IN 2013, just before the away Ashes series in the mother land, Pat Howard sacked Mickey Arthur.

The reasons documented in the media suggested concerns about Arthur’s strength of character, to control the shifting change in culture forced through the retirements of generational talent and leadership.

David Warner was whacking blokes in bars.

The then-captain — Michael Clarke — is reported to have labelled fellow members of the leadership group as cancerous to the team dynamic — displaying a clear rift in the playing group of the time.

Australian cricketer David Warner (R) sits alongside captain Michael Clarke while front the press about his barroom brawl with England’s Joe Root. Source: AFP

Members of the team were punished for not completing integral feedback regarding theirs and the team’s performances. Some called it homeworkgate — others saw the player oversight as a complete lack of respect, riddled in petulance and entitlement for their positions as overpaid children.

I was surprised to read Arthur’s strength as a leader being questioned. South African males are known for their strength in character but here is one who has taken a South African team, who are constantly fighting through their own political mayhem and strong country-based personalities, to the pinnacle of international cricket: The No.1 spot.

When working with a large group of males who portray aforementioned traits — petulance and entitlement — ownership is something that is damn near impossible to build unless you release the leash enough to allow a looser style that better fits the dynamic of the group.

If anything, it was the continual punishment and strength from Arthur that lead to disharmony among men. Poor behaviours were no longer rewarded and instead were met with a strong response: Suspension.

The Australian playing group struggled to embrace the hard line approach of coach Mickey Arthur (right). Source: News Limited

Howard made the right call in replacing the strong Arthur with a freer spirit, whose style had found success among Australian men who typically do not thrive when being wrapped in boundaries with the expectation of having to act as professionals.

The player culture of the day demanded freedom. And in Darren Lehmann, they got it.

The decision to sack anyone comes with significant risk and requires a level of bravery that we hadn’t seen in cricket before. The emotional toll of these decisions brings out a high level of angst.

This is Pat Howard’s thing: His current legacy as a cricket administrator can be defined by his bravery for change.

Not change for change’s sake, but change for his perceived betterment of the game in the long term. Howard displays a willingness to get it wrong.

And when shifting foundations that have been set in stone forever, it’s not about being wrong to the point of an apology, but catastrophically wrong to the point of no return.

“The one thing Howard does is take responsibility for his decisions” says a CA insider, on the condition of anonymity**.

“He is quite prepared to put his hand up and say, ‘I got it wrong’, when, and if, it happens.

“He is huge on accountability and wants any strategy or program to measurable. Nothing is done for the sake of it or because it’s been done before.

“He challenges thinking and is always asking, ‘Why?’

“His presence in the room keeps people on their toes. There is a respect built through his bravery for change. He will pull the trigger on you if you aren’t a positive contributor, regardless of your previous contributions.”

Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland (left) and Pat Howard. Source: News Limited

Bravery is his thing and Cricket Australia love him for breaking the mould when it comes to innovation and the displaying of behaviours not seen before in cricket.

Another CA insider adds: “Pat is the most skilled and courageous employee in the organisation. He is tough but very, very honest, transparent and has no fear. Sound like anyone you ever met in cricket? Your answer is NO.”

And while the love from CA flows, in a manner that suggests he is next in line for a bronze statue outside the MCG, why does the cricket community, and a large number of players, take exception to his tenure as High Performance leader?

Simple answer: Change.

Coming to terms with change, in a game that is universally respected for its gentlemanly history and continual stability without innovation and trial, is damn hard to accept.

The hardened Sheffield Shield performers, with bits-and-pieces roles as national representatives, all have an angry edge about the disruption Howard has caused the foundation of their working environment: Domestic cricket.

Together with Greg Chappell, the Shield competition — to the players — no longer feels like a state-based competition where the best of the best are competing for one of the 11 available spots, across the two formats that aren’t the BBL.

It no longer feels worthy of being respected as the strongest domestic competition in the world; one that could field an Australia A team strong enough to take on the international might of England, the old-school strength of Zimbabwe and the Australian first XI in a round-robin tournament sponsored by a tobacco company.

One of Pat Howard’s initiatives was the introduction of the Dukes ball into Shield cricket. Source: Getty Images

Furthering the point is the involvement of a development team in the now condensed Matador Cup: A group of technically correct youngsters who weren’t identified as strong enough performers to earn selection in the 15-man state squads, are now being rewarded with direct access to first class representation.

This is one among any number of decisions which have aggrieved state cricketers.

Put it alongside the introduction of Dukes balls at the back end of the Shield season, the use of Shield cricket as a safety trial zone for the experimentation of pink balls and day/night long form fixtures.

Throw in disrespecting players by allowing national representatives to play half games in preparation for international fixtures and the introduction of a points system to improve the flow of the game, and you’re left with something that can only place enormous questions over the integrity of the role of domestic cricketers in the Australian cricket landscape.

Can you blame them? They are being made to feel like guinea pigs.

Ordered to suck the teat for water and run in the big ol’ wheel. And then, when it’s time for everyone to cash in on the new pay structure, they are the last to be rewarded.

Yes, they benefit from the revenue-sharing model that allows ALL contracted players, of ALL levels, to receive excessively large cash bonuses at the end of each MOU.

Cricket Australia team performance general manager Pat Howard is no ‘yes man’. Source: News Corp Australia

For Pat, the success of the Australian cricket team comes before the success of any individual pursuit.

He’d fall on his own sword if it guaranteed success.

He will question anyone, any time and that means trouble for those with an old-school mentality that are in, or on, the pathway to the top level.

He wants the best possible result for cricket in Australia and if that means change, understand that it is not executed with the same level of individual growth in mind that we have experienced in the past.

You might not agree with the change, and on many fronts I am with you, but if there is no greater example of Howard’s lack of interest in history than his willingness to put an Australian cricket institution like Kookaburra on notice by introducing a rival brand (Dukes), placing their monopoly on national ball sales in serious jeopardy for the first time since 1946.

We can be guaranteed that the views of you, and me, and those in Shield cricket, and Kookaburra, and those questioning change are merely a ripple in Pat’s overarching objective to make Australian cricket as successful as possible.

And you have to respect him for that.

** CA insiders speak on the condition of anonymity as for CA staff being quoted in a Geeves article is career suicide.