Why are maverick cricketers frowned upon?

Question

This relates to the axing of Andrew Symonds from the Australian team, following him missing a team meeting due to a fishing expedition. This was called after he had gone away, and he was uncontactable. He was sent home as the team management were concerned about his lack of preparedness. It was the latest in a line of misdemeanours, including a race row with Harbhajan Singh, sleeping in and missing the team bus in the Caribbean, and his outspokeness about touring Pakistan.

Is Symonds actually such a bad boy? Are cricketers expected to be clones, and think and act the same way? Or should we see it as refreshing that Symonds has a mind of his own?

Answer 1

In no other job will you not get fired if you miss meetings because you were out fishing, slept late and missed the bus/flight, and not wanted to go where your employer sent you.

Symonds' behaviour should be seen in exactly the same light as the misdemeanours that would get any employee fired from any other job. Amongst his other faux pas was turning up drunk on the morning of the match Australia lost to Bangladesh at Cardiff in 2005. Unsurprisingly, he was left out of the team. I am not saying Australia lost to Bangladesh because Symonds wasn't there, but they lacked an allrounder and had to get 11 overs out of Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke, Hussey went for 24 from his 5 overs and Clarke for 38 from his 6, making the run chase much easier for Bangladesh. It can be argued that Symonds' absence was felt with the team losing its balance, and his irresponsibilty and the management's stern measures had the effect of lowering the other players' morale.

Cricketers are not expected to be clones. Stuart MacGill drank wine and read novels while the others were out on the town. Nobody left him out of the team or refused to support him on-field despite his insistence on doing his own thing. It can be argued that the man who kept him out of the Australian team was the greatest cricketing maverick ever, but no one ever frowned upon his talents and, barring being barred from captaining Australia, Shane Warne remains one of the legends of the game. So I do not think maverick cricketers are frowned upon as long as they stay within the rules and perform on the field, but when their antics have a negative effect on the rest of the team, that is the time for them to go.

Answer 2

our bajji is king

Answer 3

Sounds like he was suffering from a common affliction usually found in footballers.

Sufferers are under the delusion that they are bigger than the team, and that the world revolves around them.

Answer 4

he is a great man and good cricketer

Answer 5

No he isn't such a bad boy in one way, but if you're representing your country, you are expected to act in a manner befitting such an honour.I mean he should be proud to be picked in the Australian team, so why diss them all the time? Otherwise, he's a great guy & it would have pained Clarke no end to send him packing as they are good mates & fishing buddies.

Answer 6

The problem here is that cricketers in general are not known to have reputations for behaviour seen as loutish, or not towing the line. The opposite to some of there counterparts in other sports. Therefore when someone comes along who doesn't fit in with what the world perceives as normal behaviour as a cricketer they get slammed by the media. People like Botham, Gower, Tufnell and now Symonds. I understand that he broke a rule but if him acting differently from the norm is what works best for him let it happen.

Answer 7

Symonds missed the compulsory meeting because he went fishing, and also skipped a later optional training session.

The keen angler is also believed to have been drinking alcohol against team rules later in the day while some of his team-mates were engaging in a voluntary training session.

It is not the first time Symonds has been in trouble with team officialdom.

In 2005, he was suspended for two games after a drinking binge just before Australia suffered its only loss to Bangladesh in one-day cricket.

He also missed the team bus in the West Indies in June and was involved in an ongoing dispute with the Indians last summer.

There is nothing refreshing in flouting orders and not appearing in a compulsory team meeting.  

Answer 8

I think there is a big difference between having a refreshing attitude (and acting in an independent manner and not being a clone etc) and flouting the rules set up by Cricket Australia to prevent players from doing as they wish by gallivanting away on fishing trips when they're supposed to be in a meeting. Other players still manage to be independently minded while abiding by the rules (look at KP).

I think it would have been a different matter if this had been a one off but it wasn't. He's done things like this in the past, including turning up for training under the influence of alcohol. It was yet another instance of him brushing aside the rules with a blatant disregard for his teammates and for the people around the team generally.

By all means he should be his own man with his own mind but not if it means continually disregarding the rules because he doesn't like them.

Answer 9

Cricket is not the sport to 'try it on' with your country's board, but having said that, Symonds has been badly let down by those same people.Today's Daily Telegraph once again brings up the Harbhajan incident, citing that as a low time in Symond's career because of the failure of CA to implement proper charges of racial abuse against the Indian. Had they done so, it may have made all the difference to Symond's attitude towards the board, but they chose to bow to BCCI's blackmailing tactics letting the Indian player off with a slap on the wrist. It is a well known fact in umpiring & all cricket circles that in fact, Harbhajan DID racially abuse Symonds, so what does that tell you about CA? Do they have room to talk about his bad behaviour when their own has been questionable to say the least, & BCCI's even worse?.

Answer 10

To be honest I don't think he's that much of a "bad boy" but I suppose cricket has an image to try and maintain, so anything frowned upon gets blown out of proportion.

What I want to know is, did he catch any fish? :)

Answer 11

Well, they are international cricketers! There is a standard that they should live up to, and that standard includes going to all team meetings! He isn't necesarilly a bad boy... a few minor incidents (aside from the Harbhajan thing), nothing to suggest that he is some sort of criminal!