From nasty to nice, Australia pay price

AUSTRALIAN cricket’s ideology is riven by conflict — should they be nice guys or nasty guys? Must their players revert to the hard-edged, brusque — even nasty! — manner of the team fashioned in his own image by Allan Border in the 1980s and 1990s? Or should they play in the more fraternal style of the last few years?

In early 2008, the late Peter Roebuck likened the men of Ricky Ponting to ‘wild dogs’ after Australia beat India in the ill-tempered Sydney Test. The cricketer-columnist wrote that Ponting had “turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs” and must be sacked.

Ten years later, the Australians were caught tampering with the ball with a sandpaper during a Test in South Africa, and then captain Steve Smith was sacked and banned. There was widespread public grief and anger. Australia indulged in honest soul-searching, but probably came up with the incorrect answer — that the ‘win at all costs’ attitude was not good. How was it not good if it’s this very attitude that made their cricketers tough and won them so many trophies? It’s this bloody-minded, aggressive, hard-nosed (some would call it nasty) style that actually defined Australian cricket for decades.

Their players get schooled in this style early. Ponting wrote in his autobiography that when he got to play in grade cricket as a 13-year-old, “I was sledged more in my first season with Mowbray than I would ever be sledged again in my life.” Once, the much-older wicketkeeper of the opposing team sledged the little Ponting, who responded — and Ponting’s dad, also playing the game, jumped into the ugly verbal fight, and ‘the language was pretty full-on’. Total nastiness on the field, a handshake and a beer later were considered acceptable.

After the 2018 Sandpapergate scandal, the Ethics Center — a not-for-profit organisation that works ‘to bring ethics to the centre of personal and professional life’ — was commissioned to review Australian cricket. Among other things, the report by Simon Longstaff of Ethics Center said: “A culture of disrespect for the opposition, as seen in the common practice of abusive sledging, runs through Australian domestic and international cricket, to a degree not practised by other nations. There is nothing enjoyable or fraternal about abuse. It is simply crude and brutal.”

Australia’s attitude of chasing victory at all costs was damned. They’ve tried to be friendly. But did the Australians lose their hard edge?

Border, who built a very tough outfit after the retirement of Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh in the early 1980s, was so dour and nasty on the field that he was called ‘Captain Grumpy’. He was very grumpy after Australia lost the second Test to India in New Delhi — ‘Blokes giving thumbs-up to the bowler after being beaten outside off!’ Border practically spluttered, referring to Smith appreciating Ravindra Jadeja’s bowling after being beaten. ‘Bloody hell!’ growled Border, ashen-faced and angry.

The dilemma

The Australian team is also confused about how to play in India. They’re naturally attack-minded, but how to make it work on the turning wickets of India?

The success of Matt Hayden, in the thrilling 2001 series won 2-1 by India, seems to have given the following teams the belief that it would be profitable to follow his methods. Hayden made 549 runs in that series, the most from either side. His most effective stroke was the sweep, which he had mastered during a camp he attended in Chennai in 1999, under the supervision of Bishan Bedi and Erapalli Prasanna.

In the Delhi Test, five Australian batsmen were dismissed playing the sweep shot — one of them to its more risky variety, the reverse-sweep. This was utter madness — you don’t try to sweep such an accurate bowler as Jadeja, or the more skilful Ravichandran Ashwin, on a turner with a low bounce. Hayden was very successful in 2001, but he had worked years on that shot; also, he’s a very tall man and could easily reach the pitch of the ball; finally, he didn’t score all his runs from the sweep shot — he drove the ball brilliantly, even in the air for big sixers.

The reverse-sweep is not a recent invention, of course — old-timers would remember England’s Mike Gatting playing this shot against Border, and perishing, in the 1987 World Cup final. But the T20 mentality of our times, plus the bigger bats now available, make batsmen in greater numbers go for this shot even in Test cricket, even on a turning wicket with variable bounce. This is suicidal.

Finally, the panic in the Australians ranks is evident from the changes they made after the loss in the first Test. They went into the second Test with only one paceman — and he, too, the world’s No. 1 ranked Test bowler Pat Cummins, did not bowl at all in the second innings.

Australia have lost trust in their pace attack — they’ve forgotten that all through their great triumphs in India from the 1950s to 2004, their fast bowlers played crucial roles — from Ray Lindwall and Alan Davidson in 1959-60 to Jason Gillespie, Glenn McGrath and Michael Kasprowicz in 2004.

Australia have lost the Border-Gavaskar Trophy to India for the fourth time in a row, but can they come back and record a win in Indore or Ahmedabad? The way the team’s thinking and technique are muddled, only a miracle, and flat wickets, can prevent further losses, but these two commodities are not readily available at present.