One would have expected the Australian side that won the International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup 2023 to be honoured on their return home. It was a remarkable comeback for a side that had started out on the wrong foot losing their first two matches and came back from the death in their game against Afghanistan.
They displayed nerves of steel to tide over the challenges posed by a resurgent South Africa in the semifinals before proceeding to vanquish the hosts in front of a capacity crowd at Ahmedabad. Skipper Pat Cummins and his side certainly deserved a huge round of applause for the manner in which they plotted the downfall of India, the overwhelming favourite, in the final.
Far from being feted, a slanging match is going on in Australia where a former player has come out firing on all cylinders against a member of the World Cup winning squad. Mitchell Johnson, one of the best left arm fast bowlers of his time and a prominent member of the Australian side till his retirement from representative cricket, criticised David Warner in a newspaper article. Johnson felt that Warner did not deserve the “hero’s farewell” that is on the cards. Johnson also did not forget to send a barb against George Bailey, the chairman of selection committee in Australia, accusing him of being too close to the players for comfort.
Predictably, Johnson came in the line of fire for his comments, which many felt were too harsh. Though Warner took it sportingly stating that everyone has the right to form an opinion, his manager found Johnson’s observations “quite sad”. Bailey, on his part, chose to question Johnson’s sanity by saying “I hope he is ok”.
Johnson late revealed that his outburst against Warner and Bailey was prompted by their response to earlier articles written by him. In his podcast “The Mitchell Johnson show”, he said that Warner had sent him a text message which was “quite personal” after he made critical observations about the opening batsman’s form and Candice Warner’s defence of her husband in a TV chat show. Similarly, he said he was offended that Bailey had responded in a “condescending manner” to his criticisms over some decisions made by the selection committee.
Johnson’s contention, as stated in the podcast, was that if either Warner or Bailey did not like the contents of his articles, they could have spoken to him rather than send him text messages. He felt that he was open with the players once he entered the media arena and hence they should have discussed matters with him directly to sort things out. However, he admitted that his observation (“Bunnings – a household hardware and garden centre chain – would sell out of sandpaper if fans were asked to bring something to wave for Warner’s farewell”, an oblique reference to the batsman’s role in “sandpapergate” ball tampering controversy) was in bad taste. Other than that, he chose to stand by every word of what was stated in the controversial article, which incidentally was a ghost written article.
There are two important aspects to this episode that warrant further discussion. The first is that the controversial article was written not by Johnson, but by another person, and published under the byline of the former Aussie fast bowler. And the second is the admission that Johnson allowed his angst over the response of Warner and Bailey to an earlier article to colour his opinions about the duo. Both these amount to improper practices in print journalism as they tantamount to betraying the confidence that readers have about the contents of the article and its author.
It was during the 1980’s that the practice of players writing columns in newspapers and periodicals began. As the most articulate among the Indian players of the time, it was only natural that Sunil Gavaskar was the pioneer in this regard. He published his autobiography “Sunny Days” in 1976 and went on to pen three more books during his playing days- “Idols” in 1983, “Runs ’n Ruins” in 1984 and “One Day Wonders” in 1985. Further, he was also the first cricketer to start writing a syndicated column, a practice he started during the mid 1980’s. These columns were well received and used to appear in many newspapers every week. This was also a period when the three sports publications in English in the country were trying desperately to improve their share of readers. This race to increase the readership led to couple of them starting the practice of getting prominent members of the national side to write columns in their pages.
Since those were the days when limited overs’ matches between India and Pakistan at Sharjah were the rage, Pakistani players were also roped in for writing reports about these games. It was around this time that the practice of ghost writing started making its appearance. During the initial days, ghost writers, who were invariably correspondents working for the publications using the byline of the cricketers, used to talk to them, get their opinions and convert their thoughts into written matter. But, as time progressed, correspondents started making their own drafts, which were forwarded to the players for approval. Gradually, players stopped going through the drafts, leading to the opinions of the ghost writers getting published as the views of the players.
This practice of players writing columns has come to a full stop in India after Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) stepped in and imposed a strict ban on this activity. The number of former international cricketers giving opinions though newspapers has come down considerably since the advent of private television who employ the services of retired players as experts. But, this activity continues in Australia, as can be seen from the Johnson episode.
The other aspect of this controversy pertains to Johnson allowing Warner’s response to an earlier article to colour his thoughts. As can be guessed, this is a more serious matter. Persons in public life and those who are in a position to communicate their thoughts through print, visual and digital media are required to be objective and unbiased, besides having a deep insight into the subject matter. They should also be able to take criticism in their stride as healthy dissent and debate constitute the essence of free thought. This comes easier to a seasoned journalist as he places himself in the role of a neutral observer watching proceedings from a privileged position. A former player, on the other hand, is often unable to shed his “cricketing whites” even after hanging up his boots and forgets about these basic requirements of his new role in the media.
A detailed analysis of this episode will reveal that the elementary mistake made by Johnson was his assumption that Warner and Bailey should have spoken to him if they were cut up with his observations. Johnson believed that his stature as a former player entitled him to this privilege, whereas he had no right to think on these lines once he retired from the game and decided to pen his opinions through print media. He was offended when Warner, junior to him as a player, and Bailey, who did not enjoy an equivalent stature, treated him like another member of the press corps. He allowed this to rankle in his mind and his confused thoughts found an outlet in his observations about the duo in his latest article. In other words, it was Johnson’s misgivings about his special status as a former player that created this controversy.
What are the takeaways from this episode? When players turn to commentating and reporting, they are expected to make their observations based on insights gained by them when they played the game at the highest level. Public and players will respect them so long as they stick to this rule. Any attempts by them to cross this line by indulging in excess criticism will result in raising the hackles of the present day cricketers. They also stand the risk losing their standing in the eyes of followers of the game when they indulge in such “unsportsman like” behaviour.
Hence, the first of the two lessons for all is: former players who turn to the world of media after their playing days is that they must shed their cricketing gear behind them. The other one is that they must also learn to show respect -- not only to the present day cricketers but also towards fellow journalists and the larger public. If they do not abide by these two golden principles, controversies of the type raised by Johnson will keep cropping up in future also.
(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a senior bureaucrat)
