THINK OUTSIDE THE BOLLOX

Adherence to "the process", sticking to "the plan", giving us "the shits":

Inflexible laptop-designed plans are no match for an on-field education

Crikey, there was a resonance yesterday morning when I read Paul Rees's piece in these pages on England's rugby coaching and how in the opinion of many, automaton players are being created, incapable of initiative, and fearful of creativity at the expense of the "gameplan". "Time," trumpeted the headline, summarising the views of such as Lawrence Dallaglio, Brian Ashton, Neil Jenkins and Andy Robinson, "for coaches to let players think for themselves".

We've had this debate here many times. Ricky Ponting seems to be more manager, less instinctive captain. Tubby Taylor appeared to be the cunning, instinctive captain.

Maybe it comes down to your bowlers. Ponting is clever when his bowlers bowl well, but when his bowlers struggle for wickets, he is a goose. Tubby was a genius when he brought on Warne or McGrath and the pinched a wicket just when things started to dawdle. The difference is that while Ponting's bowlers bowl to a plan and almost have to bore the batsmen into a false shot, Tubby's bowlers would get batsmen out with balls that get batsmen out. Does Ponting have a bowler who could think a batsmen out like Warne did to Hooper?

Much is made of Warne's disdain for John Buchanan and yet Buchanan was all about thinking. Maybe his influence rubbed off on Warne, but Warne (and Chapelli) is loathe to admit as much. After shit-canning his methods for years, Warne would look like a goose if he suddenly conceded Buchanan was a clever clogs with lots of good ideas. Nor can Chappelli suddenly say Buchanan was a guru because that might mean he would have to concede that Les Favell is not the only cricket guru:

Cricket benefits from buck-ing the system

Buchanan divided the playing group into four – group one would look at the way the team played, group two, how they trained, group three, how they wanted to be perceived out in the market place, and the remainder, the cultural boundaries in which the group wanted to operate.

So we have Buchanan to thank for Group Australia and he talked a lot of twaddle, but it's not what he said, it's how he said it: KPIs, groups, measurable goals, targets, blueprints. Doubtless he had a Mission Statement. It's a piece of piss to take the piss out of that kind of jargon. Especially when you consider the relentless way players recite their lines.

Sport is a bit of both worlds. Thinking laterally is good. Clever tactics are good. Old school ideas are good. New age ideas are good. You just need the right balance and, of course, timing.

There's nothing wrong with thinking, and by extension flexibility. Let's hope we think. Let's hope we get our tactics right. Let's hope we can avoid situations like Melbourne and Cardiff in 2009. Let's hope we find another Warne.

Comments

[m0nty]

I hope there's a fifth column in there somewhere. How has the Marketplace Perception Group gone recently, do you think? Their worm has dropped off, I reckon.

An entire sport run by the Peter Principle.

[Cam]

Success in international cricket is less about statistics and more about demographics.

[Adsy]

No matter how you say it - this sort of lateral thinking and planning is the way of the new world. No longer can you just turn up and think your best is going to beat the opposition. Maybe sides like Pakistan still do, and whilst they can do the unbelievable at times... it's the distinct lack of planning (especially at 40 runs from 40 balls last night with wickets in hand) that sees them lose games that they should be winning, and sides like Australia bowling to plans that win them games that mostly they should not.

Throughout history the well prepared and planned will always beat the trumped up and disorganised. I liked the first comment in the second link as well; Buchanan really just continued what Bobby Simpson started in the Australian team, which was a dedication to training and to doing things that other sides didn't, like extra fielding practice and physical training. A further example of this is the role the fitness and conditioning guy is having on the Aussies now - everything is measured and dosed so that when the performances are needed, the players are physically at their best to get the job done. You can say Siddle and some of the others have been mismanaged or whatever, but its more scientific than previously. The old school of bowlers think that getting the miles/overs into bowlers to condition them is the way to go, whilst workload management is the mantra of the new breed. I think whilst no one has the right answer, Tony is right in saying that "sport is a bit of both worlds", and the right balance will win you more cricket matches than it loses.