Mark Richardson: Memo commentary team: it's called a game plan

COMMENT

If I could sum up what I think makes a successful cricketer, or a successful person for that matter, I would say: "A realist with idealistic aspirations." This dawned on me as I took emotional time-out after flying off the handle in our changing room late on the first day of the test. You see, I'd been listening to the TV commentary (which for me is a no-no following a small score) and had become enraged at the criticism we were taking for batting at a slow rate.

To understand what I mean, look at the dynamics of the situation. We won the toss and decided to bat first. There is always the temptation to bowl first at the Gabba because the pitch generally offers a little seam movement in the first session, it is the first test of the series and they have McGrath, Gillespie and whoever else they want to pick who can bowl 140kmh, dead accurately. The last guy to win the toss and bowl was Nasser Hussain ... and with Australia going to stumps at 380 odd for two, he's still being laughed at in these parts. So we bat.

We know that after the first day the pitch should become easier for run-scoring but we also know they have McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Yes, batting is in theory the right decision but, by God, it is going to take some graft to get ourselves in a position to take advantage of the drying pitch late in the day. So we graft, trying with all we have to stick to a tight game plan, eke out runs and preserve wickets, for we are realists.

However, high above us and watching every move sit the idealists. Once they were realists but those days are over.

They have accumulated the necessary experience, achieved great things and replaced the cricket shirt with a reefer jacket. They are the commentary team. I take my hat off to the Australian experts - they are the voice of cricket, each one a legend in his own right and let's face it, they know their stuff.

Now here comes the clash. We poke and prod, dominated by the bowling and struggle along trying desperately to finish the day with respectability. They say, too slow, too negative, boring, dull and, all in all, a waste of time. Well perhaps they are right. It is important to show intent and the ideal batting philosophy is, and will always be, score first, defend second.

But we are Richardson, Sinclair, Fleming and Styris; we are fresh from Bangladesh and a drubbing in Sydney, good players in our own right but not yet feared for our destructive capabilities. We are up against one of the great bowling units of world cricket in conditions a little foreign and the realists in us are always going to say, "Hey, take it slow, absorb the pressure, get through and cash in later."

But don't confuse realist with defeatist. A defeatist would say, "Oh dear, McGrath, Gillespie and Warne, I'm buggered." A realist, on the other hand, would say, "Right these guys are good bowlers, but if I can play tight, play to my strengths and hang in until I get used to it, I've got a show."

A realist knows what he can and can't do. We know we can't score at 3.5 runs per over during the course of a day against the Australian attack - that would be reckless - but we know we can score at 2.8. A successful cricketer, however, never loses sight of the ideal way to play and strives to attain those skills and therefore improves their reality.

The first day of this series was tough for us. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great. It was a starting point from which to move forward.

Day two, with Oram's century, was just that. Positive intent is the way forward, but positive intent must also contain realism.

So from this point forward I'm turning down the TV set for fear of becoming a hopeless idealist.

- THE HERALD ON SUNDAY