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?