Arthur should know there’s no short cut to players establishing presence
The Australian coach Mickey Arthur had a few choice words for his team after they fell behind 3-0 to England in their recent ODI series. The question is, were they well chosen words? Ian Chappell writes.india Updated: Jul 15, 2012 23:38 IST
The Australian coach Mickey Arthur had a few choice words for his team after they fell behind 3-0 to England in their recent ODI series. The question is, were they well chosen words?
Arthur called for his batsmen to establish a “presence” at the crease. Presence on a cricket field is like respect; it’s earned, it’s not something that suddenly materialises at the behest of a coach.
Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting all established a presence in the middle via their deeds with the bat. The opposition feared them because all three could make a big score quickly. Viv Richards used to saunter to the crease masticating a stick of gum and delivering the occasional hefty thump to the end of his rubber handle grip.
However, it wasn’t the aggressive mannerisms that worried the opposition; it was what devastation he might cause with the bat that was the major concern.
Delivering the goods
There’s no short cut to establishing a presence on the field - it can only be earned by weight and class of performance.
At the same time that Arthur was reading the riot act to his team in the UK, Rahul Dravid was carefully choosing his words during an interview. Amongst his answers was the admission: “There were times when I thought too much about it [technique].”
Maybe so, but that was Dravid. His belief in himself derived from the fact that he didn't feel bowlers could break down his impenetrable barrier. Dravid had a presence in the middle because the opposition knew they’d have to work awfully hard to dismiss him and that meant less energy to expend on the dangerous stroke makers scattered around him.
Aggression isn’t the only weapon in the fight to establish a “presence” in the middle.
While he was at it, Arthur exhorted the Australian team to display more “mongrel” in the final match. Nothing changed, as Australia responded with another lacklustre performance. Once again, was it the right choice of word?
The word mongrel can easily be misconstrued as a need to display overt aggression.
A couple of seasons ago when Mitchell Johnson was told to be more aggressive, he started goading opposition batsmen. This clearly wasn’t the “real” Mitch Johnson and many batsmen looked bemused rather than bothered when he commenced a tirade.
Australia is currently struggling because two of their batsmen who maintain a presence are nearing the age of retirement. Despite his skills being eroded by age, Ponting is still a dangerous player.
Michael Hussey makes his presence felt on arrival at the crease. He hustles runs via sharp singles and shrewdly judged sprints and then once his confidence is up he produces exquisite cover drives and strong arm pull shots.
Hussey is a more aggressive left-handed version of Dravid; he sells his wicket at well above market rate.
Australia can win with their strong pace attack. However, they won’t win as often as they’d like unless they can unearth some young batsmen whose presence in the middle is a long and fruitful one.