Australia Cricket / Andrew Hughes / 25 November 2008 / Leave a comment

Australian batsmen Andrew Symonds is in the news again for his questionable behaviour off the field of play, yet according to Andrew Hughes, he's not the only cricketer to suffer from a less than stellar reputation off the pitch. What's more, a sportsman's erratic - even volatile - personality, can play an integral role in their sporting success.

Just over a week after he was allowed back into the international fold, Andrew Symonds is in trouble again. His latest gift to the tabloids, a confrontation in a Brisbane hotel bar, is being written up as the straw that may break the emu's back.

Dropped back in October for the crime of missing a team meeting, his career was apparently hanging by a thread and he was said to be undergoing psychiatric rehabilitation. But one short unsuccessful tour of India later, Australia's need for middle-order firepower had become more pressing than their disciplinary concerns and Symonds was back. He was, we were told, a changed man, having undergone the fastest complete personality overhaul in the history of psychiatry.

In the rise, fall, rise and possibly fall again of Andrew Symonds, we see the same forces that have buffeted many a talented but flawed cricketer. On the one hand; the selectors and coaches, prepared to overlook any excess in order to get their star players onto the pitch. On the other side, there are the administrators and our moral guardians in the tabloid press, working themselves into frenzies of mock outrage at the behaviour of sportsmen.

Some have asked why, if Steve Waugh could go his entire career without getting into incidents in hotel bars,
Symonds can't do the same. The implication is that everyone would love to get involved in such things but most people just restrain themselves. It is nonsense. Symonds and Waugh are different players, different people, different personalities and cricket is a broad enough church to include both.

And let's be honest, the troublemakers and misfits add an edge to proceedings, an extra thrill. Take the case of Shoaib Akhtar, the master of misdemeanour. When he steams in from thirty yards, he isn't just Shoaib the fast bowler, he is Shoaib the chucker; Shoaib the steroid-using, teammate-bashing, hypochondriac; Shoaib the dedicated party animal and womaniser. And that other sub-continental bad-boy, Harbhajan Singh also adds something to world cricket. Whereas generations of Indian cricketers have played the game with a smile and a polite manner, Harbhajan goes about his business with a scowl. Thriving on confrontation, he is a cantankerous embodiment of that perennial favourite, the pantomime villain.

Journalists pontificate about wasted talent and talk about rehabilitation as if it were as easy to change a cricketer's personality as it is to fix their batting stance. Waiting for players to change is a futile exercise. As any psychiatrist will attest, the human brain is a phenomenally complicated machine. Now in some cases, a short sharp shock can bring a temporarily wayward player into line. Occasionally, counselling or therapy might do the trick. But more often than not, the personalities of sportsmen, just like the rest of us, remain remarkably resistant to attempts to change them.

Would a tougher line in discipline have changed Shoaib or Harbhajan? It seems unlikely. It certainly didn't work with Herschelle Gibbs. His ban for match-fixing did not lead to a change in his approach to cricket or life in general. He has continued to flirt with trouble, from his bans for abusing spectators to his recent drink driving charge. Would he have been a better player if he could change his personality? Perhaps the recklessness that led to his chaotic lifestyle was also to blame for his occasional rash shots and silly dismissals? Perhaps. But you could equally argue that the very recklessness of character enabled him to gamble on the field, to employ those quick hands to such devastating effect. Personality and talent are so closely mingled, it can be near-impossible to separate the two and it is certainly beyond the remit of cricket authorities.

I fully expect Andrew Symonds to be involved in the Second Test against New Zealand next week, for which Australia are [1.38] favourites. He may well also play a part in Australia retaining the Ashes next year, which you can back at [1.87]. But don't be surprised either if he also picks up a ban or two along the way. 'Twas ever thus