The Chaminda Vaas Principle: always look to improve

 

There’s not much cricket being played these days. There’s Zimbabwe in Pakistan. There’s the IPL. I hardly ever watch cricket but do like to know what’s happening internationally. Checking on the IPL and who is likely to make it to the post-season, if you will, I chanced on an interview with former Sri Lankan skipper Angelo Mathews or rather an account of what he said to Madhushka Balasuriya.

Angelo was not speaking of himself. He was speaking of Chaminda Vaas, mostly. This is the line that stuck: ‘always looking to improve.’

Vaas is a legend. This is known. Angie sums up well: ‘An Asian seamer playing over 100 Tests and 300 ODIs and picking up over 750 international wickets - a lot of which came in subcontinental conditions - is an incredible feat.’

The lesson is in the ‘how’ of it all.

Hard work. Phenomenal training. That’s basic. What tipped him over or made it possible to edge ahead of the pack was, according to Angie, the fact that Vaas ‘was hellbent on maximizing every ounce of potential.’ In other words, being the best that he could be.

Sometimes we don’t know how far we can go. This happens because we are erroneous in assessing our potential. We will get to know our weaknesses; we can count on the opposition to reveal these to us. We know the strengths but not necessarily how far they’ll take us.

Vaas kept things simple, that’s one way of going about it. ‘Team’ was important to him and if the best he could do was to frustrate the batsmen by keeping things tight so someone else, typically Murali, could get the wickets at the other end, that’s exactly what he would do. Of course he did much more than that, as the stats sheet indicates, but what this means is that he never strayed from the basics. He built on them.

He was a bowler but a test average of 24.32 inclusive of 13 half centuries and a century does indicate that he placed a high price on his wicket. When he had to hit, he did, like in the glorious ODI in Nairobi where Shahid Afridi stamped himself as a very special cricketer, taking on the great Wasim Akram and almost getting Sri Lanka through to the final, but he will be remembered more for his dogged essays at the wicket.

Krish Sreepada has got some better numbers:

‘[Vaas faced] 6337 deliveries, the most for any No.8 (or lower) batsman. He also has 2785 runs at 25.55, the third most runs at No.8 (or lower) with 12 half-centuries and a century. His 35 not-outs is second highest amongst all lower order batsmen (8-11) with more than 1000 runs. Only Muralitharan has more with 56.’

Vaas may or may not have known that he had what it takes to be a more than useful tail-ender, but he probably figured that it would involve committing himself to acquiring the requisite skills and of course mindset. In essence, then, having mastered his principal role, that of opening bowler, having figured a training schedule to ensure he could generate top quality performances, he looked to see what else he could do.

That’s the lesson. Especially for a bowler. A bowler is required to bat, but a specialist batsman is not called upon to turn his arm, except in a match moving towards an inevitable draw and then just for the fun of it. A specialist batsman, however, can always try to be the best fielder in the team. He could strive for a zero-error performance which inevitably would transform into him saving quite a few runs, making batsmen work harder and more wary of risking an extra run.

A specialist perimeter shooter in basketball could work on his defense. A tennis player who prefers baseline play can add net-play and finesse in placement to his arsenal. It’s not just about specific skills; one could always enhance one’s understanding of strategy. In other words, become a better student of the game. Whatever the game.

 

The greats were great students. From beginning to end. They knew that learning is never complete. They did the homework. They kept fit, they honed skills, learned new ones and became psychologists (of a kind). They always looked to improve. Like Chaminda Vaas.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

 

Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']

 

Parents, players, coaches and admins 

Remember the coach(es)!

'Possible' is a single word lesson

Nadal-Federer, 20-20 and beyond

Serena! Serena! Serena! (Way beyond the number 24)

The Dwight Howard rethink 

Naomi Osaka made it hard to be silent

The perils of disrespecting the opponent

From better to way better

Namal and Mahela: how about starting the innings with an audit?

Conflict of Interest

The debate over sports

You can leave the butterflies for later

Get the point for the team!

Michael Holding always comes to the party

The madnesses that must stop

Error cuts down heroes, humility resurrects

Paul Robeson didn't scream 'BLM' but he knew what mattered

The plus, minus and equal of improvement

The 'never give up' of sports

Those who kneel are actually standing

Do you have a plan? Strengths and weaknesses

Wait, it's a strategy

The virtues of risk-free generosity

Thinking and out-thinking in sports

Read, locked-down people, read!

The team, the team!

Who should take the last shot?

It's all about partnerships

There are no Tommie Smith or John Carlos t-shirts brother

'The done thing' is rarely done

'Practice, lots of practice'

Special, always and forever

The shortcut to greatness

It's healthy to retire the braggadocio 

Money talks, gold rules: are we ok with that?

Sometimes if you don't stand up, you fall

Selections and the political economy of disappointment

So who is the GOAT?

Predecessors are great teachers

When things go wrong check the fundamentals

There's always only one more game left

Mind games are part of the sporting story

Those nervous ninetiesOut-think the opposition
School sports and parents

The importing mania in school cricket

Sportsmen and sportswomen beware: your accounts will be hacked soon!

Not all victories are recorded

 

Read more

It's healthy to retire the braggadocio

Life has a way of 'pushing-down' the brag

People have egos. That’s a given. Some egos are massive, others are so tiny that they even seem non-existent. Some people are humble while others don’t seem to possess even an iota of humility. Some brag, others don’t. Some take criticism in the right spirit, some take umbrage and harbor grudges.  

The lives of sports personalities, especially the superstars, are not all about glamour and glory. Like all human beings they are subjected to the vicissitudes of life. Sometimes it happens in their private lives and sometimes in the sports they dedicate their lives to. The cases of Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods  are well known in terms of the former, and as for the latter ask any ‘superstar’ and you’ll hear about a lot of down days. 

Some take it well and others don’t. 

LeBron James knows basketball, its history and the history of the world he lives in. When necessary he talks about all these things. He has had to take his share of flak, some earned and some not. Kevin Durant recently opined that things are toxic around LeBron. KD later apologized. KD is a superstar just like LeBron, but whereas LeBron is considered one of the greatest to play the game if not the greatest ever, KD still has some way to go to be included in such conversations.

My friend Tony Courseault, in my opinion the greatest student of the game not to write or comment publicly on basketball, recently asked me what I thought of a claim made by LeBron. LeBron claimed he was the greatest basketball player ever. My take was this: some things are best left for others to say. 

It’s not that LeBron lacks credentials. Tony offered his list of greats: MJ (Michael Jordan), Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson and LeBron. Note, LeBron is the only one in that list who is still active, the others having retired a long time ago.

Still, it didn’t sound right.  

Different players respond to criticism in different ways. Some push aside such things as unnecessary noise.  They let their game do the talking. Angelo Mathews did that just a few days ago in New Zealand.

Angelo scored 258 runs in four test innings inclusive of a century and a half century. He got out just once. He headed the batting averages and aggregates among Sri Lankans. He, along with Kusal Mendis saved the second test. 

Now Angelo’s fitness had been questioned by the coach, Chandika Hathurusingha. Angelo let his bat do the talking. For the most part. After reaching his century in Wellington, he did 10 pushups. It was a clear jab at the coach. He didn’t have to. The statement had already been made out there in the middle and there’s no way that coach Hathurusingha couldn’t have got the message.  

In Christchurch, during the third test a few days later, Angelo injured his hamstring and was ruled out of the ODI series. 

Injuries are not predictable. Not all of them can be put down to lack of fitness. And yet, when fitness is in question and an injury occurs, there will be people who will pounce on the individual. Angelo is the most experienced cricketer Sri Lanka has. His ability is beyond question. He didn’t exactly do a LeBron, he didn’t brag, but one feels it would have been better if he showed a little grace.  

Lesser people have done worse. All things considered, though, it's probably healthier to retire braggadocio.

OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES [THE INTERCEPTION] PUBLISHED IN 'THE SUNDAY MORNING'

Money talks, gold rules: are we ok with that?

Sometimes if you don't stand up, you fall

Selections and the political economy of disappointment

So who is the GOAT?

Predecessors are great teachers

When things go wrong check the fundamentals

There's always only one more game left

Mind games are part of the sporting story

Those nervous ninetiesOut-think the opposition
School sports and parents

The importing mania in school cricket

Sportsmen and sportswomen beware: your accounts will be hacked soon!

Not all victories are recorded

Read more

Getting Angelo Mathews out

A few months ago when Sri Lanka whitewashed Australia in a test series, praise was showered on one and all associated with the team, from selectors, to coaches and of course the men who got the job done in the middle. 

It was only the second time in 12 series that Sri Lanka had bested Australia.  The previous win had come in 1999 (1-0).  It was a ‘home win’ sure, but a win against the mighty Aussies and a sweep to boot.  Highly creditable by all counts.

Angelo Mathews, as the captain, got his share of the bouquet, even though most eyes were on the newbies, Kusal Mendis, Dhananjaya De Silva and Sandakan in particular.  Among the seniors Dinesh Chandimal did better with bat than Mathews did and Rangana Herath and Dilruwan Perera, picked primarily for bowling prowess almost matched their skipper’s performance with the bat.  No one wanted Mathews to step down.  

A few months later, Sri Lanka were swept 3-0 by South Africa.  It was an away series.  The young heroes who had helped Sri Lanka secure the Warne-Murali trophy in July/August didn’t come good.  Inexperience and unfamiliar conditions were the excuses trotted out.  Legitimate of course.  Even though few expected Sri Lanka to sweep Australia even at home, none would have predicted an outcome too different from what we saw over the past few weeks in South Africa.  And yet some people are calling for Angelo’s blood.  

Let’s interject a caveat here.  Sri Lanka is not India.  There’s no burning of houses or effigies following defeat.  Selectors will get some flak, captains are faulted and arguments raised for dropping this player or picking that one, but that’s it.  Whoever the selectors pick, the fans back the boys once they take the field and by and large live with the joys and sorrows they inspire thereafter.  

Sri Lanka were comprehensively defeated in the tests.  Losses by 206 runs, 282 runs and an innings and 118 runs are made for cringing, even if it happens in foreign conditions and even if your team is young, inexperienced and lacking stars.  Mathews, as the most senior player and the man in charge, was the natural target for critics.  Phrases such as uninspired captaincy, unimaginative bowling changes and defensive approach were tossed around.  They followed Mathews to the T-20 series, even though that’s a different ball game.  His dismal performance in the first T-20 renewed the calls for the sack but the shrill voices went silent when he fought injury and almost single-handedly earned Sri Lanka an improbable win in the second T-20.  A Matthew-less win in the decider seem to have got his detractors out of the woodworks once again.

No one, not even the greatest to play cricket, perform consistently forever.  They come, they rise, they stay around for a few years or a couple of decades in the rare cases, and then they fade.  Some retire when they sense that the curve has turned, some are dropped.  Where does Angelo Mathews stand in all this?

Let’s consider the facts.  Among those who have captained at least 10 tests, Mathews stands behind Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardena, Sanath Jayasuriya and Marvan Atapattu in terms of win-loss ratio.  In the case of ODIs, among those who have captained at least 40 matches, Mathews is behind all of them, ahead of Arjuna Ranatunga, but still has a success rate over 50%.  

None of these ‘greats’ had to lead from the front the way Mathews was required to considering experience, age and talent.  Each of the other four inherited teams chock-full of experience and time-tested performers, people who delivered with bat or ball consistently.  They all had Murali, let us add.  That’s a big edge.  Then there was also Chaminda Vaas, let’s not forget that indefatigable soldier.  Mathews had the services of Sangakkara, Mahela and Tillakeratne Dilshan in the early of his captaincy, but they all left a massive vacuum.  Big shoes to fill.  The boys who replaced them still have tiny feet.  They may or may not grow, but if they do it will take time.

Take his own performance.  His batting average across formats have improved since he took over the captaincy while his returns with the ball haven’t changed significantly.  What the stats don’t always catch is the fact that he’s had to marshall the middle and lower order batsmen time and again so that his team can get a decent score following repeated top order debacles.  

When you have wickets ideal for your strike bowlers, any bowling change will look ‘inspired’.  If you have to bowl to batsmen who are either inexperienced at test level or have to bat on unfamiliar conditions, then too bowling changes can look ‘inspired’.  That was not the case in South Africa.  The deck was essentially stacked against Mathews.  And yet, in that dismal series, he heads the field in terms of runs and average.  

Angelo Mathews, perhaps aware of the call from some quarters for his sacking, has stated that if he is asked to step down, he would.  He has stated that he would like to contribute as a player for as long as he can.  Easy words of course.  But then again, he was not offering excuses.  He was not complaining of the kind of human resources put at his disposal.  He was not trotting out numbers that would make a case for being kept on.  He didn’t refer to the work he’s done to nurture young players out in the middle.  Perhaps he’s not that kind of leader in the dressing room or maybe he is — we have no way of knowing.  In any event, given the mess that Sri Lanka Cricket has been for so long, the comings and goings of selectors, the exit of top players and the fact that he has been surrounded by newcomers in almost every single match he had to lead the team, it seems unfair that the man has been required to even speak of stepping down. 

The selectors have Dinesh Chandimal as an option.  Chandimal is a better cricketer than he was when handed the T-20 captaincy a few years ago, only to have it taken away rather unceremoniously but for reasons that were defensible.  His time will come, no doubt, but there’s nothing to say that he would be a better captain at this point.  It would be, at best, a gamble.  

Is Mathews totally spent?  The numbers and the relevant context does not warrant a resounding ‘yes’ to that question.  As of now, the only justifiable exit from the captaincy is a personal decision from the man.  It cannot be about performance.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene

Read more

Angelo, Dinesh and others must do a Murali on the Aussies

Steve Smith, the Australian cricket captain has heaped praised on Muttiah Muralitharan.  Darren Lehmann too.  They have reason to do so.  The Australian cricket team is in Sri Lanka and although on paper they are clear favorites, the Aussies are not taking any chances.  That’s being professional.  
 

Yes, they are not leaving anything to chance.  Less than a month ago Cricket Australia employed former Sri Lankan test cricketer Thilan Samaraweera as a consultant coach.  Thilan, like almost all experienced Sri Lankan cricketers knows Sri Lankan conditions well.  On top of that he was an excellent player of spin in his day.  No prizes for guessing what the Australians were looking for. 

They came early, they had a good look-see, they had purchased the right brains to complement their own grey matter and they have clearly learned a lot as the outcome of the practice game clearly shows. 

That’s being professional. You can't blame the Aussies.

All this has raised some eyebrows, the same that were raised when Mahela Jayawardena was hired to dish out advice to the England team before it took on Sri Lanka.  There were charges of betrayal then and charges of betrayal now. 

Two things can be said of these concerns.  First, Sri Lanka had no qualms over hiring foreign coaches, Australians included.  Second, nothing was stopping Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) from securing the services of persons who could give insights into the matter of handling the Aussies (or the English, for that matter, earlier in the season).   Perhaps Sri Lanka did not need Murali’s or Thilan’s services (they were hired for specific purposes and those are non-issues as far as Sri Lanka is concerned).  Perhaps Sri Lanka needed some Australian experts but didn’t have the bucks to obtain their services.  It happens. 

There are many ways to cut this issue.  First things first.  Cricket is a sport and it is also a business.  It is about bucks.  It is about professionals who have marketable skills.  It is about the prices that certain skills fetch in the relevant market place.  You can’t say ‘ok’ to capitalism and then cry foul when professional cricketers (or coaches or physiotherapists or any other professional associated with cricket) switch employers. Capital looks for markets and market conditions to exploit, professionals do the same.  The IPL is not the CPL, BPL, Big Bash or SLPL.  The reason is too obvious to elaborate. 

Secondly, Murali is a professional.  His professionalism was most evident in the last test he played (against India).  He was on the verge of being the first man ever to capture 800 test wickets.  The last batsman was in.  Murali had already announced his retirement.  He did entice P Ojha to edge to Mahela Jayawardena (the 4^th ball of the 116^th over) and reach that magical 800 mark, but he may very well have missed it on two occasions (4^th ball of the 102^nd and the second delivery of the 106^th). Both run-out opportunities.  Sri Lanka missed both.  On both occasions the fielder in question was Murali.  He gave it his all and his disappointment was written on his face.  That’s professionalism.  Team objective above self.  Country before record.  Call it whatever you want, the man was ‘working’.  Full time.  A professional. [Read ‘On delivering with unforgettable smiles’]. 

Sure, there were many moments when he wrapped the national flag around his shoulders.   We can call that patriotism of course, but let that not allow us to depreciate the ‘professional’ element that was such an integral part of Muttiah Muralitharan. 

What seems clear is that people are less upset over Thilan helping the Australians (or Mahela helping England) than Murali’s ‘betrayal’.   There have been many references to Murali’s many run-ins with the Australians in the past.  The ‘throwing’ incident.  The Australian crowds taunted Murali each time he came on to bowl.  He was sledged mercilessly.  He was a member of the team when the current Australian coach no less, Darren Lehmann, called Sanath Jayasuriya a black monkey.  He was a member of the team when Justin Langer quietly flicked the bail and kept quite while his team mates appealed for a hit-wicket decision to get Hashan Tillekeratne out (Read “Out of Order: Justin Langer and the ICC”). 

Through it all, the people of this country stood by the team and in particular Murali and that had nothing to do with any monetary gain.  No capitalism there.  Arjuna Ranatunga put his entire career at risk in defending Murali.  One could say Arjuna was being ‘professional’, but Murali would be the first object to such a characterization.  Arjuna did it for a teammate and for his country’s dignity, few would deny this. 

And let no one claim that Murali hasn't 'given back' outside the boundary, to cricket and the country.  

In many ways he's been transparent and accountable and even reconciled in and out of cricket like few of his compatriots have.  He has given with wrist and heart like few had before him and probably none after he retired.

It is this history which is making it hard for people to swallow the Murali is a Professional explanation.  People understand professionalism, sure.  They also know that no one is one dimensional, Murali included.  They, the fans (and others) are not one-dimensional either.  They will understand professionalism but they will not forget all the Murali-Australian history.  This is why eyebrows are raised. 

Having said that, there’s nothing anyone can do.  It’s a free market, whether we like it or not.  People’s skills are bought.  People themselves are bought and sold (the IPL is a meat market once you strip it of the glitter, isn’t it?). 

So what do we do?  Nothing?  No.  We back our boys to the hilt.  They can purchase our Murali.  They can spend the kind of bucks that we don’t have to dent whatever home-advantage there is.  They can demoralize.  They can sledge.  Our boys have only the skills they already have.  They can be the best professionals they can be and perhaps this will not be enough given the aforementioned mismatches.  But they can get from Murali what Murali cannot price or withhold: the determination, the courage, the spirit and the refusal to be put down. 

Angelo Matthews, Dinesh Chandimal, Rangana Herath and the rest: just do a Murali on the Aussies.  It would be the sweetest come-back ever.    All the best. 

Read more

Angelo Mathews read Mahela like no one did

Mahela retired.  Had to happen someday.  He’s been around long enough.  He’s done the hard yards.  He has the stats to show for it.  He has the moments.  The accolades.  And they will continue to come for a few days.  Then there will be the ‘distraction’ of the ODI series and the forget-all-else biggies, the World Cup.  He will duly reflect on his future in ODIs.  Then he will retire from that format as well.  And we’ll see another splash of stats, detailing of career highlights, accolades and the man himself looking back and offering some sober thoughts in his matter-of-fact way.  No frills.  A lot of humility.  Salaams to contemporary greats.  Philosophy. 

It will all add up to a grace that does justice to the way he has carried himself on and off the field over his fairly lengthy international career. 

This, however, is not about Mahela Jayawardena. Well, it is obviously framed by his retirement, but it is inspired by something that someone said about the man that no one else thought to touch on.  The man of this ‘writing-moment’ is not Mahela Jayawardena.  It is the current skipper Angelo Mathews.

When Angelo Mathews made his test debut against Pakistan in July 2009, Mahela Jayawardena was a 11-year veteran and one who had already had a stint as Sri Lanka’s test captain.  So it was natural that Angelo said ‘Mahela has been a pillar of strength, an older brother for me.’  Angelo was earmarked for captaincy.  He has played under Mahela, Kumar Sangakkara and Tillekaratne Dilshan. The first two had relatively long tenures at the helm and Angelo must have picked up a lot of tips.  There would have been some mentoring too on the part of Mahela and Kumar.  Angelo acknowledged. As he should.

He added, ‘He’s the smartest guy in the team, the go-to man always, and the effort that he makes with his knowledge and ability is wonderful.’  It has been observed by many that there were times (especially during Sri Lanka’s amazing run in the T-20 World Cup) when it was hard to figure out who was the real decision maker on the field.  It didn't matter whether it was Dinesh Chandimal or Lasith Malinga that strode out for the toss.  It hasn't been too different in Tests and ODIs either. It was less a matter of Angelo picking Mahela’s brains that Mahela dishing out voluntarily the most potent of brain-parts.  Angelo never showed annoyance.  More importantly he did not feel diminished but in fact showed maturity beyond his years to take it all and still not look as though he was a pedestrian in the affairs of the team.

The accolades, however, are run of the mill.  Expected.  Acknowledged with grace by all of course, but nevertheless not newsworthy outside of the need to jot down what the skipper had to say about a departing teammate and an icon of the game. 

Here’s where Angelo got in something everyone missed.  He said, ‘Thank you to his parents for bringing him up the way they have.’  That’s not about cricket. That’s about Mahela the human being.  Mahela the son.  Mahela the decent citizen. 

Mahela, in his farewell speech, thanks one and all. He did not forget his parents.  ‘They were there for me from day one,’ he said.  Goes for all parents.  Expected words from a son. Some of course don’t credit too many people and some forget parents and teachers believing that did it all ‘their way’ and even ‘on their own’.  Mahela’s acknowledgment is appreciated.  Angelo’s is special.  He was not talking of his own parents.  He was thoughtful enough to appreciate the significance of Mahela’s parents in his life, his career and his success. 

If you googled for Mahela’s parents, you might not find a picture.  Google ‘Mahela’s family’ and you get his wife and child.  There’s just one picture that came up in my search.  It was taken at an event welcoming the team after making it to the World Cup final in 2007: one among several pictures of the players and their families.  Mahela with his wife and his parents.  ‘Tired but happy to be home: Captain Mahela with his wife and parents’ the caption reads.

Angelo Mathews is not a silver tongued Sangakkara. Assertive as he is, Angelo does not have as authoritative a presence in the field as did Mahela. He is nevertheless a thinking captain.  That’s obvious.  He thinks deep about a lot of things.  That is not so obvious. Now we know.  

Read more