All in the mind
The deep voice rolling its Rs as it served up sentences in the most delicious Scottish brogue had people looking around the room frantically, wondering what Sean Connery was doing at a conference for cricket coaches organised by the MRF in Chennai. Cinema buffs were immediately disappointed to discover that the voice was only Dr Sandy Gordon’s. But that disappointment didn’t last long, for few people think, and talk, as good a game of cricket as him.Drawing Gordon aside for a second, it was a pleasant surprise to hear him talk about things less incomprehensible than cognitive behavioural psychology. “I played soccer as a part-time professional in the north of Scotland. One of the teams I played for was Buckie Thistle, and Alex Ferguson, who had just moved from Rangers to Falkirk, played against us in the Scottish Cup. He was a striker and I was a defender. They beat us 2-1, but when he came to Aberdeen to coach the team there, I helped him find a good school for his kids and that sort of thing. We got to know each other quite well.”But Gordon isn’t just dropping names when he talks about "Fergie" and the success Manchester United have had in transforming themselves from a good team to a great one. And he isn’t from a purely soccer background either: “I played cricket and golf in the summer and there were three or four families who were very passionate about cricket where I came from, in Huntley.”Okay, so that’s fair enough, we all had a knock in the backyard or kicked a ball on the streets as kids, and that can sometimes lead to a career in sport. But which five-year old says, “when I grow up, I want to be a psychologist”? Not even the young Gordon. “I was keen on all sports and wanted to be a PE teacher. I always knew that and I did it for a couple of years. Then later I decided to do another degree and I became interested in social and educational psychology.”I liked sports psychology because I was a player and I had some pretty bad coaching practices during that time. I also met some players who were emotionally unhinged or had problems dealing with pressure,” he says, chuckling. Today, these two factors comprise the nucleus of a lot of Gordon’s work.Recently, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) woke up to the fact that a psychologist could play a huge role in giving the team an edge. Sportsmen, especially successful ones, tend to have king-sized egos and this could easily get in the way of Gordon’s work. “At the top level every player is looking to prolong his or her career, so they’re not at all resistant to feedback. They just love any kind of feedback. As coaches, we’re paid to give feedback. I’ve never had any player say he didn’t want my opinion.”Not even the big stars of Indian cricket? “I really feel that I was just part of the facilitation process with the Indian team. It’s the players who are out there playing and they’re the ones who should be patted on the back. I’m quietly pleased with the reactions I’ve had though.”But what exactly did Gordon say or do to turn the Indian team into a fist-pumping, charged-up unit? Remember the rugby-style huddles from the World Cup? “They [the team] created the environment. I threw up the questions and challenges in terms of group and individual gameplans and how to attain momentum and they applied all of that to their situations. Remember, I wasn’t there at the games so they’re the ones who did it.”However, on the eve of the World Cup, the morale of the Indian team wasn’t the greatest after the hammering they received in New Zealand. “While they were a bit apprehensive just before the start of the World Cup, they were also excited to be playing in it. A few players were resigned to the fact that they might not play a game. When I talked to them, I asked what they wanted to get out of the tournament. They then understood that there were certain individual goals over and above the team goals that players could achieve.”Interestingly, the very day after the 2002 NatWest Series final, in which India successfully chased 326 against England, Gordon had a chat with the team. They told him that other teams thought they were mentally soft and they wanted to change that. “It was really John Wright’s ambition to identify the areas that needed work. We started to explore why India were mentally tough at home, but struggled abroad. I compared what the Indians did on tour with what the Australians did and there was a world of difference. The players needed to realise that going away does not mean you’re on enemy territory. You’re on a cricket field, and that’s home.”He’s said it before and he’s happy to say so again: “I wasn’t surprised at all at India’s toughness in the World Cup. They fully deserved to be in the final. They didn’t play well in the beginning, getting thumped by Australia, but they bounced back strongly. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well they came together and the way they enjoyed the game.”And to think things turned around for the simplest of reasons. “A commitment by the individual and the team to giving the best effort possible for every delivery. Cricket’s a simple game really. Focussing on the right things, getting your attitude right, thinking positively and decisively.”If only it were that simple to put into practice. “Australia will always be up there because of the domestic competition they have and the type of player it produces. I don’t know the system here, but I know there’s an awful lot of politics involved. So when a player comes through the system in Australia he’s already tough, a thoroughbred. The infrastructure puts Australia well ahead.”Is there no hope for India then? After all, changing the system is so difficult that hardly anyone bothers anymore. As one critic was quick to point out, what good is there in toughening up the national side when the foundations are so weak? “[Training in] mental skills really needs to start at the under-17 level, at least. It’s got to start much earlier than the national team. You can’t unscramble an egg you know. It’s there already and you can’t go back and change things. Certainly this model is only a band-aid solution. It can’t work from the top downwards.”