Published: Jun 26, 2013, 08:37 AM (IST)
Edited: Jun 26, 2013, 08:37 AM (IST)
Mickey Arthur was sacked as Australian coach just two weeks prior to the Ashes © Getty Images
By Adrian Meredith
Mickey Arthur was sacked as Australia’s national cricket coach on Monday. Arthur came from South Africa where he improved discipline dramatically that led to South Africa doing much better in international cricket. He set high standards and told them that they should be the best in the world. This worked very well, largely because it was true. He gave players more self-confidence, and helped to stop the self doubt. They still choke occasionally and still have that psychological torment, but Arthur did a lot to help to get them out of that mindset. The players spoke highly of him. Unfortunately for him, the administrators did not. Arthur said that the reason that he quit as South African coach was because he disagreed with Cricket South Africa’s ideas of how to run the team.
Angry with South African cricket, Arthur came to Australia and pledged fresh loyalty to Australian cricket. He soon became coach of the Western Australian First-Class side and had great success too. He helped to inspire the likes of Mitchell Marsh to be much better than he was previously. The team did much better under his leadership.
In the wake of the Argus Review, Arthur was made the national coach of Australia, the first overseas-born coach of the Australian national cricket team ever. Geoff Marsh and Tom Moody had both been favoured to take over the role, with Allan Border and Rod Marsh both with outside chances, but it was Arthur who got the job. This was said to be because the Argus Review found that favouring Australians as coaches was wrong and that it should be on merit. The fact that Border has so much respect in Australian cricket circles wasn’t considered useful, nor the fact that Moody is the most decorated Australian coach, nor that Geoff Marsh has so much international coaching experience, nor that Rod Marsh has been in the Australian coaching structure for longer than anyone else. Arthur came in from nowhere, as an overseas-born coach, and leapfrogged four much more qualified alternatives.
To say that Arthur’s appointment as head coach was a shock is an understatement. Darren Lehmann being named as assistant coach was less of a shock, but there were a lot of questions as to how Lehmann was ahead of the others that should have been considered. But at least Lehmann is Australian. And at least they didn’t go with Greg Chappell.
Buoyed by the Argus Review recommendations, Arthur took the squad to Sri Lanka and South Africa, where they did very well in all three formats, much better than they had previously. Everyone was saying that the Argus Review had come good and Arthur was an example of that.
But then the results were a bit inconsistent. A Test loss to New Zealand was humiliating, though at least Australia managed to beat Sri Lanka in Australia, in the Test series at least, and also won against West Indies.
But then they headed to India.
Most people looking at the India series were saying that India would likely win every match easily, to finish 4-0. Australia would do well if they won a Test. A 3-1 win would feel like a victory. Even if they drew a Test without having rain affect the match they would feel proud.
But Arthur thought differently. He thought that Australia could win in India.
The selectors were going with huge hunches in Moises Henriques and Glenn Maxwell, neither with any Test experience, and precious little international experience of any kind, both underperforming players. Phillip Hughes was given yet another chance. Both Usman Khawaja and Steven Smith were sent in as backup batsmen. At least Smith was in decent form domestically.
But while everyone else thought that Australia had no chance, Arthur was being so absurdly positive. He was going around saying to everyone that they could win, that they could do it.
In the first Test, there was a huge collapse, but then Michael Clarke did something amazing to get them in with a chance. But it wasn’t enough. The bowlers weren’t doing enough. Henriques surprisingly did well. But India still won, ultimately comfortably.
Bar Michael Clarke, it was not even close. And even with Clarke it was a big defeat.
Arthur should have gone in there and told everyone to reassess. That India were a lot better than he had thought. That they needed new strategies. And that, put simply, they probably weren’t going to win a match. He should have just looked at positives and tried to have fun.
Instead, he was furious. Instead, he slammed the players. Instead, he demanded for them to do better. Instead, he gave them all absurd assignments to complete, presentations to do about how the team could do better.
And, of course, some of them didn’t bother with it.
Arthur then did something beyond absurd. Given that no less than four players had failed to do the work, he should have realised that his way was not working. If it was just one, perhaps he could punish them. But not four. But Arthur saw this as his authority being challenged, and reacted by banning all four for a match, including vice-captain Shane Watson.
Officially, the Australian cricket hierarchy supported the decision, but the reaction from Watson proved that they didn’t really feel that way. The players hated him for doing that. While it gave Maxwell a chance, as well as Smith, it wasn’t for the right reasons. The series was already lost. There was no need to do this. It was far too minor an offence to warrant banning players over.
And then, of course, we had the David Warner scandals. Two of them.
First, Warner was defamed by a newspaper journalist, who put a photo of Warner next to an article about match-fixing in the Indian Premier League (IPL). Warner was rightly upset.
The Australian cricket hierarchy should have supported their player. They should have sent a message to the journalist that what he did was not acceptable. In days gone by, that is exactly what would have happened. A journalist has no right to accuse Warner of match-fixing like that. They should have demanded an apology.
Once they had the apology, they should have dealt with Warner’s reaction. Not before. If the journalist refused to apologise, then they shouldn’t have punished Warner. Simple as that. If the journalist apologised, and it was clear that Warner was out of line, then they could have dealt with it.
Punishing Warner for rightly being upset for being defamed is a very bad way to do things. While it is not completely clear who decided that Warner should be punished for it, Arthur certainly had something to do with it.
Secondly, Warner confronted England’s Joe Root for putting on a fake beard, which, to all appearances, was a racist attack at South Africa’s Hashim Amla. Warner did throw a punch, but was held back by teammates and did not connect. There were no complaints by Root or the other English players. Nobody even heard about it until a New Zealand player who was there leaked it to the press, probably to get an unfair advantage over Australia leading up to their crucial match up.
Whether or not Root was actually being racist against Amla, it is reasonable for Warner to be offended. Root apologised for it, and explained himself. And I am sure that he understands that it would have been seen as a racist attack.
And, of course, let’s not forget that it could well have been a racist attack. Yet it is not being investigated in that way.
If Root had launched a racist attack, he should have been punished. The first thing that should have happened is to investigate, based on eye witnesses etc, whether it was a racist attack or not. If it was, then Root should have been punished, and forced to make a public apology. If it was not, then Root should have been asked for his view on things.
What they should have done is to investigate Root’s motives first, then to worry about Warner’s reaction. It is important to determine whether or not Warner was justified to react in that way.
If Root refused to explain or apologise, or it was proven to be a racist attack, then Warner should not have been penalised. Simple as that. He didn’t connect so there is no injury there.
Even if Root was innocent, it still doesn’t mean that Warner needs to apologise. More of an issue is that nobody at all complained, there was no police investigation and the only reason that anyone even heard about it is because of a sneaky New Zealand player leaking it to the press for unfair advantage.
If Warner was punished, it should have been minor. Not banned from playing for a month. Not over this. He should have had a fine, and maybe go to anger management counseling. Perhaps a formal public apology for his behaviour. Maybe ban him for one match. Not for a month.
And that, ultimately, is what went wrong with Arthur.
This extreme discipline and over punishment is not fair to the Australian players. Rain cost them their place in the semi-finals of the ICC Champions Trophy 2013 — not their performance. It was wrong to punish the players so severely.
At the end of the day, you have to keep a good balance between positive and negative when you are in any kind of leadership role if you are to get respect. If you are too negative, they lose respect for you. If you are too positive, then they run riot. You need to punish and be negative but only in extreme circumstances. Only in those times when there is no other choice.
Not doing homework should never in a million years led to players being banned.
Standing up to a possible racist attack should never have led to a month ban.
Arthur has severely damaged the Australian cricket team and his termination couldn’t have come quickly enough.
(Adrian Meredith, an Australian from Melbourne, has been very passionate about cricket since he was seven years old. Because of physical challenges he could not pursue playing the game he so dearly loved. He loves all kinds of cricket – from Tests, ODIs, T20 – at all levels and in all countries and writes extensively on the game)
