game based on their abilities they'll struggle to be competitive. So rather than a win at any cost (given it's clearly not working) the 'don't be beaten' approach as step 1 might not hurt.
ChrisUK
Guest
Sure I get that, but it's still not the case that this is a team of young tyros in need of just that against a grizzled old side. Australia are an older side on average than England are. How inexperienced they are at Test level doesn't alter that. So I can't see how the argument can be made that you have.
Lee
Roar Rookie
I think you'll probably find that if Australia lose the Ashes its all a NH/IRB conspiracy against the traditional Wallabies running rugby....... sorry, wrong SZ article!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Through the last Ashes and especially into this one they've decided to try and bring in a few older players, but even then we have guys like Rogers and Bailey who are relative novices at test level. But in a lot of ways they are short term "fixes" anyway, and if you look at the team Clarke has had through most of his captaincy, you add a lot more young players to that. Replace those few older players in the team for Brisbane with Hughes, Khawaja, Wade, Pattinson and Starc, and you have the team that Clarke's been trying to lead through most of his captaincy, which is a very young inexperienced team. Even with the older guys in the team now, if you count up the total number of tests across the team and compare to England you'll find a massive disparity.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Yeah was going to say: is there any way we can make sure Clarke reads this?
ChrisUK
Guest
But Australia don't have a younger team than England do. I mean Warner is 27, Smith 24, Lyon 25 - who else is there? The rest are experienced players.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I totally agree. The better comparison for Clarke however is probably Allan Border, who was the last Australian Captain to have to oversee a real rebuilding time and guide young players. But even there, the comparison in situations is quite different in many ways. The one point that may be valid could be that Clarke has a team with plenty of talent and potential, but young and inexperienced, and maybe a bit more tough love could be what they need to get the most out of them. Prior to the Indian test tour earlier this year, Clarke had actually been doing a very good job of getting results with a rebuilding team. The timing of Hussey's retirement really didn't help. They were still trying to sort out so many other batting spots, and taking out the one last experienced batting partner for Clarke caused a big hole. Having it happen right before back to back tours of India and England made it even harder.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
McGrath bowled an impeccible line and length, but I also believe the real thing that set him above the others was the fact that he so often was able to get the ball to deviate in conditions when nobody else could. Regularly playing on pitches where no other bowler got any seam or swing movement and McGrath would be able to get the odd ball to nip back in or seam away. Quite amazing really! I think Ponting is a great example of the captaincy. In a lot of ways he captained in the Steve Waugh mould. He had a great record as captain in the first half of his captaincy, but then as players started retiring everything started going pear shaped to the point where he relinquished the captaincy while remaining in the side. And Clarke taking over actually started winning more matches and series, winning away in Sri Lanka, drawing away in South Africa, winning home series including coming very close to beating #1 ranked South Africa. It's really only the last two series, away in India and England where things have fallen apart. Prior to that Clarke seemed to be pulling the team together well. I think a lot of that can be put down to the retirement of Michael Hussey! His departure left a massive hold that they've been struggling to fill ever since.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Strange article. Tubby seemed to be an excellent captain without resorting to any of the rubbish about being a tough guy etc. In fact Clarke is a lot like Tubby (except a far better bat) in so far as they are the most natural captains I've seen represent Australia (I'll admit I have only followed it since Border was in charge). Both Clarke and Taylor have that ability to make bowling and fielding changes that result in wickets, not to mention encouraging the team to go for wins with declarations etc. This talk of the tough guy attitude sounds great and might have worked for guys like Chappelle(s), Waugh and Ponting, but those blokes got the pleasure of leading fantastic teams that could back it up; Clarke doesn't. I'll agree that for Border it worked, but that doesn't mean it's the only style capable of building a great team.