The never-say-die Aussies

The never-say-die Aussies
Suresh Menon

As Australia go one-up in the cricket series against India, it is possible to isolate the elements that go into making them one of the most remarkable teams in the history of the sport. Sixteen wins in a row is impressive, and will be talked about long after the individual contributions to it are forgotten. Cricket is a team game, but unlike say, rowing, teams must make the most of the different tasks, temperaments and abilities of the players. Teams succeed by the dint of differentiation. You cannot have 11 Shane Warnes in a team, nor can you have 11 Mark Waughs. The brilliant players need the journeymen to play off their brilliance against. That is sound management theory too. In fact, if Indian cricket refuses to learn from this Australian team led by Steve Waugh, there is enough in it for management students.

Budget 2001: Full Coverage

Team spirit is, at the best of times, a nebulous concept. It is a component of victory. Most captains (except Imran Khan at the 1992 World Cup -- but that's another story) mouth platitudes about `team work' that preceded success. The corollary then would be that lack of success is somehow tied up with lack of team spirit. No defeated captain, however, says, ``We lacked team spirit,'' when his team loses, even if he feels that is the obvious reason for failure.

This is not a great Australian team, despite its success; it would not hold a candle to the 1948 squad led by the late and great Donald Bradman, for instance. Bradman alone would be worth any two or three batsmen of the current squad. In fact, Shane Warne apart, it is difficult to see any of the present lot fitting into that team. Yet, the successes of Steve Waugh's men must mean something. Weak opposition is only the half of it. The real character of the team stands out in sharp contrast when they play India. What are these elements?

Planning: The basis of success in business and sport. Most teams (including India) have enough material on their opponents and it is difficult to make a new move that will catch them off guard. The data base on players is extensive. Just check the number of times Sachin Tendulkar has been caught at midwicket and ask yourself if that is a coincidence.

Self-belief: Their best batsmen might be dismissed first ball, and their captain might cop a dodgy decision, but somebody is bound to score the runs. The first innings of the Mumbai Test saw two centuries -- only one other batsman crosses 20.

Faith in the leader: Steve Waugh took a gamble in putting India in. There are no murmurs, no protests under the breath. There is full support. Contrast that with the Indian attitude of rushing to the press with stories of dissent. Indian players are free with their opinions (even if they ask not to be quoted). Undermining the leader is the national pastime.

Aggression: The meek might inherit the earth, but cricket matches are usually won by the more pepped up. In Australia's case `sledging' or upsetting the opponents by deliberately picking a fight with him might be a deliberate ploy and outside the unwritten laws of the game, but surely aggression can be part of the game plan?

Physical fitness: Progressive companies insist on the fitness of their employees. Only a healthy body can harbour a healthy mind. The Australians are traditionally fit -- even the roly-poly ones like David Boon in recent times. The less-than-perfectly fit (eg Shane Warne at the boundary) are placed in fielding positions that hide their lack of fitness. Fine management technique: the employee must be in the slot where he is of the greatest value to the company. Lack of fitness may have cost India their most experienced spinner, Narendra Hirwani -- and in the final analysis that might make a difference.

Sound back-up policy: If McGrath and Warne, the two best men are unsuccessful against the best of the opposition, use Mark Waugh, to stir things up.

Ability to grab the half chances: Decisions in cricket as in business have to be made quickly, in the running as it were. A batsman like Sachin Tendulkar might give you just half a chance. You must be fit, aware, and ready to grab it. Eg Ricky Ponting in the second innings when a Tendulkar pull went awry. In business, you must be prepared to take advantage of another's mistake.

Patience: Important as a management policy as well as a cricketing one. A Tendulkar (or, in the earlier series, Brian Lara) is capable of taking the game away on his own. If a player like that is on song, there is very little the opposition can do except make it that bit difficult for him to score -- just to frustrate him. This is a practical policy. You cannot afford to crumble under the pressure. There is here a nice mixture of respect for an opponent and faith in one's team that someone will pull the rabbit out of the hat.

Flexibility: Despite planning to the last detail, there must be flexibility. Glenn McGrath confessed at the end of the first day how he had to throw his carefully worked out plan out of the window and do what the situation demanded. Good leaders are flexible, so are good cricket teams and good companies.

Enjoyment: The success has helped, but it is at once apparent to any viewer that this Australian team is enjoying itself hugely on the field. Such an attitude feeds on itself, as does the opposite, which seems to be India's lot. Any good manager will ensure that his team enjoys itself whether selling, producing, or bowling leg breaks.

Respect for one another's abilities: Having played together for so long, everyone is clued into what makes the other tick. There aren't too many conferences on the field or captain's instructions, in contrast to India's approach.

Pride: This is an element of success, whether in the office, at home or on the cricket field. The Australians have it, playing for their country, captain, whatever the motivation. Most Indians haven't thought about it in depth.

Doubtless if Steve Waugh were making this list, he would have more to say (or maybe even less). But success is about good management, and he has shown himself to be one of the best managers of men in recent years. I have deliberately left out of the list such elements as talent and cricketing skill which at the Test level teams must have to a greater or lesser degree or they are in the wrong business. There is much to learn from this Australian side -- from their ability to do the simple things right to their refusal to roll over and die when under pressure.

This is not a great Australian team, despite its success; it would not hold a candle to the 1948 squad led by the late and great Donald Bradman, for instance.