One small leap for player freedom

Cricket Australia's recent paranoia about what its leading performers can and cannot say might finally be easing, with players expected to be given greater licence in the future to speak their minds.

The board plans to show greater leniency towards players who speak out critically or controversially on issues such as team selection, according to reports today in News Limited newspapers.

Two seasons ago the fast bowler Matthew Nicholson was hit with a suspended one-match ban for saying he was reconsidering his future after being dropped by Western Australia. Brad Hogg was censured for urging a fellow player - within the privacy of a team meeting - to lift his game, while Adam Gilchrist was hauled over the coals for querying the legitimacy of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action at a football luncheon.

Last summer Brad Williams and Andy Bichel were both reprimanded for publicly grumbling about being dropped. Murray Goodwin, the Zimbabwean-born WA batsman, was officially rebuked after expressing misgivings about race-based selection processes in his homeland.

The outbreak of slightly over-the-top punishments for largely innocent public remarks has provoked unease among some cricket followers. They fear that players' personalities are being squashed and that the game, as a result, is no longer throwing up the same galaxy of larger-than-life characters who wore the baggy green in past decades.

The players too are worried about the issue: a recent survey by the Australian Cricketers Association found that the Australian players were unanimous in their wish for greater freedom to speak their minds and vent their frustrations.

"I think we need to take a more general view," said the board's operations manager Michael Brown. "Cricket Australia is working with the players on what is and isn't detrimental to the game."

Tim May, chief executive of the players' association, envisaged a possible "slackening" in the board's approach to player freedom. "It is our understanding that Cricket Australia will adopt a more reasonable attitude - a greater level of understanding for the players' circumstances - in determining whether to lay a charge or not," May said. "That's good for them and good for the public."

But he warned only time would tell: "Whether or not the players are being allowed more freedom, we will only know when a live situation comes along."

The main point of contention revolves around section one, clause 10 of the board's code of behaviour. Headed "Detrimental Public Comment", it states: "Players and officials must not make any public or media comment which is detrimental to the interests of the game or to a tour or series of matches in which they are or are likely to be involved."

It goes on to say that they cannot "denigrate" a country they are playing against, nor make "detrimental comment" about the "prospects of a selection of a player" or the "prospects of appointment of any official".

The key issue is how this loosely worded clause is interpreted; what constitutes "detrimental comment"? The feeling among players is that the board has been over-zealous in its interpretation.

"The players definitely feel limited in what they can say," Ian Healy, the association president, said recently. "If the players can be more relaxed but the guidelines are still there, you'll see more freedom of speech."