Some thoughts about David Warner's swansong going off-key

Raju Korti
There is another reason for the Pakistan cricket team other than having to load their luggage and their rather unwelcome arrival when they landed on the Aussie soil. The retirement of David Warner is taking all the sheen away from the impending series. More so, after fellow cricketer and former team-mate Mitchell Johnson let loose a fusillade against him for seeking to bow out of Test cricket on his own terms despite persistent doubts of his place in the side. It is rather by default that an undermanned Pakistan which may not excite even the most ardent Aussie fan, might get a boost over what is being billed as Warner's farewell tour.

Warner who made his debut 12 years ago has evoked awe and contempt in similar measure either as a poster boy for his brilliance or for sins of commissions and omissions. Irrespective of the rumblings in many quarters about his performance in Tests in recent times, Warner has gone ahead with the customary Aussie bravado that he would go on his own terms and he would prefer the Sydney Test to be his swansong. Something unheard of across cricket playing countries elsewhere except of course India where pampered cricketers are allowed the liberty of a safe passage and retire when they feel like.

If his retirement is deflecting all the excitement in the present series, it is because of Johnson's scathing takedown on Warner's role in the ball-tampering scandal. A probe by Cricket Australia had adjudged Warner as the villain of the piece in 'Sandpaper-gate' that had Australian cricket's integrity hitting rock bottom.

It is not altogether surprising that the Johnson's furious indictment of Warner stems from a personal exchange the latter had and used it as a ruse to question a "hero's send off". To be fair to Warner, he has since atoned for that sin by serving a year-long suspension but appalled fans feel that giving Warner a choice on his Test retirement is nothing short of sacrilege.

Warner pulled out all stops to have his leadership ban rescinded and when they all came a cropper, he pulled out of the process, accusing Cricket Australia panel of dredging up unsavoury details about 'Sandpaper-gate'. In the midst of the recent furore, Warner's manager James Erskine has been doing all the fire-fighting to defend his client's character and get even with Johnson.

Understandably, Warner now pins his hopes on his bat doing all the talking as it did in the recent World Cup in India but except for that double hundred at MCG against South Africa in his 100th Test, Warner has struggled to keep going. Cricketers in other countries, by and large, are not always very charitable about each other, have known to harbour jealousies and are also known to speak out in the guise of being fair and objective. But on sheer facts and figures, one cannot disagree with former captain Ricky Ponting that the MCG Test would have been an ideal swansong for Warner who battled on through an injury-blighted series in India and through the Ashes.

As the situations stands now, it is runs rather than his past reputation that will decide whether Warner gets Sydney as his farewell Test. If reputation emerges as the yardstick of his selection, Cricket Australia would be setting a surprising precedent. Players' retirement in other countries are decided by their respective country's Boards. Remember how the Boards elsewhere, notably in West Indies and South Africa ruthlessly wound up their star players' careers despite their enviable past record. It is only in India that hearts rule over heads. Also remember that the durable Ian Healy was chucked out and denied his farewell 100th Test and was replaced by Adam Gilchrist. One small consideration that works for Warner is there are not many replacements who can make a compelling case for their selection.

Although one sees a quid pro quo in Johnson's outburst in his column against Warner, there is substance in his charge that Warner has struggled in red-ball cricket and not being graceful in accepting his complicity in the ball tampering issue. With his backdrop it was befuddling that Warner made out a public his intentions of retiring on his own terms. Erskine's defence that Johnson's column was aimed at getting easy headlines pales into insignificance. In a skewed logic, Erskine claimed that Warner's replacements Matthew Renshaw, Cameron Bancroft and Marcus Harris too hadn't done anything worthwhile to merit selection.

Warner believes he is still the best man for the job. May be he is, may be he is not anymore but Cricket Australia will finally preside over his destiny. One thing, frail though in his favour, is thankfully for him, Mitchell Johnson is not a selector.