Why criticism is good for cricket

There’s nothing sexier than a rift, especially when it’s between members of an ostensibly happy family. As the travails of Australian cricket play out like an episode of The Real Housewives of Melbourne, those of us on the sideline are wont to donate our two cents worth.

Shane Warne has never been short of opinion. And let’s be honest, 708 Test wickets buys you a lot of capital in the game. But there are some, both player and punter alike, who feel the King of Spin is burning through that capital quickly after his recent comments about Darren Lehmann and his role as coach.

But amidst all the bleating, no one can adequately argue that Warne staying silent is a good thing. What, I ask, is the real issue here? Are former players bound by a code to not speak out against the family? One recently retired player hinted to an older former player that to speak critically of the team is a kind of betrayal. It is an even greater betrayal though, and dare I say un-Australian, not to be honest about the game you love.

If the voice of one man is enough to destabilise a side, then the problem lies with the group, not the individual.

Trying to discredit Warne as an irrelevance is to ignore the issue. Whether it is Warne or the average punter, we all have a responsibility to speak critically of our game. The ultimate end is its betterment.

Bear in mind that Shane Warne, aside from being a great player, is first and foremost a fan.

Anyone who listened to the full interview with Kerry O’Keeffe on 2GB‘s All-Rounders program would know that the Lehmann comment was a mere snippet in a half hour of vintage Warne ruminating on the art of spin bowling, philosophy of captaincy and the psychology of cricket. To hear him was to hear a man who sees the game like very few.

No one would deny that his thoughts on the mismanagement of spinners, for example, are invalid. Is this really a man we want to simply shut up? Remember, we can always choose what we want to take on board.

Just as the game spawns opinion, so too does cricket thrive on what we have to say. Commentary piques our interest, and the game is ultimately sustained by it. Simply put, if no one cared, we wouldn’t have a game. This mutually dependent relationship legitimises any criticism a fan may have about cricket, a player, or as the case may be, a coach.

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about at all. Perversely, the greatest respect we can pay our game is to talk critically about it, because it means we feel deeply for it. If that connection is broken, the game ceases to exist, and all parties would be poorer for it.

The debate that’s dominated the sports pages this last week is not about Shane Warne. It’s about whether, we, as watchers of the game, are entitled to speak about it, in whatever guise. And the answer is yes.

It is better to acquiesce with the greater good in mind, than to call for critics to be gagged.

Only then will players, coaches and the inner-sanctum realise that the greatest enemy of the game is not dissent, but indifference.