Australia: Caught in the Precedent - Present trap
Most teams have been stung by the acerbic tongue and 'in your face' boorishness of the Aussies and understandably the ball-tampering saga has engulfed the world in a collective frenzy with reactions ranging from incredulity to vindication of a long dead suspicion. There is also unstinted glee at the hunters being hunted down. The turning of tables has been dramatic, leaving many fans and analysts gasping for breath.
A lot has been said about the Australian cricketing culture or the lack of it in recent times and most of it has been uncharitable, probably for very good reasons. The Australians are not the first to enter the forbidden territory and neither will they be the last. This article is a humble endeavor to tap into the psychological- behavioral makeup of those who transgress the invisible line.
Anyone who covets a prize very dearly puts himself under enormous stress. The combined effect of a strong desire and accompanying stress can be very potent and if it is a group think, then the collective energy generated is akin to strong winds blowing in the direction of the sailing ship.
Behavioral scientists and neurologists never tire of telling that stress steals resources from working memory. Anyone who has felt stressed in an examination or during an interview will agree that they mess up questions, which they would have handled with aplomb under relaxed circumstances. If you are weak, then you crumble under stress very quickly. If you are strong and driven, then stress accentuates certain psychological resources to the detriment of the others.
A weaker individual would admit to crumbling under stress but a man driven by a burning ambition rides the stress. Stress is like riding a tiger and he who rides cannot dismount. There are only two resources that such a mind can tap into are either a past precedent or a limited view of the current battle
The past precedent is a subjective reality of a situation that occurred in the past, which the mind sees as identical to the current one. This is a subjective reality of the mind and not an objective truth. The mind believes that, since the antecedents are identical, the consequent will also be so.
Greg Chapell, a former Australian skipper, who infamously instructed his brother Trevor to bowl under-arm when New Zealand needed six off the last ball to tie the match, reflected, “I was mindful of a last-ball to defeat against West Indies, last season at VFL Park when Wayne Daniels hit a six. That was running through my mind when I instructed Trevor to bowl under-arm”
The stressed mind of Greg Chapell saw a past precedent in the current scenario. Since the antecedents were similar, his overwrought mind concluded that the result would be identical.
The second resource that his highly strained mind accessed was the simplistic view of the current battle. He explained, “We had played our guts out and I wasn’t going to see us beaten on the last ball”.
The mind had shut out every other resource which a man as intelligent as Greg Chapell had at his disposal. Such minds often develop a ‘siege mentality’. You begin to care for nothing beyond the coveted prize. Drastic action is deemed necessary in the context. Later Greg was candid enough to admit that he was not mentally fit to have been a captain at that point in time.
Let us fast forward to the present controversy. In 2013-14, Australia, powered by a brutal pace attack, pulverized England in the Ashes. South Africa had been meted out the same treatment in the first Test of the series that followed immediately on the heels of the Ashes. The Proteas mounted a rearguard and won the second test, but ran out of steam in the third to surrender the series.
History seemed to be repeating itself in 2017-18. England overpowered in the Ashes and South Africa embarrassed in the first test, winning the second through a gutsy performance, but losing their key strike bowler Kagiso Rabada to a ban making Australia clear favorites again.
The script suddenly underwent a change. South Africa successfully appealed against the ban. Smith’s party had been ruined. He made no secret of his disappointment, when he lamented, “The ICC have set the standard, haven’t they. Now we know people can get of that is for sure”.
As things became tougher for Smith and his beleaguered men at Newlands, the heat of the current battle got into them. He admitted, “Desperation drove us into doing something different”.
The other resource that this article has emphasized is that the mind, when overheated, equates the antecedents and consequents of the past, rightly or wrongly. Here Smith and his men felt that if South Africa could do something illegal and get away with a successful appeal, they too could. Indeed, Smith had revealed in the aftermath of the Rabada ban being overturned. “It was interesting the way things played out and that he was able to get the charge brought down with an appeal”.
So, the precedent in Smith’s mind was that you could transgress, then appeal and get away. Indeed he is quoted, “They obviously appealed this one and it looked like a pretty long process in the courtroom. But if you see guys getting off then perhaps, guys will appeal a bit more in the future to try and get off certain things.”
It is now possible to appreciate that both Smith and Chapell had the same mental framework that led to a disgraced knock from an enviable pedestal.
Lessons:
A Norwegian proverb states, ‘Wise men learn by other men’s mistakes, fools by their own’. Let us try to be wise and learn the lessons from the mistakes of Chapell and Smith. The key takeaways could be:
i) While pursuing a cherished goal, occasionally, pause to think, whether the costs outweigh the rewards.
ii) No goal should be ‘be all and end all’ of life. There are always equivalents if not better things that can be attained.
iii) Every now and then, take your eyes off the goal and look around. There is more to the world and life.
iv) Stress is the beginning of distress, so de-stress regularly and deliberately.
v) We should learn from the past, but not be a slave to it.
vi) The limited view of the present is the most dangerous zone to be in, excepting for brief periods of intense focus.