Nick Bendel
The path forward for Australian cricket
April 22nd 2011 03:21
(Photo courtesy of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5)
This is an important time in Australian cricket.
The Ashes have been lost, the World Cup has been surrendered, the captaincy has been transferred and the Argus Review has been established.
Where to from here?
In the last few months, a host of potential solutions have been offered, all of which have one thing in common – radicalism.
A team full of kids is needed. A new coach is needed. A new captain is needed. A new selection panel is needed. A spinner who never gets dropped is needed. A complete overhaul of the Sheffield Shield is needed.
The problem with radical ideas is they’re often simplistic. They can be alluring because they propose clear, decisive solutions to complicated problems. People like them because it gives them an excuse to switch off their brains.
What to do if the Australian team is old? Simple – dump the veterans and replace them with youngsters.
What to do if players underperform? Simple – sack the selectors who picked them.
What to do if spinners bowl poorly? Simple – stop rotating them, settle on one and back him ‘til kingdom come.
The solutions are so clear and decisive they have to be right – don’t they?
But what if older players are being chosen ahead of their younger counterparts because they’re better? What if the underperforming players being chosen by the selectors are actually the best in the country? What if the spinners are bowling so badly they deserve to be dropped?
Don’t ask the radicals what they would do next – they’ve already switched off their brains.
Sometimes, the best solution to a complicated problem is a radical one. Generally, though, the best solution to a complicated problem is a complicated one.
If the team is old, the veterans need to be phased out and youngsters methodically introduced. That requires careful planning – in other words, thinking.
The alternative would be to suddenly stuff the team full of 11 Steven Smiths. That, however, would send it rapidly backwards. If Smith isn’t performing when he’s got veterans to guide him and soak up the pressure, why would he – and his kind – magically flourish if the side was filled with youngsters?
If players are underperforming, the selectors need to be held to account. The selectors need to clearly explain the criteria used to pick one player over another. If there is found to be no method to their madness, by all means dump them. But if they are found to be making logical decisions, they need to be retained.
The alternative would be to replace one group of selectors who have been picking the best players with another group committed to choosing inferior players.
If the spinners are bowling poorly, the root causes need to be found. Are their techniques faulty? Are their temperaments unsound? Have they been poorly coached? Are they being badly captained? It also needs to be acknowledged that spinners are no different to other cricketers. If they perform badly, they deserve to be replaced – either by another spinner or a seamer.
The alternative would be to settle on one spinner and give him a guaranteed spot in the side for a couple of seasons. But would Hauritz or Krezja or Doherty or Beer magically transform into the next Warne if they were given an extended run?
Some things have gone wrong with Australian cricket. That means changes must be made.
The important thing is not to panic. Just because change is needed, doesn’t mean any change must necessarily be an improvement. New ideas can seduce simply because of their novelty. When something is stale, replacing it with something fresh seems logical. But what was fresh today can be horribly off tomorrow.
That’s where the Argus Review comes in. The panel consists of three former captains (Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh), the current Cricket Australia chief executive (James Sutherland), his predecessor (Malcolm Speed) and an eminent businessman (Argus).
Commissioning a review was a good idea. Calmly considered decisions are more likely to be right than snap decisions. And the make-up of the panel is encouraging. Its six members provide a good blend of player knowledge and administrative experience, while also offering both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective.
The panel members need to consult widely, before carefully working their way through the voluminous and conflicting data they gather. They should then make reasoned recommendations that focus on the long-term.
The review needs to be an exercise in thinking deeply. If it is, the chances are its recommendations will not be the radical proposals some are crying out for.
That, though, would probably be a good thing. At this important time in Australian cricket, complicated solutions are most likely the best way to solve its complicated problems.
| 48 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog