4 axed for 3rd test

[The Casey Cat]

You mean Johnson.

Yes apologies I meant Johnson not Clarke.

 

[Father Jack]

Again, I doubt Watto is the problem.

Taking this part of the article you quoted:

High-profile former Test players like Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey directly declined to comment about the current situation, as did former batting coach Justin Langer, while even Watson's more recent domestic teammates were reluctant to speak out.

You could read a fair bit into that if you were so inclined.

 

[maxy87]

I guess it just highlights the widening gap between international (tests in particular) and domestic cricket. Ponting has 20 years of first class and mostly international cricket to fall back on. On good pitches against pop gun attacks (no offence but there is no one out there going to knock his head off) he's classes above anyone else.

I'd probably also add that the pressure to perform is off him now. Obviously vastly different players, but I recall Michael Bevan enjoying a fruitful twilight to his first class career after being moved on from the ODI side

 

[maxy87]

Say what you will about the merits of the task given to the players but IMO the failure to follow instructions from the coach is definitely punishable. Was it too harsh? Perhaps - but it's set an example or "drawn a line in the sand" if you will. Not necessarily a bad thing if we mean business and people haven't been towing the line. It comes down to respect and if we suffer this next test then so be it. That's life. We need to eradicate any complacency or lack of focus immediately if we are to move forward. The fact that they suspended the VC sends a message that nobody is above the team despite their title. I like that.

As for the task, what exactly is wrong with asking the players for a little self reflection after multiple shellackings? Or are our players that inarticulate and/or arrogant that they can't scribble down a few ideas for the coach to show they're interested?

You could make multiple cases for the reasons behind the lack of adherence to orders and our team culture such is the climate of negativity around our administration, captain, coach etc. Regardless of this, I hope those suspended learn from this. It sounds as though Pattinson has which is a good sign. Watto can have a sook and get back to us when he's ready to contribute to the team constructively (I.e being able to bowl)

I think the central message of this whole saga is being lost in a torrent of negativity and simplistic, nostalgic "back in my day" rants and/or commentary from those unable to reconcile that a) we are no longer the side we were, b) there are a few very good sides going around at the moment and c) the cricket climate has changed dramatically in the last 5 or so years requiring new ways of thinking and management.

 

[Keys]

There is one thing I'm certain of out of all this. Mike hussey will be very pleased with his decision to retire atm

 

[HahnPremium]

"it has enabled Shane's immense talents with both bat and ball to rise to the top to become one of this country's more decorated performers in all forms of the game"
Haydos. Pls. Pls write another cooking book.

 

[courtjester]

"it has enabled Shane's immense talents with both bat and ball to rise to the top to become one of this country's more decorated performers in all forms of the game"
Haydos. Pls. Pls write another cooking book.

Nothing Hayden says has any consequence. Guy is a tosser.

 

[legend166]

Who needs the Australian way when we have the Hayden Way?

 

[Wicked Lester]

So, what we have now is Cricket Australia's and the team's public relations response to the debacle.

In the immediate aftermath, they'd have been scratching their heads. On the one hand, the established cricketing scribes fell in behind the official position and endorsed the suspensions. On the other, a significant proportion of cricket supporters and, of course, a non compliant cabal of former players wondered WTF was going on and how, in a supposedly professional era, it could come to this.

The first reaction was to make it clear that Captain Pup endorsed the decision. The doubters wondered whether he'd done more than simply endorsed Arthur's decision. Perhaps he'd been in it up to his armpits.

The next step was a carefully crafted Cricket Australia media release in which young fast bowling tyro, Pattinson, would accept fault and promise to be a good boy from now on. With Watson throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the PR battle probably should have ended there.

Then we had some mixed messages - from Clarke and Arthur. You see, there'd been a series of indiscretions including 'backchat'. What wasn't made clear was whether the so-called indiscretions were confined to the feisty four or whether it was part of a broader malaise across the entire squad. Either way, the comments raised more questions and answered little.

Then things went really awry. Perhaps to emphasise that team management was united in its approach, Pat Howard was let loose. This proved a mistake for he overstepped the mark and launched a personal attack on Watson. Worse still, he confirmed the suspicisions of many that captain and vice-captain weren't exactly the best of mates. The problem with confirming what many suspected was that the suspension could be interpreted as a Clarke organised 'hit' on Watson, an accusation Clarke would be keen to avoid given the sense that he may have a little history in this area.

At this point damage control was required. Shortly after stepping off the plane from India, Clarke either rang Watson or vice versa, and we've since had the pair insisting all is well between them, with Clarke in particular effusive in his support for Watson as player and vice-captain.

It's a classic PR stuff up.

Oh well, today the real stuff starts again. Team management and CA will be desparately hoping the team can improve on the last outing. Body language will be watched closely. Any sign of tension within the team from now on will be interpreted as being more than simply the result of the day to day grind of international cricket. Unfortunately, team management has no-one but itself to blame for that.

 

[King Elvis]

Taking this part of the article you quoted:

You could read a fair bit into that if you were so inclined.

Either;

- Watson is a knob.

OR

- He isn't a knob, so they don't want to comment and destabilise things more than they already are.

Ponting was a big Watson fan, Hussey and him are obviously good mates, so...


EDIT -

My favourite part was Pat Howard, at that presser; "There have been other minor indiscretions which have resulted in this."

Journo, "What were the other indiscretions?"

Howard, "Do you want me to list them, do you?"

Journo, "Yea... That's exactly what we'd like..."

Howard, "Well, I'm not going to."

 

[JimDocker]

With time to reflect on this issue a bit more. It seems like the players were unprofessional in not filling in the form, but the punishment was over the top.

I listened to the full Adam Voges interview yesterday and he was asked "Did Mickey Arthur ask you guys to do something similar when he was coach of WA?"
"I have been asked to do something similar by almost every coach I have ever had" was his response. "It was one of the first things that Justin Langer asked us to do when he took over. We all did it".

So the 'homework' jokes doing the rounds miss the point that in modern day sport/cricket, this is a standard practise and the players should not have found it too difficult.

As somebody that has defended M Clarke on these boards for a number of years, I think his handling of it seems to be poor. Too heavy handed, by far.

Again, I reiterate though. As a Pom. I am enjoying the whole affair

 

[Black Diamond]

Either;

- Watson is a knob.

OR

- He isn't a knob, so they don't want to comment and destabilise things more than they already are.

Ponting was a big Watson fan, Hussey and him are obviously good mates, so...


EDIT -

My favourite part was Pat Howard, at that presser; "There have been other minor indiscretions which have resulted in this."

Journo, "What were the other indiscretions?"

Howard, "Do you want me to list them, do you?"

Journo, "Yea... That's exactly what we'd like..."

Howard, "Well, I'm not going to."

I wonder what gave happened if Wade, Hughes and Warner had been involved?

Partinson is a soft target because he us young, Khawaja and Johnson are on the fringe and are easy to discipline, and Watson doesn't get on with Clarke.

If any of Clarke's mates had been involved I bet they would have deferred any suspensions until an easier kill became available.

 

[Gough]

I'm not sure that expecting highly paid professionals to do what is asked of them can be all blamed on Clarke and Arthur. I'm more concerned that it was allowed to go this far before it was addressed.

 

[The_Reaper]

If Watto were making a 'principled stand' against the leadership his reaction post suspension would have being very different.

It's almost certain he saw it as a chance to consequence free have a dig at the leadership.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

And I would have thought that Watson would be the last to get sympathy. What was said about him was probably best kept in house but it's correct, it's always been about him, I want to open (even though incumbents are in and spot not officially available), I'm not going to bowl (even though never shown enough with bat only).

Aus cricket has had a stable senior core for the last 20+ years. Now we don't, and when the VC and a senior player is not pulling their weight you know we are in big trouble.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Then things went really awry. Perhaps to emphasise that team management was united in its approach, Pat Howard was let loose. This proved a mistake for he overstepped the mark and launched a personal attack on Watson. Worse still, he confirmed the suspicisions of many that captain and vice-captain weren't exactly the best of mates. The problem with confirming what many suspected was that the suspension could be interpreted as a Clarke organised 'hit' on Watson, an accusation Clarke would be keen to avoid given the sense that he may have a little history in this area.

This is utterly ludicrous. Firstly, Clarke is the only person in the team (bar maybe Pattinson) whose position is completely assured, while Watson is becoming increasingly under pressure due to poor form. Why on earth would he feel sufficiently threatened by Watson to organise a "hit"? Secondly, if he wanted to get rid of Watson, as a selector he could just have Watson dropped (assuming that Arthur and the other selectors didn't disagree). Given Watson's poor batting form, and inability to bowl, this wouldn't come as much of a surprise to most people.

Here's a much simpler interpretation...

A bunch of players screwed up and were consequently disciplined for the transgression. The vice-captain happened to be one of them. It should have been the end of the story.

Pat Howard's comments were stupid and inflamatory. But IMHO they were precipitated by Watson himself. When the story first broke, the headlines mostly focused on Watson, with him complaining that he thought the punishment was harsh and that he was thinking of quitting Test cricket altogether. The fact that he basically left India also made the whole affair seem even more dramatic (as if he'd actually been sent home... although we know that wasn't actually the case). The VC threatening to quit -- that's pretty serious stuff. And all for one, minor little transgression. Cricket Australia looked like a pack of idiots.

So of course CA go into damange control, and come out and explain that the suspensions were actually the result of several indiscretions. And Howard puts his foot in his mouth by basically saying that maybe Watto isn't the golden child the cricketing public expected. Hardly a real revelation... lots of cricketers aren't as team-oriented as they could be. Being driven to be successful can sometimes make a person too focused and self-absorbed. But when it comes to a current player, it's probably something that is better left unsaid.

But had Watson copped his punishment on the chin, like Pattinson, the story would have dried up.

 

[The Speaker]

I wonder what gave happened if Wade, Hughes and Warner had been involved?

Partinson is a soft target because he us young, Khawaja and Johnson are on the fringe and are easy to discipline, and Watson doesn't get on with Clarke.

If any of Clarke's mates had been involved I bet they would have deferred any suspensions until an easier kill became available.

It seems to me that Clarke gets on with people who are willing to meet his standards, so those people wouldn't find themselves in this situation in the first place.

 

[Wicked Lester]

This is utterly ludicrous. Firstly, Clarke is the only person in the team (bar maybe Pattinson) whose position is completely assured, while Watson is becoming increasingly under pressure due to poor form. Why on earth would he feel sufficiently threatened by Watson to organise a "hit"? Secondly, if he wanted to get rid of Watson, as a selector he could just have Watson dropped (assuming that Arthur and the other selectors didn't disagree). Given Watson's poor batting form, and inability to bowl, this wouldn't come as much of a surprise to most people.

Read my post properly. I am pointing out this is how things have been perceived - correctly or incorrectly -by a not insignificant number of people.

The rest of your post seems to effectively repeat the points I was making. Its been a PR debacle and Pat Howard's intervention made things a lot worse.

 

[The Passenger]

all i can say is thank **** i haven't had regular internet access over the last two weeks so i've managed to miss the online portion of this shitstorm. no doubt this forum reached boiling point.

fwiw i don't have a massive issue with players being stood down for failing to perform team duties. what i do have an issue with is why are players being asked to give reports or texts or e-mails or whatever on "attributes you can bring to the team". how is this going to make them better cricketers? sorry, on no planet is this going to make them better.

why aren't we giving the flick to the sports scientists who are obviously failing at their job of keeping our talented quick bowlers on the park?

i also think if there is to be one critique of clarke's leadership is he seems to adopt a one size fits all policy. clarke is a super disciplined, super professional sportsmen. that's how he gets the best out of himself and it seems he thinks that is the best approach for everyone. but not everyone can do that and it doesn't always work that way for everyone. when put in that position they find themselves under too much pressure, to stressed out or whatever. cricket, particularly batting, is one of the most mental sports in the world. you can't be feeling under pressure in the middle.

the object of each player in the team is to contribute the maximum amount of runs, wickets they can and field as best as they can. to get to this point every individual has difference mechanisms and different preparations that work best for them. for some they need to train more, some need to train less, some like to write things down as to how they can improve and use them as a check list, some like to keep these things in their head and some like to completely switch off from cricket as soon as they walk away from the field or training track.

the key to great leadership is to recognize at what level each individual needs to get to the maximum levels of runs, wickets and fielding. that being said, there are obviously going to be minimum levels of effort in regards to training and preparation that everyone has to adhere too. it's hard to know what levels of training and prep some guys are getting to. it would probably be fair to say looking at results and the way a number of guys have regressed in the last twelve months, that plenty of guys aren't reaching the levels they require to improve. one would argue in the case of james pattinson whatever he is doing is working. others, obviously not so.

i'm not really sure talk of these "wellness reports", sports psychologists and counselling and that sort of stuff is what is needed here. that sort of shit has pat howards fingerprints written all over it, but i could be wrong.

i reckon this has been bubbling under the surface for a while and was a massive reason for mike hussey reasons for retirements where largely based around a feeling this was about to burst through and at 35/36/37 or whatever he is he just could not be assed dealing with it.

 

[King Elvis]

And I would have thought that Watson would be the last to get sympathy. What was said about him was probably best kept in house but it's correct, it's always been about him, I want to open (even though incumbents are in and spot not officially available), I'm not going to bowl (even though never shown enough with bat only).

Aus cricket has had a stable senior core for the last 20+ years. Now we don't, and when the VC and a senior player is not pulling their weight you know we are in big trouble.

I thought he was told not to bowl until he was fully fit again?

And what's the point in having a VC if he's not involved in any leadership or management anyway?

 

[King Elvis]

And I'm beginning to think Pat Howard is a massive knob.

It seems to me that Clarke gets on with people who are willing to meet his standards, so those people wouldn't find themselves in this situation in the first place.

Hussey and Katich didn't meet his standards?

 

[damochandler]

trying to play catch up to the rest of the sporting world has ****ed everything up. it's clear as day sports science is making things worse and when they should just be bowling, batting and fielding. they are running, doing weight and getting at peace with their inner self

the team management really have to be held accountable as much as the players do

 

[placebo]

And I'm beginning to think Pat Howard is a massive knob.



Hussey and Katich didn't meet his standards?

Hey, Kingy, now that Hussey has basically admitted to being selfish and looking out for himself, will you be as super critical of him as you are of Clarke 'putting himself above the team'? I sure hope so considering that your argument for Clarke putting himself above the team is flimsy as all hell...but Hussey on the other hand...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/624898.html

 

[damochandler]

what does pat howard really do

 

[Wicked Lester]

There's a rather interesting interview with Mike Hussey on Cricinfo. Responding to questions about the coaches he played under and following effusive praise of Buchanan and Nielsen he has this to say about Arthur:

"Arthur then came in as coach during all the changes being wrought by the Argus review.I'd had a little bit to do with Mickey when he coached Western Australia, so I knew him a little better than the other guys in the Australian team. It was a really hard time to be around the Australian team. We had new everything - selectors, coach, administration, captain, new players coming into the team. In a way, everyone became a little bit insular and just tried to make sure they were doing their own thing and worrying about their own backyard. I'm sure as things bed down more and people get more confident about their roles, hopefully the trust and the culture can grow from there. I think the team has performed particularly well, considering there's been so much change."