Watching television recently, I heard the saying that football is hooligans playing at being gentleman, Rugby Union is gentleman playing at being hooligans and Rugby League is hooligans playing at being hooligans – so what does that make cricket? Could it be gentleman playing at being gentleman? Maybe. Or maybe it was until Jardine, Larwood & co got worried about The Don one summer.
Ah, here we go – an Aussie complaining about the Bodyline series. “What a shock” I hear you say. Well, perhaps we do have a problem letting go of it, but the question is still relevant: when did cricket stop being a gentleman’s sport? Was it ever?
In 2000, the MCC revised the laws of cricket to coincide with the new millennium. The main change made was the addition of the “the Spirit of Cricket” as a preamble to the laws. Prior to this it had been assumed that said “spirit” was implicit and understood by all participating. Clearly, by the year 2000, someone felt this was no longer the case; now it needed to be spelt out in no uncertain terms, but how seriously are they taking it?
Ponting, for example, treats the lead up to every series like he’s headed for a boxing match. He likes to sledge before a ball has even been bowled. And, ever gracious in defeat, he likes a good whinge when it’s all over and things haven’t gone his way. And this is not a one way game, either: "Hauritz (affectionately renamed “that bowler”, mind) couldn’t bowl my grandmother out"; England time waste to force a draw; Australia have lost their "aura" (not exactly a revelation to us Aussie fans, that one. And at least we had an aura to lose.); my perennial favourite; Ponting screaming “cheats!” up at the England balcony and; Flintoff is a fat f**k. No, wait - that last one was just me.
But is it really something new or is it just that it's all in recent memory? I draw your attention once more to a certain series – that shall remain nameless – played in Australia in the summer of ‘32/’33. But let us not forget, also, the famous Ashes to Ashes chants from 1974. I’m sure Thommo and Lillee haven’t forgotten. Saint Steve Waugh may have been a walker, but we know for a fact that Bradman wasn’t. I’ll warrant W.G. Grace was no cricketing angel either and, if we try really hard, I’m sure we can weave some English cricket evil into the ANZAC legend as well.
So, is it a gentleman’s game or not? Who knows? Actually, who the hell cares? It demands a lot more intelligence than rugby, just as much fitness as football and a truckload more skill than either of them. It may not always be gentlemanly, true, but it certainly is bloody superior.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Mr Zero?
If Facebook is anything to go by - and who would dare suggest it isn't? - Nathan Hauritz is something of a demigod in Wales, where the women want, and I quote, "to have his babies". And yet, he is still relatively unknown and unloved everywhere else, particularly in Australia.
Having landed almost accidentally in the Australian side, having been largely ignored in pre-Ashes promotional events and, after being slammed by the British media as basically a loser ("Is that all you've got, Australia?" is a headline that sticks in my mind) you would think the equal leading wicket taker in the 2009 Ashes series thus far might have changed a few non-Welsh minds by now.
But from what I can make out, response to him is still lukewarm in Australia and he has gone largely unnoticed here in the UK. Had Mike Hussey, Simon Katich or even the tepid Mitchell Johnson dislocated their finger trying to heroically stop a speeding cricket ball it would have dominated back pages certainly in Oz, but Hauritz barely rates a mention. The guy continued to play, after a quick trip to hospital, and even went on to take 3 wickets in the test in what must have been excruciating pain. And yet, someone on one of the 8 anti-Hauritz groups on facebook still referred to him as "weak"!
Why is this? Is it because he is not a womanising pisshead? Is it because his wife is not a supermodel, but looks like the girl-next-door (and let's face it, she probably was)? Could it be because he doesn't look like Mitchell Johnson?
I suspect, in fact, that we are so used to sportsmen getting drunk, stealing boats, fighting in bars and shagging everything that moves that when an average looking guy with raw talent and a quiet self-confidence, who has no interest in "extra-curricular" activities, appears we barely even see him. He may not be Andrew Symonds and he certainly isn't Shane Warne, at least not yet, but I for one hope this series is not the last we see of this young man however uninteresting he may be.
Ritzy? Well, maybe not so much. But Nathan is doing pretty damn good.
Having landed almost accidentally in the Australian side, having been largely ignored in pre-Ashes promotional events and, after being slammed by the British media as basically a loser ("Is that all you've got, Australia?" is a headline that sticks in my mind) you would think the equal leading wicket taker in the 2009 Ashes series thus far might have changed a few non-Welsh minds by now.
But from what I can make out, response to him is still lukewarm in Australia and he has gone largely unnoticed here in the UK. Had Mike Hussey, Simon Katich or even the tepid Mitchell Johnson dislocated their finger trying to heroically stop a speeding cricket ball it would have dominated back pages certainly in Oz, but Hauritz barely rates a mention. The guy continued to play, after a quick trip to hospital, and even went on to take 3 wickets in the test in what must have been excruciating pain. And yet, someone on one of the 8 anti-Hauritz groups on facebook still referred to him as "weak"!
Why is this? Is it because he is not a womanising pisshead? Is it because his wife is not a supermodel, but looks like the girl-next-door (and let's face it, she probably was)? Could it be because he doesn't look like Mitchell Johnson?
I suspect, in fact, that we are so used to sportsmen getting drunk, stealing boats, fighting in bars and shagging everything that moves that when an average looking guy with raw talent and a quiet self-confidence, who has no interest in "extra-curricular" activities, appears we barely even see him. He may not be Andrew Symonds and he certainly isn't Shane Warne, at least not yet, but I for one hope this series is not the last we see of this young man however uninteresting he may be.
Ritzy? Well, maybe not so much. But Nathan is doing pretty damn good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)