There's a fine line between freedom and recklessness
Paul Ryan | January 02, 2025
When Usman Khawaja was smiling and laughing as Sam Konstas attempted to ramp Jasprit Bumrah on just the fourth ball of his second over of the Boxing Day Test, you could be forgiven for thinking it was the opening of a charity match, not the pivotal fourth Test between Australia and India.
The stage was immense: the Border-Gavaskar series was tied at 1-1 after three tests. The iconic Melbourne Cricket Ground was packed with 87,000 spectators, while millions more tuned in worldwide. Amid this electric atmosphere, 19-year-old Sam Konstas was making his Test debut. Yet, with all the pressure and expectation, he had the courage to attempt a shot few would dare in the opening overs of a Test match.
Konstas missed his first and second ramp attempts. But he connected on the third, the fourth, and the fifth. His fearless approach gave Australia a lightning-fast start, propelling the team into a commanding position. It was exhilarating, audacious, and a spectacle that had fans on the edge of their seats.
Konstas’ debut innings was unforgettable—he scored 60 runs with freedom and flair, laying the foundation for an Australian victory. The captain and coach had clearly given him the license to play with such abandon, and he delivered. Yet, his daring debut raises an age-old question: where is the line between freedom and recklessness?
What if Konstas' first or second ramp shot had gone straight into the hands of the wicketkeeper or slip cordon? Would such boldness have been celebrated as part of his fearless approach, or questioned as recklessness not worthy of the baggy green? How would you have reacted in that moment?
I’m thrilled to see him playing in the 5th Test at the SCG.
We often hear coaches and captains, or teammates explain a player’s dismissal by saying, “That’s just how they play.”
When coaches say this, I can’t help but wonder if it’s a form of self-defense, and what the player’s teammates might truly think.
Konstas got away with his bold approach in the first innings, but India’s Rishabh Pant was not as fortunate. In the first innings, Pant attempted an extravagant ramp shot to the leg side, walking across his stumps only to be caught at third man for 28. His dismissal left India at 6 for 191, still 283 runs behind Australia.
With seven fielders positioned behind square and the massive MCG outfield in front, Pant’s decision to attempt such a risky shot was baffling. The risk-reward equation simply didn’t favour such a choice. Was it freedom, or was it recklessness?
In the second innings, the stakes were different and even more critical. Chasing 340 to win India were 3 for 121 with only 34 overs to bat. India’s best hope with 7 wickets in hand was to secure a draw and go into the 5th test with the series still one all. Don’t forget India are the current holders of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy so Australia would’ve had to win the win the SCG test.
Pant pulled a short ball from part-time spinner Travis Head straight to Mitchell Marsh at deep square leg. His dismissal sparked a collapse, with India losing three wickets for just nine runs in 34 balls. Australia won the test match and now lead the series 2-1 and India need to win the 5th test.
Pant and Konstas both embody the courage and flair that make cricket so captivating. Their talent inspires, but cricket remains a team game. There’s a fine line between freedom and recklessness.
Cricket and its players have evolved in so many positive ways, yet some principles remain timeless and playing for your team is one of them. If a player continues to blur the line between freedom and recklessness, do they really want the selectors to define it for them?
Reads well Paul. No one wants to see a one hit wonder!
I think the kid is good enough not to play the stupid shots he is doing and obviously the hard school grade cricket he hasnt played enough of. If he behaved like he did in some of the grade teams I played in he would have worn one next ball but also been pulled into line by hard nosed team mates. He needs to respect his team mates and those before him who have worn the baggy green with pride and dignity. He is not there for him - he is there representing his team before anything else.