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
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.
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?
