Australian media comment has stuck at an obvious level: there was poor team ‘culture’, the ‘line in the sand’ has been drawn, players are ‘on notice’, cliches at fifty paces. There is talk of Australian cricket in ‘crisis’, but that crisis is regarded as of the moment rather than a structural problem, even if there is now increased anxiety about the imminent Ashes tour. As always, Gideon Haigh is more adventurous, identifying Shane Watson as more individualist than team man, a line echoed by Cricket Australia’s high performance manager Pat Howard, who was immediately rebutted by Watson himself. The deeper texture to all this has not yet been traced satisfactorily, but that texture goes straight to the management role. If ‘homework’ following Hyderabad was so important, for example, why did neither Mickey Arthur nor Michael Clarke follow up with the laggards, especially vice-captain Watson?
The immediate answer is that Clarke and Watson are not ‘close’. While journalists suggest there is no more to it than that, a captain and vice-captain not being ‘close’ in an Australian team is unusual, and simply underlines the point about Watson being a loner who has advanced his own interests against those of teammates like Ed Cowan, whose opening position Watson campaigned for openly. It also raises the question why he was made vice-captain in the first place. The management issue takes on another dimension with Khawaja—along with Moises Henriques, the poster boy for multicultural Australia’s arrival in cricket, an arrival soon to be boosted further by Ashton Agar and Gurinder Singh Sandhu. Khawaja has been in and out of the Australian team an extraordinary number of times in his short career, and that is the source of serious personnel development issues. There was selectorial concern over his fielding (for which read lack of commitment), his inability to turn over the batting strike (selfish rather than team-oriented) and with his low strike rate (ditto). Even his manager reckons Khawaja deserved the fate handed out by Mickey and Michael because his charge, like most young cricketers, was not committed. That manager is about to be dumped, which might suggest Khawaja has poor listening skills.
Yet, somehow, this talented young player with a complex social profile combined stellar performances while gaining a commercial pilot’s licence and studying for an aviation degree. That does not sound like someone with an attitude problem. Yes, ability to handle a workload is not necessarily the same as being ‘committed’ to a team, and he reportedly left New South Wales for Queensland because of tension with the Blues captain and coach. Coach and team members reportedly love him in Brisbane, which returns the focus to management practice and style. Unfortunately, some newer players serve themselves poorly. Phil Hughes suggested through his manager that Cricket Australia (CA) was responsible for his poor batting form by ignoring his requests for additional training support. That is, a professional cricketer blames others for his failure as a batsman. Whatever you think of Ian Chappell, Alan Border or Steve Waugh, say, they would never have made such a claim.
There is a generational as well as a player transition here, clearly, though Watson at 31 is a different case from Khawaja and Pattinson. There is a serious and obvious possibility that Cricket Australia’s vaunted administrative and management overhaul via the Don Argus review has not produced the magic answer on how to maintain the crucial team ‘culture’. Cricket Australia leadership is not handling some of these players well. Reports that the sackings stemmed from an accumulation of indiscretions reinforces this view. In short, the management must take some blame here, as demonstrated in the ongoing management/team tension over selection policies and the controversial rotation scheme. Australian cricket now has so many management layers that at least someone should have been looking after Khawaja and others, so that they did their homework and developed as required. If this missing management is not fixed, quickly, the Hyderabad hammering will likely to be repeated elsewhere, especially in England this summer.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The Australian team represented in the Benson & Hedges WSC, was the most interesting. But, no one expected the team to beat either Pakistan, or the West Indies, not England, also. Except the Australian public. The way the great commentator Richie Benaud experienced it in the match India played against Australia, India was on the way, when Kapil Dev took three wickets in an over. At least, when he was describing the highlights. There was no unhappiness, and no happiness, only what is, in Richie Benaud's voice, and that is how he described Cricket. I mean, Australia had lost three wickets, in an over. One couldn't blame the Australian team. But, that was not the most strong team, because Allan Border seemed a bit subdued. He seemed as if to himself, he regarded Kim Hughes, the captain, when others felt the captain was a bit less hard. Border was kind of looking at the white ball, and with respect, but where he was looking, there was no white ball. This was, after he was out, perhaps, caught, or perhaps, bowled.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT