Solutions for dealing with Australia

The Editor: The Australian test and one day teams are apparently totally prepared with regard to the following:  nutrition (diet), physiology (fitness), kinaesthesis (limb and body movement) and physical (skills). Furthermore, perhaps their greatest strength is their toughness. The author of mental toughness claims that his experience and research have influenced him to identify toughness as having three elements: physical, mental and emotional. However, Australia have gone beyond preparation and application in the areas mentioned above. They are also ruthless in their application of psychological warfare when “in the middle.” Let me give two examples of this. I want to believe that many keen observers would have seen and interpreted them.

The Australians practise sledging. This type of psychological warfare is not done because they dislike the batsman, want to make him feel bad or just attack his ego and self esteem. They practise sledging because they are aware that distractions can adversely affect concentration/focus. They know from theory and experience that when they sledge a batsman by cursing him, calling him derogatory names or using stereotypes etc, they will place the mentally ill-prepared batsman somewhere on the continuum of upset to anger. When a negative emotion is aroused, the batsman is distracted and loses his ideal performance in at least three realms: (1) concentration (2) stress recovery balance and (3) enjoying his batting. The Australians are aware that when a batsman is experiencing any of these debilitating mental, physiological and emotional states, he is more likely to get out. This is why Mc Garth, one of the best bowlers in the world, sledged Sarwan in the Queen’s Park Oval during the third test. Obviously our cricketers need training in mental and psychological preparation and application from a sport psychologist so that they will not be adversely affected by this resort to distraction.

Another psychological warfare practice of the Australians is used on umpires. They do this to influence the umpire to make a wrong decision. They are very successful at achieving this demeaning objective. If the reader is in doubt, just get the frequency with which West Indies batsmen suffered wrong umpiring decisions compared with the Australians. In the first Test, television replays indicated that four West Indian batsmen were given out wrongfully during our first innings. This set the disgraceful tone for the entire series. Perhaps the most glaring example of psychological warfare waged by the Australians on an umpire was the wrongful dismissal of Ridley Jacobs in the fourth innings of the fourth Test. The television replay indicated that the ball hit Jacobs above his elbow. Mr Shepherd, who arguably is one of the best umpires in the world, gave Jacobs out. The appeal gesticulations and behaviours of Brett Lee, the bowler, and Gilchrist, their wicket keeper, were a form of psychological warfare. They were designed to influence the perception of the umpire that the ball had hit either Jacobs’s glove or bat.

The umpire did not see the ball had hit either, however the psychological warfare was effective. Jacobs had to walk to the pavilion. Furthermore, despite the physical pain in his upper arm and the emotional pain from being wrongfully given out, if Jacobs had used body language to show dissent with the umpire’s decision, he could have been fined a percentage of his match fee and be deemed an unworthy sportsman. The Australians should not be allowed to degrade cricket these ways. The solution to the first type of psychological warfare is the International Cricket Council should make sledging or any other practice to distract batsmen or bowlers illegal. With regard to the second type of psychological warfare, intimidating or attempts to unduly influence the umpire to give a wrong decision, the third umpire should be allowed to use the technologies at his disposal. If necessary, he can tell the umpire to call back the unfairly treated batsman. The technologies should also be used when a bowler does not get a decision in his favour when the batsman should have been given out.

Courtney  H  Boxill
Psychologist
Centre for Sports Psychology