DRIVE FOR SHOW, LEAVE FOR DOUGH

Tell us something we don't know, Deano:

The case for the defence

Some years ago I interviewed Jack Nicklaus and it changed my views on coaching and analysis. Nicklaus said: “You need an X-factor in your game to play on the PGA Tour. But it's your defensive skills that will ultimately make you or break you, not your offensive skills.”

The Age may as well print this blog. We have been smashing on about Australia's defensive shortcomings, the batsmen's inablity to convert starts and the team's many sub-300 totals for ages. Okay, we never played Test cricket, but if all Deano has to offer is the bleeding obvious, then the AGB archives come a lot cheaper. You know what they say: you don't need to be a chicken to know a rotten technique. If Deano is such an expert, surely he can offer more insights than bat like Tendulkar, pick the length and learn to leave. The first is like telling a talentless art student to paint like Picasso. The second two are straight out of the junior coaches' handbook. What I would like to hear from Deano are his long suits: how he failed to deal with Richard Hadlee and what he tried to do about it; what he thinks about Ian Chappell telling the Indian broadcasters (and by extension the BCCI) to get stuffed; and who he really called a terrorist, W.G.Amla or Nicky Boje. He can also leave out the sleight of word. "Now I hear many of you saying leaving the ball alone is not a shot." Many who? You're not the lone savant. Noone with any cricket nous thinks that. And just between Deano, me and the confidentiality of the internet, when did he interview Jack Nicklaus and what else did Ohio Fats have to say? (See what I did there?)

Apropos the heading. Part of the problem with our modern Test batting is that there is too great an emphasis on "drive for show, drive for dough." Perhaps Deano can inform us how best to clear the front leg.

Comments

[Tony Tea]

Self-indulgence over.

[chrisl]

Australia's sporting prowess in inversely proportional to our relative wealth. Discuss

[Tony Tea]

That's a whole 'nother post. In short, though. In the amateur era Australia was good because we had a good standard of living and few countries played our sports. Then, after the ignominy of the 1976 Olympics, we moneyed up and stole a march on many countries for aths, swimming, and assorted nonsense sports. Now the rest of the world is wise to our scam and with so many countries having more people and throwing more money at sport, we are flagging. Be interesting to see how well we do at cricket if England, Pakistan, India, South Africa and even Bangladesh throw bulk lolly at cricket.

Then there is the argument about sport and poverty. If everyone in Brazil was as comfortable as the majority of Australia, would they have pumped out soccer stars. On the reverse, would Australia benefit in soccer if we had a massive underclass desperate to fight its way our of poverty?

[chrisl]

Do the kids really WANT the success. It is a pretty comfortable life they have(thanks to us) By not doing very much at all we have become the richest nation on earth, but in sport it doesn't work that way

[Tony Tea]

I wonder if there is a correlation between a nation's median wealth and the amount its soccer players dive.

[Russ]

Brazil is great at soccer because they have 300 million people. They'd be even better if their economy was better than average, so perhaps it is better that way. Likewise, Indian cricket was a preserve of the upper classes until pretty recently. If they get their shit together international cricket might become really un-interesting.

Population matters, but the evidence is that GDP matters more: Australia has a comparable GDP to England and India so we'll always be a big side. Not the dominant side, as historically we have been, but more often than not capable of competing with the best. Pakistan+Bangladesh just don't have the dosh to develop their side. NZ and everyone below just don't have the players.

[Tony Tea]

Brazil is an interesting study, since it has a lot of wealthy people as well as massive poverty.

[Professor Rosseforp]

I guess most religions preach platitudes of one sort or another -- be kind to each other, help people worse off than yourself. Yet beneath these platitudes there may be some sort of depth and meaning that speaks to human souls.
Coaching must be a bit like religion without the depth and meaning. "Watch the ball" "Don't let the ball go if it's going to hit the stumps", "play the ball, not the man" and my favourite, "Don't bend your arm more than 15%". Yes, the statements are all true, but even the biggest dill knows that. Can coaches actually get a top-class player to improve his game by something other than platitudes? As you say, that's what Deano needs to tell us about.
By their nature, Australian cricketers are not great at explaining what they are doing, unlike someone like Boycott or Brearley, but some day we might get some insights.