|
The Aussie way
Australian cricket is fierce, attacking and spirited. In many ways it reflects the country's origins and history
December 19, 2007
 |
|
A tour to Australia counts amongst the most challenging experiences cricket has to offer. Teams visiting the antipodes and returning with the spoils are honoured. Englishmen coming back from an Ashes triumph in 1928-29 were feted, and in some cases their cars were dragged by ropes from the train stations to their homes. New Zealanders relish their periodic successes on the wide brown land and remember them for decades. Other teams are just as proud of downing the Australians in their own backyard and tell the tales to their grandchildren. Other series may mean as much emotionally and historically but this is the greatest victory of them all.
And the reason is simple. Among senior cricketing nations Australia has much the strongest sporting culture. Visiting teams know they are taking on a powerhouse. Australia may be beaten on its own patch from time to time but only by a team capable of summoning and sustaining its mightiest effort. It is the game's testing ground. As much can be told from the performances of teams afterwards. Sri Lanka had a rough time down under in November but went home stronger and took a toll of the Englishmen.
Australia's domination has been in part due to its single-mindedness and in part to the struggles of opponents. Cricket has never been a particularly competitive game. Now and then rivalries arise and brilliant series are played. Great players occasionally emerge and their gifts are universally appreciated. But cricket is not played by well-organised nations such as Spain, Sweden, America, Germany, France, Korea or China. Instead it inhabits a world of complication and chaos.
For documented reasons the game established itself in nations with painful memories, the war-torn and insecure, and in one case the non-existent (for the West Indies exists only for cricket purposes). It is played by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, in tyrannies and democracies, by the colonialist and the emancipated, by supposed enemies and supposed friends, by belligerent neighbours and impoverished states. Among the ten leading nations only New Zealand seems sensible, and it thinks mostly about rugby.
Despite its role in Iraq and the lamentable state of many of the first inhabitants, Australia has faced few of the challenges experienced by rivals. It does not need to think about feeding a billion people or finding ways of helping different faiths to live side by side, or need to fret about the redistribution of wealth between races, or concern itself about the effect of lost glories. It can concentrate on matters in hand. Among the nine Test nations Australia alone has the desire and ability to sustain a strong sporting performance. Other cricket countries have not pursued cricketing excellence with the required rigour. England has always celebrated its victories too much, regarding them as the end of the road and not a beginning. And its culture is tired. Aghast parents are sending their sons to be educated in African boarding schools.
It does not take any team visiting the antipodes long to realise that hard days lie ahead. Indeed the thought may occur before a foot has been placed on Australian soil. A hot reception awaits. Not long after landing, it is customary for the touring team to find itself under fierce scrutiny. Most likely it will discover that its cause is hopeless. They can respond in two ways. They can conclude that the Australians are the rudest and loudest roosters it has even been their misfortune to meet, a conclusion reached over the years by such luminaries as Sunil Gavaskar, Arjuna Ranatunga, Douglas Jardine, and numerous monarchists who never quite forgave one helpful Australian prime minster for daring to touch a royal arm. Or they welcome the directness of the confrontation. Australians are not inclined to beat about the bush.
Both reactions can work, the first because it breeds defiance, the second because it creates a thick skin. But it is not wise to retreat, because then the spirit is broken and victory becomes impossible. Australia exposes pretenders but respects warriors.
Australian cricket reflects the origins of the country. Class has never been a factor and the game was not regarded as a means of instilling manners. Cricket has simply offered an opportunity to express talent and enjoy ferocious competition. As a new and remote country, Australia yearned for sporting achievement and the recognition that came with it. As a country forged by the unwanted, it yearned for success. Therefore sport took a prominent role in the forging of the national identity, and every victory boosted confidence.
Lacking an aristocracy, swiftly democratic, egalitarian in outlook, created on a hostile continent that knows fires and droughts, Australians went about every sport in the same downright way. It is not a land for the faint-hearted. Because it is vast, newspapers serve single cities and cannot tiptoe around the edges of a story.
| Lacking an aristocracy, swiftly democratic, egalitarian in outlook, created on a hostile continent that knows fires and droughts, Australians went about every sport in the same downright way. It is not a land for the faint-hearted | ||
Procrastination is not the local way. It is the same on the field. Australian cricket has no truck with medium-pacers or finger-spinners or cautious batsmen. Bowlers must send down thunderbolts, give the ball a rip or swing it about. Batsmen must be fearless and able to use their feet. Captains must attack. Always the idea is to try to win the game, not wait for the other fellow to lose it.
Australians enjoy sport. To them a sporting field is not a torture chamber. English rugby supporters wallowed in the 2007 World Cup and dismissed the Australian gripes at penalty decisions as sour grapes. For their part, the Australians were amazed that anyone could enjoy it regardless of the results. To them the game was reduced to a lot of dull scrimmages. England saw valour and the Australians found only the crushing of the spirit. To an Englishman a game is a test of character. To an Australian it is mostly an adventure.
Despite the ferocity, though, and the noise, the Australians have by and large been more sporting than might be supposed. They have treated friend and foe the same. Those upset by the noise in international matches ought to try their luck at backyard cricket. Moreover, the Aussies have not been caught tampering with the ball, were not responsible for Bodyline, have not doctored wickets as much as most nations, were not much involved in the match-fixing scandals. Also, their willingness to attack has saved Test cricket these last few years.
As the latest visiting team pads up in Melbourne it needs to bear these things in mind. Australia needs to understand foreign ways so that everything is put in context, and the same applies the other way around. It is no use regarding Australia as a sunnier and noisier version of England. Even the loudness of the crowds can be misinterpreted. Locals are proud of their country and support its teams. But the cricket team, especially, is not all that popular. Not long ago an Indian reporter wrote some rude things about the Australian team in the Sydney Morning Herald and awaited an avalanche of enraged comments. He received 139 responses, 135 of them agreeing with him.
Likewise, champion sportsmen are admired. Those surprised that Sachin Tendulkar was given a standing ovation all the way to the wicket in his last appearance at the SCG misunderstand the country. Andrew Flintoff was another popular visitor. Australians respect generous, gracious and combative opponents. But they still want to beat them. It is the testing ground, and in that tradition inspires the strong and destroys the weak.
Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It
Feeds: Peter Roebuck
What sets the Australian brand of cricket apart?
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
He may not have played Test cricket for
England, but Peter Roebuck represented Somerset with distinction, making over 1000 runs
nine times in 12 seasons, and captaining the county during a tempestuous period in
the 1980s. Roebuck acquired recognition all over the cricket world for
his distinctive, perceptive, independent writing. Widely travelled, he now divides his time between Australia and South Africa.
Peter Roebuck : Last fortnight's column: Decline and fall
Sponsored Links
Western Union Instant Win Game
NoPurchaseNecessary. Subject toOfficial Rules
Buy Ashes merchandise - clothes, books, DVDs & more
At Cricshop
Get the right speed and online tools
Rogers Business Internet
No Minimum Balance NRI Account
Citibank
and get a calling card
I find it very disapointing that so many people have made uninformed judgments about Australians. Perhaps anybody who suggest we are a racially intolerant nation should visit Melbourne or Sydney to see fist hand the number of people of Asian, Arabic, Greek or Italian decent who live thier lives day in day out with the same level of equality of any "white" person. Just because John Howard got involved in a cricket debate, doesn't mean we all agree with him. I'm not denying that over the years a small number of our cricketers have been involved in regretable incidents, but a much larger number have been sportsman like role models. Gilchrist has walked with a world cup semi-final in the balance when the umpire had indicated not out. Shane warne has his own charity group raising money to help sick childeren. A number of Australian players past and present have been involved in extensive charity and community development programes. In summary, dont atack our nation, we havent atacked yours!
Posted by thatll_do on (December 22 2007, 11:14 AM GMT)To those who think that Peter R is a lover of Australian cricket, think again. As a regular reader I know that he is a voice of reason in our media. While local press often get carried away with good results and unfairly criticise opponents, PR will carefully dissect a game (or day's play) and hand out positives and negatives with fair reason. As a pom, his praise of the Aussies is hardly gushing and often seems to be through gritted teeth. We recognise that the team's current success can't last forever. But what is the problem with applauding their fine achievements now?? Incredible runs of test match victories, 3 straight limited overs World Cups. On and off the field this team has been exemplary. Any opinions to the contrary appear petty and filled with envy. RE Warne/Waugh, he said 'they were not much involved in the match-fixing scandals' - he was right. Pitch and weather reports? Dumb mistake but so what! People can say there was more to it, but there is no proof, end of story.
Posted by thatll_do on (December 22 2007, 10:53 AM GMT)I have seriously heard enough of these anti-Aussie feelings. To see sweeping negative generalisations about Oz is ridiculous - the high majority of tourists and residents love the place and people. Visit and you'll find out why. When it comes to our cricket team, I've never seen a group cop such an unfair rap. They are not arrogant, but confident. They show utmost respect for all opposition yet play an attacking style of cricket that is difficult to combat. They play to win and not to 'not lose.' There is some fire on the field, what decent fast bowler doesn't have that?? In terms of ugly incidents, there have been far fewer than many try to raise. The underarm v NZ was back in 1981 - this was the fault of ONE man and embarrassed every Aussie supporter. McGrath in WI - a shocker by a man who was experiencing very difficult circumstances at the time and totally overreacted (he later apologised). Sledging will likely lessen with Warne gone, but it is part of the game. Anyone can do it!!
Posted by Attitude11 on (December 22 2007, 06:19 AM GMT)I personally have taken a liking to Mr. Roebuck's work since the day I read his article titled "Batsman of his Age"about Sachin in the Sydney Morning Herald way back in 1996.while i again agree with most stuff said by him, I do think he put Australian sport way over. My question is simple. What happened to all this 'machismo' of Australian cricket when they had to face up to the mighty West Indies during the 80's? As far as Bodyline goes, it as an absolute disgrace when people, specially Englishmen themselves, go on rant against the Jardine. Yes, Australia were not responsible for Bodyline, maybe cos Don Bradman was not astute enough to come up with such a plan. When Shane Warne can bowl 2 feet outside leg stump and get batsmen out, then what is wrong with testing batsman against short stuff consistently, especialy when no such rule existed saying you could not? The current Aussie lot are tough, but without Warne and McGrath India will beat them and then we can hear Ponting whine.
Posted by Velocity150 on (December 22 2007, 03:39 AM GMT)As for those with no idea on Australian sporting achievements. Not as good as England in football? Haven't you realised England aren't in the top16 European teams and couldn't get passed a group with Russia, Israel and Croatia, the latter who Australia defeated in 2006. The comment about "getting walloped" in Hockey was the best, before the Champs Trophy 3 weeks ago (we came 2nd) we held all 3 major trophies. Athletics is one of our worst sports without a doubt, only ever have 1-2 world champs. Basketball - Women #1, Men only ~top10 Boxing - Many title holders. Cricket #1 Cycling - Track #1, Road - Can't quantify, Cadel Evans #2 TDF. Golf - Top5 easily, up there with US, Canada, RSA. Netball - #1 Rugby - Rubbish atm (#5?) League - #1 Swimming - #2 Surfing - #1 Tennis - Poor, many Davis cups but last one 5? Years ago. Last major 2002. Football - Only been professional here for 3 years. Commonwealth Games #1 Olympics #5 Per capita Australia is the #1 sporting nation in the world.
Posted by Velocity150 on (December 22 2007, 03:24 AM GMT)Skimmed the article as it was far too drawn out. Always enjoy reading the ignorant posters though. To the repetitive drones - Please don't believe you're in a position to comment on Australian sporting culture without having experienced it first hand for yourselves. Obviously there are culture differences which exist between different nations. I see the Australians as competitive, Indian's see it as bad sports etc that's well and truly understandable due to the uniqueness of the cultures. That's why you see fans from the subcontinent (and players for that matter) being critical of the Australian way of playing. On the other hand, the Barmy Army for example have the strong adoration for the way Australia plays cricket, why the English and Australian teams are always seen drinking with each other after matches. At social and amateur levels of all sport in Australia the attitude is much the same. Play with a passion on the pitch, and off it have a good laugh with friends and opposition
Posted by JasontheBray on (December 22 2007, 01:30 AM GMT)I am an Australian who plays cricket in the poorest team in the lowest grade of mens cricket in Brisbane. It's the kind of comp where the square leg is still puffing on a smoke when the bowler comes in. We have our laughs but most of the time games are played agressively with lots of talk and desire on both sides to win at any cost. In fact in every sport I've played since back yard cricket or football it is played this way - tough and to the death! Sure it leads to bitterness and nastiness from time to time but this par for the course. My theory is that for Australians it is not good enough to be in the game, nor is it good enough to be just competitive. WE WANT TO WIN AND DO IT IN STYLE! If it is possible we want to dominate. People may not like this but our sporting acheivements are beyond questioning. Soccer is our 5th most popular sport but at the last world cup we made the quater finals and got beaten at the death by the eventual world champions Italy. That is who we are!
Posted by Raman01 on (December 21 2007, 17:44 PM GMT)To redneck and all others, We all know that Australia is a better *overall* sporting nation than India. My only point is that the author's implicit claim that Aus is sort of greatest sporting nation, which is not true. In fact, I love the way Australian hockey team plays more than the way Europeans play (in my opinion, Aus hcky team plays with a subcontinental flourish with a great finish inside D). However, the cover-up of the match-fixing and drug scandals are well known. The author refuses to see the reality and always have overboard and false claims.
Posted by Madwino on (December 21 2007, 16:24 PM GMT)In response to longmemory. Firstly, I really despise people who so easily tar twenty odd million people with the same brush. Just as every other country in the world, Australia is not perfect, and it's start was certainly nothing to be proud of. Having lived there a good deal of my life I disagree with your assessment of deeply seated racist society. Some certainly are but in the main they are not. Secondly, I equally despise people who make statements as if they were fact when they are not fact. Batsman walking barely happens these days (certainly in internationals). Over the past couple of seasons the only one that springs to mind is an Aussie, Adam Gilchrist. Thirldly, the imperfections aside Australia does have a winning sporting culture that is both awesome and impressive. Peter Roebuck did well to convey that.
Posted by pdtyler on (December 21 2007, 15:02 PM GMT)i think the problem many (non australians) have with this article is not the trumpeting of australia's impressive sporting achievements, it is the tone of the article. almost every australian i have ever met has been friendly and funny but the australia depicted here by mr roebuck is clearly rose tinted, and his seeming hostility to other nations is quite baffling. 'Aghast parents are sending their sons to be educated in African boarding schools'... what does this mean? have australian children never been schooled outside of australia? 'England saw valour and the Australians found only the crushing of the spirit'... would this sentence have been the same had australia won that particular match? 'were not much involved in the match-fixing scandals'... you don't need me to point out how factually incorrect this is. i could go on. like many english cricket fans i have a great affection for the australian team, but the self-aggrandising tone of these comments left a bad taste in the mouth