'The code hasn't been breached'
John Buchanan believes the incidents on the field during the Sydney Test were blown out of proportion
Interview by Nagraj Gollapudi
24-Jan-2008
John Buchanan was Australia's coach when "mental disintegration" became famous. When he left, he left behind a team that knew only one way of playing cricket: hard and aggressive. He believes the gamesmanship and the odd incident on the field have not increased from the time he played and coached; it's just that they are getting noticed more because of excessive media coverage. The codes of gamesmanship have not been breached, he tells Cricinfo in this interview.
 |
|
Do you think the codes of gamesmanship have been breached?
No, I don't really. There's probably the odd incident, but when you consider that there are about two-and-a-half thousand incidents in a Test - in other words balls - of which one or two might have been breached, it's much the same as it has always been. It's not to say that the players and the game want to tolerate that, but they happen. What is happening now is that we've got far more coverage for all those particular incidents whether it be TV or radio or newspapers. So those isolated incidents suddenly are blown out of proportions. As I said not that they shouldn't be necessarily dealt with, but at the moment they are being over-emphasised to the detriment of the game.
No, I don't really. There's probably the odd incident, but when you consider that there are about two-and-a-half thousand incidents in a Test - in other words balls - of which one or two might have been breached, it's much the same as it has always been. It's not to say that the players and the game want to tolerate that, but they happen. What is happening now is that we've got far more coverage for all those particular incidents whether it be TV or radio or newspapers. So those isolated incidents suddenly are blown out of proportions. As I said not that they shouldn't be necessarily dealt with, but at the moment they are being over-emphasised to the detriment of the game.
So you are saying the media is playing it up?
They are instrumental in these incidents gaining much greater attention than what they should.
They are instrumental in these incidents gaining much greater attention than what they should.
Do you believe in the age-old belief of cricket being a civilised sport?
Yes, I do. Again we've got a highly competitive sport out there with players all trying to deliver their best for their country. They try to do that within the rules, regulations, spirit of the game, and respecting each other, themselves and the game. But they are not perfect; they make mistakes. Unfortunately those mistakes get amplified in international sport. Certainly my experience - going back to my playing days - doesn't suggest it's any different today than it was then.
Yes, I do. Again we've got a highly competitive sport out there with players all trying to deliver their best for their country. They try to do that within the rules, regulations, spirit of the game, and respecting each other, themselves and the game. But they are not perfect; they make mistakes. Unfortunately those mistakes get amplified in international sport. Certainly my experience - going back to my playing days - doesn't suggest it's any different today than it was then.
You have coached Australia during Steve Waugh's reign as a captain. Waugh was a firm believer of gamesmanship. What were you thoughts?
To me the game is made up of the technical side, the physical side, the tactical side and the mental side. When you go to the field and you are playing an opposition, you try to exploit any weakness they have. That's the same in any sport and any country. Just because Steve Waugh gave it a label of mental disintegration, the Australian cricket team were not doing anything too different to Australian teams of the past and too different to what Australian teams are doing now.
To me the game is made up of the technical side, the physical side, the tactical side and the mental side. When you go to the field and you are playing an opposition, you try to exploit any weakness they have. That's the same in any sport and any country. Just because Steve Waugh gave it a label of mental disintegration, the Australian cricket team were not doing anything too different to Australian teams of the past and too different to what Australian teams are doing now.
You talked about exploiting weaknesses. Were there specific soft targets in the opposition to expose mentally?
We looked at everything we possibly could to go about winning a game. You are obviously preparing yourself and understanding your own game and making sure that your primary focus is to deliver your game. But in doing that you are actually working at areas where you take advantage of your opposition. One thing that should be emphasised when I talk about mental exploitation, and when people talk about sledging, is that a lot of talk is actually no-talk. There are some players who come on to the field wanting to engage in a conversation, that's their personality. Part of the sledge is not to talk to them because you are trying to again find out whether or not you can actually get under their guard, whether you can actually distract them.
We looked at everything we possibly could to go about winning a game. You are obviously preparing yourself and understanding your own game and making sure that your primary focus is to deliver your game. But in doing that you are actually working at areas where you take advantage of your opposition. One thing that should be emphasised when I talk about mental exploitation, and when people talk about sledging, is that a lot of talk is actually no-talk. There are some players who come on to the field wanting to engage in a conversation, that's their personality. Part of the sledge is not to talk to them because you are trying to again find out whether or not you can actually get under their guard, whether you can actually distract them.
Ian Chappell believes that gamesmanship always existed with the major difference of late being personal abuse having crept in.
I believe every player goes there on the field with the intent of not using any sort of personal abuse, but it does occur occasionally. It does. That's what I'm saying: people are not perfect even if we would like them to be and so would they. That's why everybody understands if an individual has gone over the line.
I believe every player goes there on the field with the intent of not using any sort of personal abuse, but it does occur occasionally. It does. That's what I'm saying: people are not perfect even if we would like them to be and so would they. That's why everybody understands if an individual has gone over the line.
So if the line has been crossed should the players sort it on the field or outside?
I agree. Unfortunately it [what happened at Sydney] got bigger than it should have. I always believe it should be dealt between players, maybe in consultation with the umpires and the referee but without it actually becoming as big an issue as it has now. Because then all it does is create the fuel for the next incident to be either interpreted incorrectly or interpreted mysteriously to get to the desired result by the media.
I agree. Unfortunately it [what happened at Sydney] got bigger than it should have. I always believe it should be dealt between players, maybe in consultation with the umpires and the referee but without it actually becoming as big an issue as it has now. Because then all it does is create the fuel for the next incident to be either interpreted incorrectly or interpreted mysteriously to get to the desired result by the media.
| When you go to the field and you are playing an opposition, you try to exploit any weakness they have. That's the same in any sport and any country | |||
One of the controversial things that sullied matters at Sydney was India being disappointed with a couple of catches claimed by the Australian fieldsmen. Is it fair to take the word of the fieldsman?
If we are calling for the game to be played in the right spirit and fairness and so on, the decision must rest with the players in terms of a catch. As we know technology is quite inadequate when it comes to dealing with those particular matters: one, the speed of the cameras is insufficient and two, you don't have cameras at the right positions so invariably there's very few times that you can use that technology to decide on fair catching. So the best way is to leave the onus with the player, with the honesty of the player. If replays and television shows them to be wrong, that person has to live with that. They've to live with the consequences of the choices they make then.
If we are calling for the game to be played in the right spirit and fairness and so on, the decision must rest with the players in terms of a catch. As we know technology is quite inadequate when it comes to dealing with those particular matters: one, the speed of the cameras is insufficient and two, you don't have cameras at the right positions so invariably there's very few times that you can use that technology to decide on fair catching. So the best way is to leave the onus with the player, with the honesty of the player. If replays and television shows them to be wrong, that person has to live with that. They've to live with the consequences of the choices they make then.
Where do you draw the line?
The players know that. Everybody knows what personal abuse is, what's not acceptable. That's the line. As soon as that line is crossed then it is up to the management of that person in that team to deal with it and obviously also for them to apologise in the appropriate way to the opposition.
The players know that. Everybody knows what personal abuse is, what's not acceptable. That's the line. As soon as that line is crossed then it is up to the management of that person in that team to deal with it and obviously also for them to apologise in the appropriate way to the opposition.
Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at Cricinfo