Whose sports movie are we in anyway?

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I actually wrote 2/3s of this in the dark weeks after the 2015 World Cup but it remained unfinished.  After a conversation on the topic earlier this week, I remembered the unfinished post and realised it would make a useful Part 1 of question that is still relevant in this world cup: whose sports movie are we in anyway?  What you’ll read is largely taken from 2015 but with a few edits born of the luxury of a 2019 publication date.

PART I: TWO COMPETING NARRATIVES

Australia won the Cricket World Cup this year with a dominant performance in the final against New Zealand, winning by 3 wickets with more than 100 deliveries to spare.  The culmination of a long yet fascinating tournament in which the hosts dominated while favourites South Africa and India couldn't win key moments in their semi-finals.  The other major teams provided window dressing and the fans from England and Pakistan will feel especially disappointed as their teams showed no real imagination (4 years is a long time it turns out…).  The minor cricket nations made another good showing in the face of very real threats to remove them from future additions of the world cup.  We should wonder though if their success was simply against the tired strategies on display by the weaker top-8 teams; would they really ever challenge the kind of cricket on display by the likes of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India? (it seems the ICC took the latter, more cynical view).

As a New Zealander, the final was disappointing and just as much the manner of the defeat as the defeat itself.  I struggled to find a prism through which I could discuss the match but then remembered a depressingly amusing observation made by a good friend:

"damn it!  Turns out we were staring in the Australian Cricket World Cup movie and not the other way around - we're Iceland to their Mighty Ducks" D. Macaskill, 2015

We had a good laugh at the D2: the Mighty Ducks (1994) reference and in the following days traded various jokes about what a Cricket World Cup movie would look like.

What if you were to make a film about the World Cup?  You need to select a team, an angle, a hero, a villain, drama and action.  Well the World Cup had it all!

New Zealand: the 'Underdog" with a national population the equal to several Australian cities.  Facing off against the might of India and its billion-strong army of supporters (as well as its board of control that accumulates and exerts power over the game).  Or perhaps South Africa with their battery of fast bowlers and intimidating batsmen - they beat NZ 2-0 before Christmas and A B de Villiers 'stole' Corey J. Anderson's fastest-century record too.  What about Sri Lanka and Pakistan: combined they have knocked us out of FOUR semi-finals in my lifetime.  Every way you look the co-hosts are up against it this year!

Then you have the embattled captain: should he open the batting and face the wrath inherent therein, is he good enough?  The old, bearded veteran, and migrant from South Africa: Elliot, is he good enough to be in the side!  The old hand: Daniel Vettori, has he still got what it takes to compete on the biggest stage?  The Boult-er, Trent with barely a game under his belt (at the time).  The ailing hero/father-figure: Martin Crowe, on his deathbed, a survivor of campaigns past - will he make it to the final?  There is sport-movie-cliché gold in there, and just watch The Kick to see how easy it would be to mould a narrative together.  That's just the setup!

During the story you have the opening match in Christchurch, devastated by an earthquake a couple years before and the emotional but respectfully professional victory by NZ.  Brilliant performances against England and Australia (the latter would have made for a great Final), the Guptill double century after his questionable form in the 12 months before the tournament, and then the great semi-final performance in front of a packed house at Eden Park where Elliot smashes the winning runs to bring the noise and national support of the team to a crescendo.  No New Zealand team has ever made it to the World Cup Final!  Unfortunately, this is not just New Zealand's movie...

Across the Tasman an equally emotional and compelling tale unfolds to lift Australia from the void to the drunken heights of World Cup victory.  Philip Hughes' death at the beginning of the summer sucks the life out of a nation and Australia must show true character to go on, fight the fight and win the cup once again.  Even without this sad catalyst Australia yearns to redeem itself from a poor effort in 1992 (last time as hosts), and finally win one at home.  Michael Clarke: estranged captain, injury, arrogance, loss, distraction but still resolved to win.  David Warner: doing it for his mate Phil Hughes.

To balance the dramatic ledger of personal stories, one has the uplifting moments: Stark's transformation to international star, and Brad Haddin the old battler.  Australia even beaten by New Zealand (Iceland?) mid-tournament, the team licks its wounds but refocuses for the final act.  Then have everything put in proportion with the passing of Richie Benaud, one of cricket’s favourite son’s (or fathers depending on which generation you are) - perhaps Cricket World Cup 2015 is Australia’s movie.

A better movie would be to contrast the two narratives and in doing so comment on the changing spirit of both teams by tournament’s end.  While you have two perfectly compelling sporting stories in competition, let us be honest; sporting movies – as uplifting, moral tales of loss and success – are too often meaningless after you have seen a few others from the long tradition of the genre.  All the rough edges are sawn off to make way for bromance, cliché and tired metaphor.  Or you swing the other way and get a soup of cynicism like Any Given Sunday (1999).  I include examples of both in my list of favourite sporting films – but I believe there’s an honest point that can be made here.  The final scenes should conclude, that the Black Caps did not sell their soul in their quest for glory.  The story should convey their humility throughout the tournament – especially in defeat - to inspire current and future generations.  While respectful of the human place from which their story stems, the Australian half would subtly include the ugly side of what they achieve.  Everything from the selfish sideshow that is Clarke’s obsession to return to a team that didn’t need him, to the team’s shameful behaviour in the final.

The events to which my latter comment references rightly mark the final act of the story and the tournament itself.  The behaviour of Australia is not as shining example of a successful team, but a cautionary tale about what is NOT worth sacrificing in the pursuit of victory.  Any attitude or manner of play that manifests itself as the sledging and disrespect of a retiring champion – Vettori - is simply not cricket.  Such a player deserves a formal salute from a team of players whose more talented predecessors respected Vettori as a great cricketer and competitor.  The momentum already with Australia by that point in the innings - there is no excuse.  Haddin’s, hungover comments the following morning - their discomfort at being treated so hospitably in New Zealand - says all we need say about what the team has become, their soul laid bare for all to see in that moment.

The uplifting sporting lesson is the one where Brendon McCullum and his team lead a nation past disaster, through a tournament, and make us proud.  A moral victory in the end but in the grand scheme of things a moral victory is more important.

Catch my next post for Part 2: what is our narrative?

Checking in on greatness

Hello and welcome back to my blog – how long has it been!?

A World Cup is as good of a time as any to take up the pen again, but truth be told it is just the first time I’ve managed to combine my favourite mix of night-time relaxation: cold winter evening, live cricket, scotch and something about which I am inspired to write.  My return topic is really a sequel, long awaited like I am sure, to my July 2016 (and last) entry about Kohli, Smith, Root and Williamson.  I am pleased to find, as with the glass of Glendronach to my right, it aged pretty well…

“NOTE: although Kohli’s mastery of test cricket has not quite blossomed the same as the other 3, his mastery of limited-overs cricket is so far ahead that I believe he warrants inclusion.”

…well yes, I completely agree with myself on that one – there are few better feelings than vindication.  Anyway, with these four modern masters of batting in the four best teams at the current World Cup let us see how they’ve progressed.

In 2016 I tried to make the point that while they were all established as the top batters in the world, they all brought something different to that title and would face equally different challenges in the near future; namely leadership.  After almost three years I can say I was not wrong, but first to the stats!

Virat Kohli

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	42	3194	46.29	12
	2019	77	6613	53.76	25
ODIs	2019	229	10943	59.47	41

Steve Smith

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	41	3852	60.18	14
	2019	64	6199	61.37	23
ODIs	2019	112	3601	41.87	8

Joe Root

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	44	3804	55.13	10
	2019	80	6685	49.51	16
ODIs	2019	135	5479	50.73	15

Kane Williamson

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	48	4037	49.23	13
	2019	72	6139	53.38	20
ODIs	2019	142	5673	46.50	11

Kohli is the best batsman in the world at present and it is hard to get past that fact.  In the last three years he has increased his test average from good to great and scored 13 (many huge) centuries at home and abroad.  Last time I wondered whether he could emulate Tendulkar’s hunger for runs, and that has really been the key.  He has managed to transfer his ODI run-machine style to the longer format of the game, taken up the captaincy of a rampant Indian team that is winning overseas again, and only increased his run-scoring.  However, the element I admit that I was slow to appreciate is his hard work and resolve – it is not just talent or flat pitches - he succeeds based on an insane work ethic, the same with which he is also moulding his team.  At 30/31 he should still have another 4-5 years of great batting in him, but we already expect that – instead I cannot wait to see to what heights he can march his team.

Steve Smith is a different story altogether because while he has also taken his batting to new levels in test cricket, his leadership tenure was and should ever be marked as one of abject failure.  Smith appears to share Kohli’s ability to maintain (or improve) his batting performance while captaining his team, however unlike his Indian rival, his captaincy was a poor imitation of his predecessor in the role.  His regime (although that term suggests an image of authority he clearly didn’t have) was ended as a result of the cheating that went on in South Africa.  My words may be blunt but, with hindsight I do not tarnish him with the same brush as Warner, Haddin and Clarke (latter two were not involved in South Africa) who, in their public showings, appear to have no notion of the game’s core spirit.  No, Steve Smith’s leadership will be remembered for terrible judgement and the remarkable immaturity unveiled during the aftermath of that match and tour.  He may well go on to become Australia’s most successful batsman of the modern era but anyone who believes the definition of greatness lies beyond simple numbers should never again bestow him with it.

Root is a different case again, as his batting has declined in the last 3 years – just 6 centuries in 36 tests and an average that now sits under 50 which contrasts poorly with the others.  Root’s struggles may lie in mantle of English captaincy because, again unlike the others, he leads a side of aging players (some of whom debuted 3-4 captaincies ago!).  He is the youngest of the four so has more time to rescue his stats, but if the careers of Vaughan, Strauss, and Cook are any measure I would not hold out much hope.  I will, give him credit for the marked turn around in the English ODI team though, which is a new group and very much of his own creation since the disastrous 2015 campaign.  As a captain and batsman, he has created a juggernaut of one-day cricket to the surprise of many, and I will continue to admire his ability to match his throwback English style of batting with the needs of high-scoring modern cricket.

Lastly, we have our own Kane Williamson who has spent three years hoovering up NZ batting records and improved his batting stats nicely.  I would not say his rise has plateaued but there is a definite feeling of a flattening-curve to his personal form – perhaps more pronounced in his one-day form where he seems plagued with impressive 60s, 70s and 80s.  I would also question his captaincy nous – particularly at the beginning – as too much Vettori and not enough McCullum, but what maintains my hope is the fact that he is such a student of his own game.  We’ve seen him methodically improve his own batting in each facet, there’s no reason that he cannot do the same with his captaincy and develop into a brilliant tactician.

The four pillars of modern batting continue to play their cricket above everyone else’s heads, but to rank them on their own lofty plane is to examine their captaincy of their respective teams and how they inspire their comrades (or not) to match them – even if mere mortals may only glimpse that plane of existence for moments at a time.  I will come back to this in three more years no doubt, but hopefully with many more blog posts in between this time!

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now