Don't Set Boundaries Without Having Public Support
Therapists Don't Talk About the Power Dynamics
Today I saw an instagram reel highlighting a cricket match scene in a neighbourhood.
The yellow team is batting, the blue team fielding, and tension crackles in the air.
As the bowler prepares to deliver, the yellow batsman halts the game, asking for the floodlights to be adjusted because they’re blinding him. His complaint, confident and direct, seems fair—until the blue team pushes back, the umpire shrugs, and his own teammates say nothing.
Isolated, the batsman backs down, mumbling he’ll “adjust.” He loses face. His demand gets ignored.
Why? He didn’t have what would’ve made the difference: public support.
This small moment reveals a universal pattern. When you make a demand without your group behind you, it often fails—no matter how justified it is.
We’ll look at what happened in that match, how the same thing plays out in global conflicts, and what it means for setting boundaries in everyday life.
The Cricket Match Incident
The reel shows a community match, where power dynamics are unspoken but real.
The yellow team’s batsman—who clearly isn’t one of the more influential players—tries to call for a change. He says the floodlights are too strong and hurting his focus. His delivery is assertive, maybe even performative. But the blue team laughs it off. The umpire stays out of it. And his own teammates? Nothing.
He’s left hanging.
As the pushback grows louder, he starts to realize: no one is going to back him. What started as a reasonable complaint now looks like he’s just trying to be difficult.
He quietly drops it, says he’ll “manage,” and throws in a weak request to fix it “next year.” No one responds. The match moves on. He’s lost credibility.
His mistake? Thinking he could set a boundary in a group setting without first securing any real support.
This isn’t just about cricket. The same pattern shows up across history, including at the highest levels of power.
The Same Happens in International Relations Too
Saddam Hussein’s 1990 Invasion of Kuwait
In August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, thinking the region would back him or stay silent.
He framed the move as a fight against Western influence and economic injustice. But he badly misjudged the regional mood. Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt condemned the move, seeing Iraq’s ambitions as a threat.
The U.S. quickly built a coalition. And by February 1991, they forced Iraq out.
Without public support—either at home or abroad—Hussein’s claim to Kuwait collapsed fast. His reach exceeded his backing, and it showed.
Argentina’s 1982 Invasion of the Falklands
In 1982, Argentina’s military junta, desperate for a domestic win, invaded the British-controlled Falkland Islands.
They assumed the UK would be slow to respond. That didn’t happen.
Britain launched a military campaign and retook the islands in under three months.
Regionally, Argentina got little sympathy. Even neighboring Chile sided with Britain diplomatically.
The junta had misread the moment. They went all-in without any real backing—and paid for it with a quick defeat and the eventual collapse of their regime.
Syria’s 2011 Crackdown on Protests
When protests erupted in Syria in 2011, President Bashar al-Assad responded with brutal force, betting on fear and loyalty to hold the country together.
But his crackdown turned public frustration into rebellion.
Outside Syria, his violence triggered international outrage and sanctions. Even some Arab states turned away.
The civil war dragged on. Assad stayed in power, but not because his demand for absolute control worked. He lost legitimacy and isolated himself from much of the world and his own people.
In all three cases, the pattern was the same. A bold move. No backing. Big consequences.
Why Public Support Matters
Public support is what makes a demand stick.
It takes different forms in different places—your friends, your team, your citizens, or your international partners.
In the cricket match, it was the teammates’ silence that doomed the batsman.
In Kuwait, it was the coalition of global powers.
In Argentina, it was the region’s refusal to engage.
In Syria, it was the collapse of local trust and global acceptance.
When support is real, even tough demands hold ground. Without it, even fair ones collapse.
Support also shields you when things go wrong. When you act with a group, you don’t carry the risk alone.
That’s why smart leaders—at any level—check the room first. They test the waters, build alliances, and only then push forward.
Lessons for Everyday Life
Here’s what this all comes down to: we don’t operate in a vacuum.
Whether it’s a cricket pitch, a boardroom, or a dinner table—your influence is tied to the people around you.
Therapists talk about setting boundaries. But they rarely talk about the social side of it.
If you assert a boundary without any real backing, you're likely to be dismissed—or worse, seen as difficult.
Think about a workplace example. Someone demands a shift in schedule without talking to anyone first. The team sees it as selfish. The request fizzles, and the person looks out of touch.
Now compare that to someone who talks to teammates first, gets buy-in, and frames the change as a shared benefit. That request lands differently. It’s seen as thoughtful, not disruptive.
Same in families. Same in communities.
If you're about to make a move, pause and ask: is anyone with me?
If not, do the work to bring people onside. Talk. Listen. Align. Time your ask right.
The batsman didn’t do that. Neither did Hussein, or Galtieri, or Assad. And it cost them.
Public support isn’t a bonus—it’s the foundation. Without it, even the strongest stance can make you look weak.