Column

Memonics

It cannot be anybody’s case that Andrew Symonds should not be more passionate about angling than cricket. Each to his own, and there are several challenging (and therapeutic) aspects to the former pursuit that cricket could never measure up to, if diehards are to be believed. But in his current imbroglio with his Board, Mr Symonds, I’m afraid, seems to be fishing in troubled waters.

Speculative reports emerging from Down Under suggest that Symonds missed a team meeting on the eve of the series against Bangladesh because he is still piqued with Cricket Australia for having let him down during the Monkeygate controversy last season. His mind is still preoccupied with that, say some of his supporters. In which case I recommend he throws a line to a shrink, not a hapless trout or salmon.

The problem is Symonds is not a first-time offender to earn the benefit of doubt outright. During the 2005 Ashes, for instance, he once reached the ground in an inebriated state after a night out on the tiles. There have been several other minor misdemeanours which may not count for much individually, but can accumulate into a major case when things start going wrong. As they have done now.

Strong individualists are always welcome in sport with its ruthless emphasis on winning and commerce. Mavericks add colour and character to what is otherwise highly regimented work, with little allowance for personal idiosyncrasies. That is why champion sprinter Usain Bolt was like a breath of fresh air with his pre and post race antics, leaving the hoity-toity IOC president Jacques Rogge with virtually no supporters in his reprimand of the Jamaican.

Interestingly, cricket has always attracted a fair number of mavericks. While this is a team game no doubt, cricket affords more scope for individual expression of talent and idiosyncrasy than any other game. Cricket history is littered with several examples, starting with Dr WG Grace’s bombastic self-righteousness to Shane Warne’s shenanigans, with scores of other ‘characters’ dotting the landscape over a century and more that the game has been played.

Yet, if such individualism works against basic team discipline and ethics, serious issues can crop up: unless, of course, the course of action chosen by a player upholds a greater virtue. For instance, Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi protested against Douglas Jardine’s use of Bodyline in the 1932-33 series against Australia because he thought this was unfair tactic. While Pataudi was sidelined by his captain in that series, he wears a halo now for raising a protest against what he believed was poor sportsmanship by his team management.

I do have muted sympathy for Symonds, and that only because it seems such a shame that such a gifted player could be struck down just when he has reached his prime and looked set to dazzle the cricketing world for a few years at least. But from all accounts, it appears, that the strapping all-rounder was more taken up by his celebrity status rather than his worth as a cricketer and a team-man.

All said and done, a spell of time spent angling for fish and ruminating on his future may not be such a bad thing in the circumstances.