I guess it comes down to how you like your scripts.
In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.
To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.
It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.
I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.
You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.
One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.
All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?
If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.
If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.
Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.
And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.
The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.
Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.
As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.
The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.
Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.
Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.
The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.
I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).
You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.
Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?
Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.
I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.
Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment