Loyalty & cricket

In the 1992 Western Unforgiven, Gene Hackman pleads “I don't deserve to die like this” to which Clint Eastwood's William Money replies “deserve's got nothing to do with it”. In cricket the best players and teams don't always win, sometimes luck has a lot to say; this unpredictability makes the game so compelling. Deserving players don't always win, and deserving has nothing to do with it when it comes to selection.

Bouncing in, blond hair glistening, knees pumping high, calm, determined expression, and everyone knows something will happen: the classic Broad devastating bowling spell. Latterly, the same devastation has been seen in Broad's public reactions following an omission from England's Test team, be it the infamous 'Big Brother' socially-distanced Sky Sports interview in 2020 or today's Daily Mail article. Broad's latest piece has added more fuel to the fire over his controversial omission, alongside James Anderson, from England men's Test squad for a tour of West Indies.  

"Frustrated, angry and gutted": Stuart Broad after being dropped in 2020

As an eloquent, hugely popular figure with a platform, Broad has several factors in his favour when talking about selection matters but you can still see why it hurts. On a personal level, we all sympathise with the two bowlers; the decision clearly came as a shock and would have hurt deeply. When players are overlooked for any reason, including simply not being good enough (not the case with these two), they will naturally experience the pain and rejection of missing out on selection. No one will want to get dropped, and it's impossible for a player to react objectively when they are left out, as their innate self-belief and lack of objectivity were most likely the attributes that got them to a successful position in the first place.

"It felt unjust."

A lot of people will also disagree with the duo's omission (personally, I can see both sides and have no idea which is correct). A large part of the outcry over Broad and Anderson is partly people believe the pair are in the best team, but also that they deserve more recognition for their service and loyalty. Unfortunately, loyalty is a meaningless concept in international sport. 

A player may remain the same as coaches, selectors, and other decision makers come and go with their own ideas and selections. Broad and Anderson's loyalty is not rewarded, but in many cases disloyalty is not a bar to selection if you're deemed good enough, as the eventual re-admission of players who went on 'rebel' tours of Apartheid-era South Africa can attest.

As unpalatable as it sounds, loyalty does not score runs or take wickets. Sure, loyalty may provide a case for selection in terms of someone being a team player and having a good record, but being a team player isn't enough for selection (some of the best players in history were not exactly great for team morale). Ultimately, concepts like loyalty and deserving are much like 'team spirit' in that you want a team to think they are there, but they disappear under scrutiny.

International sport is brutally meritocratic; players are not selected on likeability, length of service, or who they are as people. For the 1966 football World Cup squad, Alf Ramsey told Jack Charlton he was not the best defender available and was only selected for England because he was best suited to Ramsay's system. The Broad and Anderson equivalents at the time would have missed out, which to them would have felt hugely unjust. (A difference with the current selection is we know things went very well in 1966; time will tell how current matters play out). However, the point is players are not selected because they are loyal and deserving, but because the current decision maker think that they can do the job for them.

"We wanted to appreciate everyone who has been lucky enough to wear the England shirt - once, or a hundred times," Andrew Strauss.

Broad and Anderson's incredible careers do indeed deserve recognition and respect (whatever that means). Personally, I am not a fan of the 'goodbye' match, be it successful ones like Alastair Cook's 2018 hundred versus India at The Oval or bathetic events like Bradman's duck in 1948. These player-goodbyes take me out of the moment and make a team game into something like a testimonial, a bizarre celebration of an individual in an important team game. In Bradman's case, Arthur Morris when asked if he was playing when the Don got a duck on his final appearance would laconically reply "I managed 196 at the other end". 

In the real world, rather the cricket world, it is important to commemorate players. Ironically, Andrew Strauss - the man responsible for Broad and Anderson's removal - organised a celebration of former England players. In 2017, he set-up the England Players' Dinner in 2017 with over 300 living former England players invited to share and celebrate their experiences of playing.  Perhaps what players really deserve is ongoing care for the difficult transition from being a famous cricketer playing in front of thousands to a living a normal life.