When Pakistan squeeze out of improbable situations, it elicits all-knowing laughter from us. When Australians do it, it makes you shrug in respect. Two teams are known for their remarkable bouncebackability when things are loaded against them: Australia and Pakistan. But there is a difference between the two teams’ jailbreaks that can be best explained in what transpires during a game.
When Pakistan, whom India face next Sunday, are in a tight spot, we wait for them to rise above the situation, for that passion to bedazzle us. The opposition doesn’t matter.
When the Australians — India’s opponents this Sunday — are under the pump, we wait for the opposition to crack under pressure. More than what the Australians do, we wait to see how the opponents wilt. Like how the West Indians fell in Nottingham on Thursday. We wait for the Australians to hang in there and get through improbable situations. Pakistan’s fight is more reactionary in nature; almost as a way to cock a thumb in the world’s eyes. After one or two banal performances and when the world starts to sneer they produce marvellous cricket — not necessarily a team effort but individual acts of brilliance, which spark a revival.
Australia’s fightbacks aren’t couched in that framework of passion; even their incredible return-from-dead scenarios are framed in system and process. It’s the Australians doing that thing called Australianism.
As if it’s a national genetical trait that we have come to expect from the sun-roasted men from down under. Over the years, that trait has been sanitised because of its insane frequency.
When Pakistan squeeze out of improbable situations, it elicits all-knowing laughter from us. Smile in admiration at veterans of jailbreaks. When Australians do it, it makes you shrug in respect. Wince in admiration.
When Pakistan do it, it seems it emerges from a bottomless mystic pit of junoon; when Australians do it, it seems to kick in from a known reservoir of doggedness. Both don’t surprise us but both seem to come from different places in human spirit — everyone knows there is a difference between Pakistani junoon and Australianism.
Colin Croft remembers a day in 1980 when Greg Chappell wandered over to their dressing room after yet another Australian loss to West Indies. “Greg told (Clive) Lloyd that ‘you guys are damn good now. We can’t beat you but give us 15 years, we are setting up a youth policy at grassroots and we will be the Test leaders. 15 years later, in 1995, they beat West Indies in West Indies and were the leaders. Just as he said. I remember that day as yesterday,” Croft says in obvious admiration at Nottingham, where West Indies would contrive to lose all the little-big moments to implode in another game to Australia.
It’s a bit ironical that Australia is yet again at the forefront of another youth policy at grassroots, but this time with debatable results. There has been an insistence of minimum number of youngsters in state teams but it has led to couple of problems. Slightly older cricketers are dropping out, feeling unwanted in this pursuit of youth, and youngsters are grading up to state teams, without enough performance at grade cricket. And as the senior players drop out, the youngsters are finding themselves cocooned with other inexperienced kids – and cricket quality has dipped.
The thing that the Australian system used to throw up in the past was the youngsters learning from seniors, boys maturing as they play with men, but that seems to have gone down a bit with the youth-first policy. Not long ago, Shane Warne had called for an introspection. “Yes, Warner and Smith will help but Australian cricket needs a complete overhaul regarding the following: Coaching at all levels, the ridiculous Under-23 programmes, academy etc. As we are not producing quality smart cricketers – why?”
The number of ‘quality smart cricketers’ might be dwindling but Australia have yet again turned up at this World Cup with a real chance of winning it. If they do, they might have to thank India. It was in India earlier this year, just when the cricketing world thought Australians would be walkovers without Smith and Warner, they triumphed in some style. They made more runs than India, they took more wickets, they controlled the middle overs better. Adam Zampa grew in confidence, Aaron Finch returned to form and Usman Khawaja dominated.
So much so when Warner and Smith returned to the team, they needed to perform to hold onto their spots. All that has helped Australia who always had an excellent bowling attack. In Nathan Coulter-Nile, they found the seaming all-rounder that they wanted. Glenn Maxwell and Finch can be counted to perform when there isn’t much spice on the pitch and if Warner steps up, as he did in the IPL, then this team can conquer the world.
If they do, it would be despite of all the structural problems that exist in Australian cricket. And it would because this is a team that has got so used to winning – and knows how to use that hard-earned reputation against opponents.
Consider the West Indies game. Australians were far from looking invincible during the chase. At one stage, Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc had less than 10 overs between them and Zampa, Coulter-Nile, and Maxwell were looking rather ineffective. Where are the overs going to come from? Who is going to take the wickets? Was there a Pakistan-like bedazzlement? Nope.
It was more the Australian reputation playing with the minds of West Indians. Aided by their own iffy decisions – but that’s the thing with Australia, they always seem to bring out the worst in the opposition. Where Pakistan transmogrify into super heroes and reduce the opposition as mere witnesses, Australia create self-doubts that leads to iffy decisions in the opposition.
There was no reason for the West Indies batsmen to take on the last couple of deliveries in the second spells of Cummins and Starc, but they went for risky options and faltered during the chase. Australians make teams lose their cool. It makes them doubt themselves, unsure, and it leads to immature cricket.
India would have to be careful about it. Careful not to be careless, if you get the idea. Not to play into Australians’ reputation. Be wise in the little-big decisive moments that can potentially turn the game around.
