By John Robbie
What's the old, rather rude, expression? "If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle." It refers to the futility of asking "What if?" after the event. It's an easy way of avoiding tough questions. I thought of it this week as people were getting totally carried away on a tide of emotion and celebration of someone already hailed as legend. Who cares. Pass the champagne. This is not good enough and I'll tell you why.
Graeme Smith going out to bat in Sydney was not just plain stupid or irresponsible - it was more serious than that. It revealed an alarming lack of professionalism and leadership in our cricket.
Continues Below ↓
I'm not blaming Graeme. He is a young sportsman who is living his dream. An old KES contemporary of his told me recently that since Smith was about 10, he has been preparing to captain the South African cricket team.
| 'I'm not blaming Graeme. He is a young sportsman who is living his dream' |
From the skipper's side, going out to bat at Sydney was actually the easier option. The historic series win was already in the bag and he was presented with a marvellous opportunity to move up from Captain Marvel to Superman. Of course he was going to bat and he almost hung on for an historic draw. It was certainly brave, but then so is opening the batting in Test cricket at the best of times.
Batting was the easier option for Smith to make. Had he chosen not to bat, he would have been targeted by the legion of fans who are not Smith supporters. Every time he has a bad trot, you read their letters in the papers. They would have accused him of selfish and cowardly behaviour. So, for him, batting was a way of winning them over.
The point, however, is that the decision should not have been his to make. It should have been made with cool logic, not emotion.
What if a ball had hit a crack and seriously cracked open his hand? What if he was out for a year instead of a few weeks? That would have seriously compromised the next series. What would the headlines be saying now? Would they focus on bravery or stupidity?
The series was already in the bag, for goodness sake. History had already been made and even if he survived, it would not have resulted in a unique whitewash. Saving what had become a meaningless Test was simply not worth the risk.
On another level, what about the legion of school teachers who battle to convince kids and parents that risking serious injury is simply not an option? How do they respond on Monday when faced with kids who want to play on despite medical opinion to the contrary? "Graeme Smith did it so why can't I?"
How do they answer that one?
Mickey Arthur and the team management should have forbidden him to bat. Simple as that.
That he was allowed to do so, inspirational as it was, makes me wonder if we have learned the lessons of the past. The last person who led South Africa with no checks and balances was Hansie Cronjé. Letting Smith bat was the easy decision, and the risk paid off. It was glorious. But as we have seen with Kevin Pietersen and England, no captain can be bigger than the game or totally in charge.
What we need are sports managers and administrators who can look beyond to the bigger picture and take the difficult decisions.
We need people who can ask: "What if?"
John Robbie hosts the breakfast show on Talk Radio 702, weekdays 6-9am.
- This article was originally published on page 23 of Saturday Star on January 10, 2009
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
