Michael Atherton: England`s two-faced critics (27 Apr 1997)

Sunday 27 April 1997

England`s two-faced critics

Michael Atherton refuses to accept that his team deserve a bad press

ENGLISH cricket bashing is trendy and since the team`s return from New Zealand, many notables have got in on the act. Wisden and its editor Matthew Engel jumped on this burgeoning bandwagon and delivered a damning verdict on the England team and the general running of English cricket.

Well, I`m terribly sorry to be a killjoy but I`m not going to join in the fun. Most journalists take great delight in denouncing me as stubborn, so stubborn I shall be. It is on the positives that I shall be concentrating as we embark on what should be a wonderful summer.

Firstly, though, I cannot miss this opportunity to reflect on the huge difference between perception and reality of the winter just passed. One of the criticisms aired was that the England cricket team was, well, too damned unsociable. Here I hold my hands up and unreservedly apologise for the professional and dedicated nature in which we prepared for the international matches. But, you cry, they refuse to stay for a drinks party after the match! Well, I don`t suppose anybody would believe me if I said at no stage were we ever invited to drinks by our Zimbabwean hosts.

Was it ever reported that minutes after the scintillating draw in Bulawayo several of the England team went into the Zimbabwean dressing room to share a drink and reflect on a pulsating match? Or that after the third one-day international again several of us spent over an hour in their dressing room at the close of play? Or that we spent a wonderful day with some of the Zimbabwe team at the farm of Heath and Dennis Streak? No, I suppose not.

But, hang on a minute, you say, this team was shabbily dressed and unshaven for most of the tour. The team attended four official functions in three months and were impeccably dressed and behaved in a manner fitting an international team. Our team manager has faxes from Chris Doig, the New Zealand chief executive, and from the British High Commissioner to prove it. What people must understand is that the team cannot be on parade for 12 hours a day for 3.5 months. And if a photographer or sports editor wants a picture of a cricketer in shorts or jeans or unshaven, then he will find an opportunity. There must be some time off-duty.

Besides, as we all know, if Nick Knight had hit the final ball in Bulawayo for three not two, and if we hadn`t played so poorly in the one-dayers in Harare, none of this would be an issue. So please, let us not lose sight of the main issues, ie the cricket - and yes, we were very poor in one-day cricket this winter.

These perceptions led to another misconception that the team has been sent to `charm school`. Nonsense. The threeday course run by the Insights Company was a motivational and management exercise. And extremely stimulating it was too. There were no new blinding insights but it was a chance to get the squad together in preparation for the summer ahead. We set our objectives out and we had some fun. We worked through a whole set of exercises in small groups of four or five and talked through the process of team work, team building and team dynamics.

The notion that we had been sent to `charm school` again highlighted the problem for us in the difference between reality, or what actually happens, and perception, or what people read in the papers. Apparently this winter, after the Royal Family and the Prime Minister, myself and the England cricket team had more column inches devoted to us than anybody else. And yet we still have no press officer on tour. Thankfully, this is in the process of being rectified and one will be appointed.

Not for one minute am I so naive as to think that all our problems will be solved nor, for that matter, are all our problems press related. However, it is at times an unmanageable situation. The cricket press have never had it so good - with the team available, too available, seven days a week, and if they are not satisfied with the information given out at a formal conference they can pick off other members of the team around the pool or in the lobby. It is a chaotic situation, usually to the team`s detriment, that needs to be addressed and run professionally.

The Australians will arrive soon enough. My early impressions were that it was a fairly predictable squad, with only the absence of Paul Reiffel causing me to raise an eyebrow. Some of the confusion surrounding the best batting options has led to the recall of Michael Slater and Ricky Ponting, while the promotion of Steve Waugh possibly reflects a continuing concern over the form of captain Mark Taylor. It is, however, a stronglooking 17-man squad and reflects the healthy state of Australian cricket in general. It is perceived by the public that they are the best and this is reflected in both the feeling of anticipation and brilliant advance ticket sales. That they are a strong unit should not concern us but should excite and challenge us. It is a cliche, I know, but if you want to be the best you have to beat the best and that is the challenge.

The triumvirate charged with running our game, Bob Bennett, Tim Lamb and Lord MacLaurin, along with the selectors, coach and captain, met at Edgbaston last weekend to discuss precisely how we plan to do it. We had a thorough review of the winter and digested the lessons learnt from it. Squads of players were discussed as well as the pitches on which we expect to play Australia. I am not going to divulge our tactics here. Suffice to say that we are planning ahead and will be well prepared.

The selection panel is a refreshingly young one, with similar outlooks and ideas. People can be reassured that we are all pulling in the right direction. After discussion with David Graveney, I felt that it would be better this year not to use my right to vote. Firstly, I am confident in the three chosen selectors and also I am hoping to avoid the situation we faced at the Oval last year when, during the last Test match, I was partly responsible for the non-selection of half the team for the following one-day internationals, and had to tell them so during the match. Gradually, I see our system developing along Australian lines whereby the captain has influence but not a vote, and this would fit in with the way Graveney has initially separated the duties of selecting and managing the national side.

As the triumvirate left us to our deliberations, it was clear they had another agenda to discuss. Eventually they will decide which is the best way forward for our national game. Whatever they choose, I do not feel that the charge laid down by Wisden, that the ECB is a dinosaur reluctant to change, can apply any longer. These are not people with their heads buried in the sands of tradition, but are people with a deep love of the game combined with a hard-nosed business attitude and a real desire to protect its future.

I think I am realistic and have been critical of some of the efforts of the national side, notably in Australia in 1994/5 and the administration which governed it. However, as we are about to embark on a mouth-watering summer, I am more optimistic than I have been for some time. Naturally, we must make our summer game attractive to both spectators and sponsors, and the role of the England team is vital within that. We have the opportunity to do it against Australia. Mark Waugh has accused us of being soft and lacking hunger. It is not a war of words we want to enter, and I hope we can let our cricket do the talking.

Source :: The Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/)