Michael Atherton's Spirit of Cricket

The Spirit of Cricket

Michael Atherton’s article in the Times on 1^st October raised the issue of the ‘grey areas’ which surround the Laws of Cricket. It is always good to discuss and debate these areas of a sport, which are all-too-quickly abused and exploited in the name of competitive spirit or the will to win. His conclusions and his obviously heartfelt views about the Spirit of Cricket, however, need to be questioned and challenged further by those of us who are closer to John Woodcock in our views.

He mentions two occasions when the batman had assumed that the ball was dead either because the run had been completed or the over had ended. In both cases it is easy to blame the batsmen for “being dozy” and Michael may be right in saying that they should have waited for the ball to be called dead by the umpire. However, it is not always easy to hear the umpire call “over” and on occasions a batsman will move out of his crease for all sorts of reasons before the call has come. Technically speaking, in both cases, the umpire could have decided that the ball was “settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper” (Law 23 paragraphs 1 and 2) and therefore the spirit of the Laws might not have been tested. Indisputably, in Murali’s case there was no intention of taking another run. In the case of Paul Collingwood he did not overbalance in playing the shot and therefore was not genuinely stumped, nor did he appear to be taking a run, so he was not really run out.

Michael also mentions the occasions when Angelo Mathews was recalled by Andrew Strauss and when Grant Elliott was not recalled by Paul Collingwood. The situations both involved a collision between the batman and one of the fielding team.

In all of these situations the captains involved had options. Fleming and Collingwood chose to let the appeal stand, Strauss and Vettori chose to reprieve the batsman. The captain always has the option of withdrawing the team’s appeal in the interests of the spirit of the game provided that he has a clear idea in his mind of what that constitutes. The batsman’s intention and whether a collision is deliberate or not cannot be defined in the Laws, so a captain has to rely on his own instincts or the commonly accepted standards of his time, which may not always be in line with the traditional values of the game.

All these may be difficult decisions to make, but, in the Laws of Cricket, a captain is given the responsibility for making them. The umpire is there to advise, “be the sole judge of fair and unfair play” and, ultimately, to apply the Laws.

“The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws.”

The Laws of any sport are written for players, umpires and scorers in the knowledge that there needs to be a structure to the game and a number of regulations to guide the actions of those participating and the decision-making of the officials. There cannot be a fair contest without the participants knowing the parameters within which they are to compete. The Laws of Cricket attempt to define most situations that may arise in a game, but, as with all laws, interpretations can vary and not every eventuality will be adequately covered.

The Spirit of Cricket points towards an ideal, which, given human frailty, may not be fully achieved. Does that mean that it is wrong to attempt to promote the ideal? Surely not! In all sports ideal standards beyond the laws or rules have been promoted, though not always followed. When implicitly understood standards have been broken or ignored, some sports have altered the laws or regulations in the hope that they can close that particular loophole. In cricket that happened when MCC introduced the Spirit of Cricket as the preamble to the Laws in 2000. However, that does not alter the position where players should be encouraged to compete within the Laws and be reminded of the need to consider the ‘grey areas’, which may constitute the ‘spirit’ of those Laws, and which also tend to bring out the ‘higher or baser instincts’ of an individual. There may be a better way of expressing what is meant by the Spirit of the Game. Although there have always been players who ignored the conventional codes, the majority of players over the years have had an understanding of where sportsmanship has crossed the undefined line into gamesmanship or sharp practice. Even today there is a reaction from most fielders and bowlers when a batsman does not “walk”, although, hypocritically, they themselves may also take that stance when batting. There is clearly still an implicit feeling that the batsman has acted wrongly and overstepped the bounds of what should be acceptable.

Michael Atherton derides the opening words of the Spirit of the Game as “a lot of well-meaning guff” and denies that cricket has ever had a “unique appeal”. He says that “Cricket, like other sports, is played by human beings and so it is no surprise that it is a flawed game.” Perhaps it is a play on words to say that cricket has a “unique appeal”. Cricket is the only game where, uniquely, a player appeals for a decision to be made, rather than waiting for an umpire’s or referee’s decision and then accepting or appealing against it (Law 27). With the incoming new “referral” or “review” system ICC is introducing a second appeal; that surely will be unique!

Although not specifically stated, it has been accepted that batsmen will walk off without any indication from the umpire when they are bowled or caught by the majority of the fielders, unless there is doubt whether the catch was cleanly taken. Other manners of dismissal need an appeal to an umpire. Run-out, stumped, hit wicket, handled the ball, LBW, timed out, hit the ball twice and obstruction may all have an element of doubt about them and the umpire’s role is to decide on these dismissals. If there is doubt about the catch being taken fairly, it is reasonable also to refer this decision to the umpire, although I cannot understand why one should not expect the fielders to claim only genuine catches (to do otherwise is surely cheating) and the batsman to walk off if he knows that he has hit the ball (to stand his ground is an attempt to be deceitful and therefore could be deemed sharp practice). I do assume that the fielders and the batsmen know what actually happened and I do not accept that, except on very rare occasions, there is genuine doubt in their mind. Obviously, in cases of doubt it must be right to leave the decision to the officials who have been given that responsibility.

In cricket, players are asked to respect their opponents, their own captain and team, the role of the umpires and the game’s traditional values. The captains are given the major responsibility for the team’s conduct, which inevitably leads to changes in interpretation of the Spirit of the Game dependent on the mores of the day. If captains are unaware of the ‘game’s traditional values’, it is important that administrators, commentators and coaches make them aware of them, even though the definitions may not all be universally agreed. The best forum for these deliberations would be a meeting of all international captains with the MCC World Cricket Committee, which attempts to be representative of the game worldwide without any political or national bias.

The traditional values have generally been agreed as being based on respect, which should cover most actions which have an impact on the other participants. In particular:
a) Players should accept, without question, the decision of the umpire
b) Players should not indulge in sharp practice, which although not actually cheating, may be seen as coming close to it and being deceitful
c) There is no place for violence on the field of play
d) No abusive language should be directed towards an opponent or umpire

The Laws are written for cricket at all levels. It should make no difference whether such an incident occurs in a local village match, in the final of the World Cup or on the last day of a deciding Ashes Test Match, but sadly the captains and some of those associated with professional teams do not always see that as being true. The moral obligation ought to be absolute and therefore consistently applied by all captains. If it is not, it is easy to see why players, teams and even Governing Bodies can lose respect for each other and why the atmosphere on the field and in the dressing rooms can change for the worse if there is any inkling of sharp practice. It is easy to dismiss this striving for ideals as naïve and outmoded, but it needs to be said that there are many supporters of the game of cricket who are disappointed that, increasingly, current and some influential past players are promoting, provocatively and at times unchallenged, the baser instincts of the players of today.

John Woodcock’s thoughts on acting within the Spirit of Cricket are clear. He believes it is the same as “being honourable” and compares the phrase to “chivalry”. The only problem with using these synonymous expressions is that those who want everything to be defined in laws without “grey areas” will choose not to understand their meaning any more than they are willing to accept the Spirit of Cricket as standing for an ideal, if not easily defined, way of playing the game.

The Problems in the England Dressing Room

Over the last week there have been numerous articles in the media about the breakdown in relationship between the captain and coach of the England team. There have been countless comments from experts from cricket and from other sports. This morning Sir Clive Woodard, who is demonstrably one of the most successful managers in England's recent sporting history, made his views clear on Radio 4. Geoffrey Boycott, who can be guaranteed to be forthright, has written sensible comments, Derek Pringle, Jonathan Agnew and several other cricket journalists have all had their say. They are experienced former cricketers who have much to offer in terms of advice. Behind the scenes everyone has an opinion and it has been a red-hot topic of conversation amongst cricketers and probably anyone interested in the success of the England team.

Cricket is a different game from the other team sports such as rugby, football or hockey which last for eighty or ninety minutes and are played at a different pace to cricket. In these sports there is less time for major changes in tactics that have not been, in some ways, pre-planned. A coach and his captain can discuss with the team in advance the various options available and it is more possible for the coach or manager (and there is a difference) to dictate tactics and change the mode of play, not only at half-time but also during the course of the play. Inevitably the coach is not on the playing field, though in football in particular the dug-outs are in very close proximity and the players are obviously aware of the instructions that are issued throughout the game.

Cricket is very different. Once the team has crossed the boundary rope they are for the most part more than seventy yards, and often over one hundred yards, from the coaches or managers who now make up the squad of players and officials in a dressing room. The captain has to make decisions every ball, every over and every time that a new batsman is on strike. It is impossible for a coach to make these decisions. In fact, the late Bob Woolmer, one of the best international coaches, proposed that the captain should wear an earphone and should be able to have contact with, or at least receive opinions from, the coach. He realised that the coach's role is very limited once the team is on the field and was trying to create a way for the coach to have more influence.

Although there are many overlapping managerial and leadership skills needed by captains in any sport, the cricket captain needs different and additional skills to those required by the captains of the other sports. This clearly elevates his/her role to a higher level than that enjoyed by the captains of football, rugby or hockey teams.

The relationship between the captain, who has to be completely in charge once on the field and, in my view, in the dressing room during the hours of play, and the coach, whose responsibility is to prepare the players through practice, fitness training and any other ways that may be necessary with individuals, is vital. It is inevitable that, from time to time, there will be disagreement between the two people occupying those roles. It would be, of course, possible to say that one of the two is the senior person in the partnership, but it is unrealistic in the eyes of many former cricketers to see a captain who is completely subservient to a coach. In many ways it is easier to see that the coach needs to fit in with the leadership of the captain of the time and be an assistant in preparation and in discussing tactics. A pair of eyes from the dressing room is always helpful and can convey ideas at lunch, tea or during drinks breaks. However, the real responsibility for making the crucial changes on the field at the right time can only lie with the captain who is out there with the team.

It is interesting that the captain currently has no official position on the selection committee, except on tour once the party has been chosen. I cannot see how that can be acceptable to a captain who must have confidence in the bowlers in particular, but also in the players around him. Without being the only person responsible for selection, surely the captain should be party to all selection discussions? It would be extremely difficult for any captain to take on to the field bowlers in whom he has no confidence. The captain has the power to decide who bowls and when and there are examples in the fairly recent past when it has been clear that a captain has been not felt able to put on one of his bowlers although the situation possibly demanded it.

In the current conflict between Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores, which would have been much more appropriately dealt with without the media speculation and the public airing of individuals' views, it is impossible to know, although that does not prevent much speculation, what the real issues were. Kevin Pietersen is obviously his own man and that is a strength in a captain provided he has respect and support from the players he is leading into the match. There appears to be considerable doubt that he enjoyed that support from a sufficient number of the team, which is not surprising given his history at Nottinghamshire and the difficulties that he had with those who were supposed to be on the same side. As a captain he falls into the mould of up-and-at-'em leaders. That approach to captaincy did not succeed with Ian Botham in the Ashes series of 1981 when Mike Brearley's return reversed the whole series. It did not succeed when Andrew Flintoff was chosen to lead the England team to Australia on the last occasion. That is not to say that both of these two cricketers did not have many qualities as players and were in a number of ways great focal points around which others could rally. That does not make them the right people to captain the team. In all three cases the player was probably the best player in the team, which is an increased pressure, but in Pietersen's case there is the added complication of his ego, which can be off-putting for some in the team as well as for people close to the team.

In the case of Peter Moores, the jury was, in some ways, still out about his ability as a coach at international level. He was clearly a thoughtful and successful coach at county level and was well-regarded as the ECB Academy Director. It is not impossible for a coach without international experience to be successful at that level, but it depends on the coach's personality, skills and management capability as well as acceptance by the players that he is the right person for the job. He may be unfortunate to have come up against such a dominant captain, but most teams have done well with a strong captain and it is the coach's responsibilty to work with the captain to forge a strong and productive relationship. However there is no doubt that most cricketers still feel more confident from the outset in a coach who has experienced the same strains and stresses and gone through the same pressures as they are going through. An international background as a player would have helped his cause.

Andrew Strauss is the obvious choice to take on the role of captain. He should probably have been captain on the tour to Australia once Michael Vaughan was declared unfit. He has not done badly on the occasions, in fact he has been successful, when he has stood in for an injured captain and he has experience necessary to lead the team. He is a balanced personality without an ego, though he is bright, determined and strong-minded and will hopefully not allow any rifts to develop within the dressing room.

Andy Flower is another quietly-spoken but very determined person who has a wealth of international cricket experience behind him. He and Andrew Strauss should complement each other well over the coming weeks and, let us hope, will lead England back to winning ways.

It will be clear from what has already been said that I do not subscribe to the suggestion that the coach should be the supremo in the England cricket set-up. Equally it is unrealistic to assume that a captain knows enough about all the different aspects of running a squad to take total command. I believe that the leadership of the England team should be a triumvirate. The captain has a role, as does the coach. However, there are so many other aspects that impact on the team not only on tour but during the home cricket season. Geoff Miller, the chairman of selectors could be the third man, Hugh Morris, the managing director of England cricket probably is as near to the role that is required as anyone, though neither is permanently with the squad. There is still a place for a permanent manager. That is possibly where the role of supremo should lie. The role would not be directly involved with the day-to-day cricket decisions, but would be the managing director of the squad. Sir Clive Woodward was perhaps thinking of the manager's role when he suggested this morning that the coach had to be responsible for appointing the captain.

There is a fear amongst some of returning to the days when a well-known person, such as the Duke of Norfolk, was the manager of the touring team. That is not what is required nowadays. However there are people who could fill the role today. In New Zealand recently John Graham, a former All-Black rugby captain was the manager of the cricket team and was highly successful in sorting out some difficult issues. There are people in England who would be able to command the same sort of respect that John Graham commanded. The question is whether the ECB will review the management structure and put a manager more closely in charge of the set-up.

The next few months are vital for the new management team. The West Indies are not the strongest team, but it is important that England plays well and wins the two series in the West Indies and at the start of the English season conclusively. The Australians are more vulnerable than they have been for the last ten or more years, though no Australian team will rollover easily. If England can come out of this current difficulty stronger than before, the supporters will be grateful that such decisive action has been taken.

Red and Yellow Cards for Umpires

There has been a recent article in the media suggesting that red and yellow cards may be introduced on a trial basis into 1st Class cricket in England and Wales. Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of the ECB Association of Cricket Officials Board, of which I am Chairman, or its members, I do have very strong views on this issue, forged when I was Secretary & Chief Executive MCC and heavily involved in the MCC Laws Working Party.

When the Laws of Cricket were revised and rewritten in 2000, Lord Cowdrey and others were adamant that we should not alter the roles of the captains and the umpires. Cricket is unique in team sports (c.f. rugby, football, hockey etc) in that the Captain is responsible for the discipline of his/her team. The umpires do not have the power to dismiss a player from the field, although there are a number of situations in which the umpires are authorised to intervene (Point 3 in the Spirit of Cricket). The responsibilities of the captain are clearly stated in the preamble to the Laws:

• Responsibility of captains
  The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws
• Player's conduct
  In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decisions of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action.
  
  The Laws Working Party decided that red and yellow cards were not the answer to ill-discipline and did not introduce them into the new edition of the Laws.
  
  Any statement or decision which alters that position changes the whole relationship between captains, players and umpires.
  
  The Laws of Cricket are in place for all games of cricket, although Regulations can be written to supersede the Laws. Regulations have usually been introduced in international or first-class cricket where games are overseen by two field umpires, two additional off-field umpires and a match referee as well as the scorers. The Laws, which are also in force for less-prominent games of cricket between teams who often provide their own umpires, sometimes chosen from amongst the batting team. In these cases it would clearly be absurd to introduce red and yellow cards for the use of umpires.
  
  We would all agree that ill-discipline at all levels is unacceptable. However, the introduction of these cards was not considered by MCC, in revising the Laws, to be the way forward in combating ill-discipline. The Laws were agreed, in 2000, by the MCC Cricket Committee, the MCC Members and the International Cricket Council, who were consulted throughout the two years of redrafting. It is hard to see what has changed in the last eight years to reverse that decision.
  
  The use of yellow cards undermines the role and the responsibilities of the captain under the Spirit of Cricket. If ICC chooses to implement yellow cards at the top level, I believe it would be a mistake. For yellow cards to be introduced in the non-first-class game would, in my mind, be totally inappropriate. Captains must be made aware of their responsibilities. League authorities and clubs must support the umpires, if they feel it necessary to submit adverse reports about players or incidents. ECB, as the national governing body, must also take a strong line in maintaining or, if as it appears is needed in some levels of cricket, restoring discipline through educating, imposing sanctions where necessary and taking a firm and uncompromising stance.