Homeworkgate: Watson, Pattinson among four axed for third Test

[Sidhoni]

Hilarious take by the telegraph on this incident! Revealed! The Australian cricket team's powerpoint presentations :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :giggle:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[gaurav92]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Crookbond]

This is an interesting point. Can you punish a player for an indiscreet shot while batting? I would say it depends on the circumstance. Just because a batsmen gets out to a cross-bat slog to a part-timer is not grounds enough to castigate him. Btw, dropping players (especially batsmen) for their failure to respond to pressure situations in a quality way actually happens all the time in cricket. For example, half of the Pakistani players ODI careers nose-dived after the fiasco with India in the WC quarter-finals in 1996. I dont think we are talking the same thing. I recognize that each player has his own unique ways of preparation. I am not advocating for a near-uniform way for all players to warm-up before the match. Clearly, that is not the case. A player, given a past record that validates his approach, is well within his right to adopt a suitable technique that fulfills his own unique needs the best. But we are not talking approaches here. We are talking defiance and disrespect. When all the team members are asked to do something and you dont, the clearly tells that you dont care for authority, nor do you respect leadership.

The point I was making was a cricket related "disrespect" which would cause more harm to the team than this. There is nothing new about "no care for authority" - it's a common trait in a lot of individuals. On further hand, respect is earned not just snatched away due to power. It must also be added that I'm not against punishment but against the measure of punishment meted out. The quantum of punishment is inversely proportional to the committed problem.

[carnish]

Interestingly the two other players I was talking about was Hughes and Warner who played cross batted shots (sweeps) despite asking not to do so. A perfect cricketing situation for an infraction like Damien Martyn's waft which put him out of the side for 6 years. But nothing has been done despite a valid cricketing reason. Clarke would very well understand that preparation is an individual trait and you can't force your preparation on others. This is well established in history of cricket - be it Botham/Brearley or Sarfaraz/Imran. For example, Dravid never practiced a day ahead of a Test match. Would you call him lazy? No, that was his preparation. Clarke's jobs is not to build a military but to marshall his troops. There is a difference between the two and ATM he doesn't understand. Do NOT for a moment think that this is Arthur's decision - he never has and in all likeliness is not that sort of a guy. Clarke with previous issues with Symonds, Katich and Hussey is very well known authoritarian. This is Michael Clarke behind this with Arthur as a shield for the media since the retirement of Hussey has stepped up his role.

I have seen you putting this up many times ... Why dont you just get it. They must have talked about that to those players and that must also be an event in the series of events. However one more chance was given to every member of the team and everyone would have been told to tidy up. However, even then, if some players go on to break discipline, not follow routines and then fail to do a simple task as in send a text to the coach, then I believe it can act as the last straw. They had to draw the line somewhere, and it is just sad that in this case it was these 4 players. Next time, it maybe someone else.

[carnish]

The point I was making was a cricket related "disrespect" which would cause more harm to the team than this. There is nothing new about "no care for authority" - it's a common trait in a lot of individuals. On further hand' date=' respect is earned not just snatched away due to power. It must also be added that I'm not against punishment but against the measure of punishment meted out. The quantum of punishment is inversely proportional to the committed problem.[/quote'] I know respect is earned and Clarke tries to earn that by scoring each time he goes out to bat, but even then if the players who regularly struggle to make runs act in a defiant manner to the team management, it is degrading.

[Crookbond]

I have seen you putting this up many times ... Why dont you just get it. They must have talked about that to those players and that must also be an event in the series of events. However one more chance was given to every member of the team and everyone would have been told to tidy up. However' date= even then, if some players go on to break discipline, not follow routines and then fail to do a simple task as in send a text to the coach, then I believe it can act as the last straw. They had to draw the line somewhere, and it is just sad that in this case it was these 4 players. Next time, it maybe someone else.

Now, we come to the point. So, the final straw is decided at whim & fancy then! Why not give another chance? This only shows a confused team management. Also, what should be the quantum of punishment? Surely, it should be incremental rather than shock - absorb. Warn them, fine them and then drop them. In this case, there was hardly a warning as well. As I said earlier, there is no common preparation or a "simple task". The most "simple task" for cricketers is t play cricket not come up with suggestions of improvement. Sehwag says it's so easy to hit any ball on a good length for a boundary; Dravid will however say otherwise.

[Lord]

Interestingly the two other players I was talking about was Hughes and Warner who played cross batted shots (sweeps) despite asking not to do so. A perfect cricketing situation for an infraction like Damien Martyn's waft which put him out of the side for 6 years. But nothing has been done despite a valid cricketing reason. Clarke would very well understand that preparation is an individual trait and you can't force your preparation on others. This is well established in history of cricket - be it Botham/Brearley or Sarfaraz/Imran. For example, Dravid never practiced a day ahead of a Test match. Would you call him lazy? No, that was his preparation. Clarke's jobs is not to build a military but to marshall his troops. There is a difference between the two and ATM he doesn't understand. Do NOT for a moment think that this is Arthur's decision - he never has and in all likeliness is not that sort of a guy. Clarke with previous issues with Symonds, Katich and Hussey is very well known authoritarian. This is Michael Clarke behind this with Arthur as a shield for the media since the retirement of Hussey has stepped up his role.

I don't think you can put it all on Clarke too.Sure he had his issues,but such a big decision cant be his alone.The Coach needs to be backed by the captan to take such a decision,maybe Arthur wasnt in SA team. btw,I read somewhere that Arthur admires the similar ways of Ross Lyon,an Aussie Rugby Coach.

[Crookbond]

I know respect is earned and Clarke tries to earn that by scoring each time he goes out to bat' date=' but even then if the players who regularly struggle to make runs act in a defiant manner to the team management, it is degrading.[/quote'] Why should Clarke meddle in "how players prepare"? How does Clarke know what is good for his players? He should advice, suggest and give guidelines not behave like Col. Gadaffi.

[Crookbond]

I don't think you can put it all on Clarke too.Sure he had his issues,but such a big decision cant be his alone.The Coach needs to be backed by the captan to take such a decision,maybe Arthur wasnt in SA team. btw,I read somewhere that Arthur admires the similar ways of Ross Lyon,an Aussie Rugby Coach.

Yes - you can't put it all on Clarke but it would be naive to think that such dictum comes from Arthur, who well didn't even decree one such instance (despite having so many opportunities) in his entire coaching career of South Africa or Australia. Clarke has prior background - Symonds (this when he was stand-in captain!), Katich (personal reasons) and Hussey (for not agreeing to tour India). Of course he had the support of the coach, team manager and "blessings" from CA. I'm very confident this is Clarke and not Arthur despite the press conference being given by Arthur.

[carnish]

Why should Clarke meddle in "how players prepare"? How does Clarke know what is good for his players? He should advice' date=' suggest and give guidelines not behave like Col. Gadaffi.[/quote'] Where is it mentioned that he meddles in players preparation?? Did he ask anyone to change his game, not do the things they usually do?? there are certain things players need to do as a team and this is what the management will see as discipline among the guys. Asking players to give three points is not meddling in their preparation pattern. It hardly takes 10 minutes.

[vamos_rafa]

'Back-chat' and 'attitude' a problem: Mickey Arthur SYDNEY: Australia coach Mickey Arthur on Wednesday said a team culture including unacceptable "back-chat" and "attitude" forced him to controversially axe four players for the next Test in India. The move to suspend vice-captain Shane Watson, James Pattinson, Usman Khawaja and Mitchell Johnson has polarised opinion in Australia, with commentators calling it one of the most sensational decisions in decades. Arthur said it was the culmination of "lots of small minor indiscretions that have built up to now" and would be looked back on in years to come as a "defining moment" for Australian cricket. "When we sat down as a leadership group and made these tough decisions I knew it would polarise public opinion, but internally I certainly know we've made the absolute right decision," he said on the Cricket Australia website. "This is a line in the sand moment -- a point we'll look back on in a couple of years' time when we're back to number one in the world and say was a defining moment." Trailing 2-0 in the Indian Test series, all the players had been told to prepare feedback on how they could improve and were given five days to deliver it, but four failed to meet the deadline and paid a heavy price. In justifying the shock axings, skipper Michael Clarke on Tuesday said the players had shown a lack of respect for Arthur, with a general slide in attitudes on the Indian tour. With the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey, Australia took a relatively young and inexperienced team to India. The South African coach said management had provided "lots of latitude and flexibility". But with Australia due to play two Ashes series against arch-rival England this year, starting in July, Arthur said the attitude issues had to be nipped in the bud. "Being late for a meeting, high skinfolds (body fat), wearing the wrong attire, back-chat or giving attitude are just some examples of these behavioural issues that have been addressed discreetly but continue to happen," he said. Demanding that all players raise their game, he added: "We want to be the Spanish football team, Manchester United or McLaren of world cricket. The absolute pinnacle where high standards are not expected, they are second nature.

[Crookbond]

LOL - backchat and skin folds! The last time I heard someone complain about "back chat" was during my 8th grade in school. :facepalm: Also dear Mr. Arthur you need to look at the phrase "nip in the bud". It means take cognizance of it the first time itself not allow it to run half the course.

[Crookbond]

Clarke remains hopeful of Watson return

"I think Watto has made it clear to everybody that that's something he's thinking about while he's home," Clarke said of Watson's cricket future. "From my point of view he's vice-captain of this team and he's a big part of this team, there's no doubt about that. From the conversation Watto and I have had, 100% he has gone home for the birth of his first child, which is very exciting for him. I know he's really excited about that. "Hopefully all goes to plan there, Lee has the baby in the next few days and Watto is back here playing the fourth Test as our vice-captain. That's the best-case scenario from my point of view and from the team's point of view. The rest is really up to Shane."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/624788.html

[diga]

LOL - backchat and skin folds! The last time I heard someone complain about "back chat" was during my 8th grade in school. :facepalm: Also dear Mr. Arthur you need to look at the phrase "nip in the bud". It means take cognizance of it the first time itself not allow it to run half the course.

LOL.. For Aussies, "nip in the bud" means before the Ashes starts.. I think they hardly care about India series.

[vamos_rafa]

LOL - backchat and skin folds! The last time I heard someone complain about "back chat" was during my 8th grade in school. :facepalm: Also dear Mr. Arthur you need to look at the phrase "nip in the bud". It means take cognizance of it the first time itself not allow it to run half the course.

there was this fake FB quote from MSD right? Its difficult to take a team seriously the captain of which is named Pup and the coach is a Mickey. Might not be true in the cricketing sense but overall they are behaving as if they cant be taken seriously. BTW, with skinfolds, what would they have done with Sehwag?? ?He would not have filled the form anyways :winky:

[Crookbond]

[rkt.india]

:haha:

[Lord]

[zakk]

:hysterical:

[Crookbond]