Neil Manthorp : Cricket
South Africa’s double-whammy victory over Australia in the last week, defending scores of 200 and 170 in 50 overs on awkward rather than impossible pitches in Sydney and Melbourne, has left this proud (all right then, arrogant) country nursing a wretchedly bruised ego.
It is one thing to lose a battle covered in blood and a little reflected glory, but quite another to hit the canvas to the sound of collective whimpering. Australia’s batsmen have, in the eyes of the nation, fought with the passion of your average sheep.
That is very unfair, of course, but the nation’s impression is valid.
The other buzzword becoming popular after the home side’s demise to totals of 133 and 125 is “psychological”. It is used either to describe the upper hand that Hansie Cronje’s team enjoys at the moment, or when explanations are sought for Australia’s apparent “choking” in the face of pressure. Either way, South Africa are believed to be made of sterner stuff than the hosts.
Can this be true? For as long as sport has been played, and reported, contestants and observers have felt moved to refer to the “something else” factor. When South Africa lost to New Zealand, in similarly miserable circumstances to the way Australia lost, Allan Donald reflected on the defeat: “There was just something missing – I don’t know what it was, but something was missing. An edge.”
This magic ingredient has obviously been present for South Africa against Australia. And not one of the ingredients used when Australia threw together their new-look one-day team. In the search for a clue to exactly what this is, the words “bottle”, “temperament”, “edge”, “character” and, of course, “psychological” crop up regularly.
There are many cricketers credited with saying: “Cricket is played 90% in the head and 10% on the field”, but whoever did say it, had a point. Maybe the numbers were exaggerated. Ask Dave Richardson.
The 38-year-old wicketkeeper has seen more cricket than anyone else in the team. He never, ever exaggerates and he often throws a refreshing bucket of cold water onto anything over-the-top or vaguely silly.
“Although everything is subject to exaggeration, I actually don’t think the psychological side of the game is overplayed. It is very important, it just all depends on exactly what you regard as being the `psychological’ part of the game.”
“The only way you can get through a tight situation, especially when you’re batting, is to have been there before! You have to recognise exactly where you are – the state of the match, the state of the pitch, the state of the bowlers and then remembering what you need to do to get through that tight situation.”
“The team that cracks first loses – it is that simple. What is not quite so simple is to say `Ok, I’m not going to crack!’ Unfortunately it happens to all of us.”
What exactly does “cracking” mean? To the naked eye, so far anyway, no Australian batsman has been seen shaking in a fit of uncontrollable tears while batting in a pressure situation.
“Again, it’s simple. By cracking I mean giving up. Over the years I’ve learned time and time again, especially in the field, that if you give up you lose. Any club cricketer will identify with this: your team is in the field, the opposition need 30 runs to win with seven wickets in hand. Then someone drops a catch. Everyone thinks `Oh well, no drama, we’re going to lose anyway’. Twenty minutes later there’s a bit of a collapse and they end up scraping home by two wickets. Then everyone thinks, `Damn, what if we’d held that catch?!’ “
“When you think you’re going to lose it’s very easy to let your concentration wander in the field. Similarly, when you’re batting how often do numbers nine, 10 and 11 hang around and put on 40, 50 or 60 and you end up losing by 10 or 15 runs when you had looked like getting stuffed? Then again, you think back: `Jeez, if only one of the batsmen could have scored 10 or 15 more before playing a silly shot.’ ”
In the second game against Australia, in front of 55 000 at the MCG, Australia had reached 97-4 in pursuit of 171 and probably never, ever “cracked” until they were nine wickets down. “That’s right,” concedes Richardson. “But neither did we. It would have been very easy for a couple of heads to drop at that stage. If they had then maybe Symmo wouldn’t have produced that run-out, maybe Polly wouldn’t have hung onto that catch to get rid of Mark Waugh. He needed to be 100% `with it’ to take that catch – if Waugh had stayed much longer he would probably have won the match.
“South Africa has become brilliant at `hanging in there’. What is the point of playing a match that you think you’re going to lose? If you go through the motions, don’t give it your best shot, no matter how hopeless the situation may seem, then you might as well walk off the field, have a shower and grab an early beer. Never give up. That’s what I’ve learned over the years.”
Is that it? As simple as that? the magical, mysterious, match-winning ingredient – it’s just “don’t give up”? “Well, umm … yes, basically! It’s just determination and pride in your performance.”