It is estimated more than
100,000 students are currently studying Masters in Business Administration(MBA)
in India and the way Mickey Arthur, Pat Howard and co want to manage Australian
cricket there could be a case for making MBA mandatory to all the ACB
contracted players.
The banning of four players
for not submitting a report seemed aloof at first but if the Argus review is to
go by then this could be a trend Australian cricket is set to follow. The Argus
recommendations are based on running a professional company rather a cricket
team so delivering presentation has suddenly become a standard management
procedures.
At the time the Review was
conducted it seemed like a bright idea but ever since the review was conducted the
cricket team is facing its toughest period and the blemishes in the report are
exposed.
Further reading also
illustrates Australian cricket plan to imitate the program run by the England
Cricket Board (ECB). It advocated the shift from a laid back, fun loving, and
tough on-field cricket to the English style of methodical approaches and over proficiency.
Perhaps it is a just the nature of modern day sport that demands for such
approaches but it also probably stops a development of a natural cricketers
such as a Merv Hughes, David Boon or even a Darren Lehmann. It rather promotes
cricketers with multi-skills such as a Glenn Maxwell or a Steve Smith.
Ponting and Hussey were
specimens of the old culture and while there presence still existed so did the
traditional Australian culture. But since the retirement of Hussey and Ponting
the new transformation then the policies of the Argus review have not taken
over.
One has to wonder how many
weeks would Andrew Symonds have been banned for his marathon boozing session in
England or how many times Shane Warne would have been suspended for not
submitting reports. The feedback was also an essential part of John Buchanan
regime but even Shane Warne didn’t become a victim because Buchanan was a
terrific one to one coach.
The “homework” saga is a
perfect example where the players have been punished for minor discrepancies in
the cricket as a whole and displays poor player management. The constant goal
setting and task management is yet another reminder Cricket Australia is
driving the game into a business organizational style approach.
If the coach needs feedback about
team performance from individuals shouldn’t it be done on one to one basics in
a team’s room rather than expecting some formal documentation? Then it came
clear it was not just a one off instance and other factors such as not wearing
the appropriate training wear also contributed. Once gain this is not a
business and the only presentation players should be judged upon is the runs
and wickets they contribute.
The Argus Review also hinted
injured players needed to be managed in a different manner and the new
strategies derived by the new administrators become an international laughing
matter. The injuries and the rotation policies are part of this new procedures
which were never suitable for Australian cricket. Peter Siddle bowling in the
current test series is prime example, instead of playing Shield cricket leading
up to the Indian tour he was advised to practice in indoor academies with temperature
set to replicate the Indian weather conditions. The result is there to be seen,
Australia’s go to man has struggled to make dents in the Indian batting order.
Furthmore, it is only
Michael Clarke to shine from this program, but what will happen if Clarke loses
his magical touch? It is no doubt Clarke has created his own dynasty and his
form as ensured the reign but even Mr Argus will tell you a CEO of an organisation
can fall downhill as quickly as he rose. Luckily, Clarke batting and captaincy
has shown the way but the minute that it declines the long terms goals set in
the Argus review could never an overhaul.
Having a past cricketer as
an administrator and having an Australian coach might be the start the team
needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment