January 5, 2003

The Sri Lankans arrived in Australia after a horrific tour of South Africa, where they had been clueless on how to attack or defend. Nasser Hussain’s men can’t last three rounds against the pounding from the Australian side, but easily out-punch the dashing Sri Lankans, even after being pushed into a corner at Perth in the initial overs.

The Indians have the finest batting lineup in the world and dazzled the world with their strokeplay and grit in the last year, but they struggle to reach three figures against New Zealand on the current tour. The West Indians have been whitewashed every time they have toured Australia, South Africa and England in the last three years, give or take the odd game.

Pakistan demolish West Indies and New Zealand on eastern fronts and the weakened Zimbabweans, but are blasted away by the South Africans. A little earlier, they have been cannon fodder for the Australians. Bangladesh, of course, are all starring in the lon- running performance of ‘chicken run’.

Can you find a common thread in all these depressing reportings? Well, it’s the emerging realization that the white-brown/black divide has never been so pronounced in cricket since the colonial era or upto the late fifties. Over the past few years, we have seen that the white nations have always won the battle of the minds both on and off the turf. They appear to have a plan whereas the others either have none, or have no clue how to transfer to plan ‘B’ when plan ‘A’ fails. They have stable squads and their players almost all come from a group of about 20, whereas the other world fumbles around every two games.

Their performances are consistent. Either they are in the team-building process and losing badly, or are settled and losing the odd game with little to spare. Now take the non-white teams. The talent is ostensible, but clearly on its own in a situation which requires a homogeneous sense of purpose when the chips are down.

This is a reflection of our respective societies and where each is placed at the advent of the 21st century. I once wrote somewhere and repeat that a sporting side is reflective of the society to which the players belong. They mirror the norms and habits of their social order. Or, in our case sadly, the lack of it.

There are, in my view, four main differences in approach:

DISCIPLINE: The emphasise here is on mental toughness, sticking to a plan and an allegiance to the national pride. Throughout developed societies, cricketers are well-aware that they will be fined if they drive by as much as 10 mph over the speed limit, that they can be sent to jail even if they accidentally misquote a tax return and that they have to stand in a line to buy a ticket.

Cricketers from the subcontinent know that there will always be someone influential who will get their problems sorted out and the chances are the fellow who raised the issue will probably get reprimanded for over-blowing the case.

Then there are hardly any systems or procedures to follow in case something has to be done and one is always calling up a friend to take his favour. On a cricket field, this leads to alliances. If the fellow is new to the side and desperately trying to get himself established, he knows that the system is blind, and that in the end it is who he links up with that is important.

DIGNITY OF LABOUR: Don’t be surprised if you go to suburban Sydney and see Glen McGrath mowing his lawn on a Saturday afternoon or Nasser Hussain catching a train to London. How many times would you see someone from the region enjoying that status and not being catered to or driven around?

That labour is cheap here or that public services are not of an acceptable standard is not the issue. The point is that when these cricketers converge in a dressing room or on the field, there is a clear line drawn regarding who will go to what extent to work for the team’s overall performance. The most poignant example of this came in the fifth One Day game at Newlands when Allan Donald and Lance Klusener, who were not playing due to injury, came out carrying the tray and towels in the drinks break. How many times has an injured Wasim Akram or even Shoaib Akhtar done that when they are not playing? In the case of Donald, for example, the message was clear to the most distant first class cricketer who was watching the game; that when you are playing for your team there is no white Donald and no black N’tini. There is nothing shameful about giving the other blokes a helping hand.

‘All for one and one for all’ was Pybus’ message to the Pakistani players. Unfortunately, he is dealing with a different mind-set at the moment. What Allan Donald did was in part deliberate for it was designed to send a message to the opposition also. That everyone is there to help each other out, and that ‘You can bend us but not break us’ was the message. It helps when a bowler is struggling but knows that the guys will bail him out by throwing themselves at the batsmen for his cause.

MENTAL TOUGHNESS: I remember a young lad who’d toured with the Pakistani side. He said he had been told by the captain that he was here because someone had to be accommodated so he should enjoy the travelling but forget about getting into the side. On the other hand, a Pakistani junior member who toured Australia recalled when Ricky Ponting was out on his fourth duck in some five games. Within five minutes, he had changed and walkman plugged in was reading a book on the balcony.

Here, unless a player impresses immediately with his talent, he is made to sweat to for his position in the team. Opportunities don’t knock too many times at the door. However, in other countries, once a player is singled out as a prospect for the future, he is given a three-year run easily. Fluctuations don’t matter much, for life’s like that. The result is that their players are mentally tough, there is no sword hanging over their heads and they play under less pressure. This results in talent flowing freely rather than being adapted to the requirement of the day, whether it is ready or not.

The lease for cricketers here is short term. You may be good enough but have to make room because ‘we can’t lose to groom you’. So we have the round table of captains and pick openers out of a hat full of names on the eve of the game.

ACCOUNTABILITY: In western society, there is a greater sense of accountability, whether it is for a delayed tax return or an overnight stint in jail for a punch thrown in anger. Try doing anything of the sort in the subcontinent with the players. CBI is still suffering from the aftereffects of their investigation into match-fixing with semi-retired hands dumped and no existing player allowed to be punished. Even tahelka.com’s investigations have been subdued and it is the website that is now under investigation.

The result is that players there know that reputations will not get them in the side, and that no matter who the player is or how great he has been, he has to show consistency within a period of two years or he has to make way for others. Just ask Steve Waugh, who was given two years to lift the falling One-Day graph and then replaced.

In our society accountability of performance either comes very early or very late. I doubt if Wasim could have continued in an Australian side on this year’s performance. He would, in all likelihood, have been replaced simply for bowling too many wides and no-balls in the One-Day games. And would have found no way back were he to demand a rest at short notice from the toughest series the team is supposed to play. It is fair to retire from one form of the game for it is too taxing on the body, but to pick and choose is not an option in other Test-playing nations.

Just like there is a marked difference between western and eastern societies, there is a clear difference between the teams from the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan, on one hand, and those of the white nations of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, on the other. While on a micro level, the cricketers enjoy personal facilities which are either at par or more than those enjoyed by the second set of teams. But, with every passing, year our players are becoming less united, less prepared and psychologically more under-pressure. It is there in the results whenever teams from this region go their grounds and play on their pitches and in front of their crowds. The pressure is not being countered as it used to be in the 1970s and 1980s when Lloyd and Richards, Imran and Miandad, Gavasker and Kapil, and Ranatunga and Aravinda, broke the dominance of the developed countries and raised the self-respect of their own nations.

Sadly, we are going back to the 1950s and our cricketers are once again suffering from an inferiority complex and feel they are not good enough on their grounds. It does not auger well for the World Cup, if only short-term considerations are taken. With the way things are these days, it would not be a surprise if one sees only white teams playing in the semi-finals this time.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)