In a victory for predictability, Australia last night retained the World Cup, after defeating India in the final at Johannesberg's Wanderers stadium.
Cynics have been heard to mutter “big deal”, and well they might, after Australia posted their highest ever one-day international total, captain Ricky Ponting broke the record for the highest individual score at a World Cup and the Indian opposition folded, as had every other opponent in this World Cup, despite the late threat of rain.
For the Australians, it was a display of firepower that eerily echoed the so-called “shock and awe” tactics being used by Western forces in Iraq (see Paul Mitchell's The War On Cricket for a deeper analysis of the Australians' strategy).
Australia's domination of the game is illustrated by its perfect win-loss record in this tournament and while it is painful to say so, they seem threatened by no-one. This bodes well for the forthcoming tour of the West Indies but perhaps not so well for anyone else in the cricketing world.
That the war on Iraq has now started adds a realist tinge to Australia's fairytale run in South Africa. For while the green and gold “warriors” dance around on the pitch, singing “Beneath the Southern Cross”, compiling CDs of great Australian cricket songs (did anyone notice Warnie's choice of Vanessa Amorosi?), their military counterparts are involved in an illegal and immoral war.
The war analogy has been used before in cricket and it should not surprise us that it has gained another airing now on the World Cup stage. To speak of the complicity of our cricket team in this war may be drawing a long bow – and yet Brett Lee's campaign of fast-paced bombardment, Ricky Ponting's merciless string of projectile sixes, even Andy Bichel's coming of age as a tenacious hand to hand fighter suggest a similarity of intent, for all the difference in effect.
The only truly hopeful revelation of this World Cup from an Australian point of view was the behaviour of Adam Gilchrist. Having been forced to make way for Ponting as, ahem, Waugh's vice captain on the upcoming Carribbean tour, one might have expected Gilchrist to let off a little steam.
Not so. The talented wicket-keeper and left hander first showed his true colours when he spoke with Andy Flower, the Zimbabwean batsman who had conducted a black-armband protest at his government's illegality (and at the expense of his career). Gilchrist then shocked the world by walking, having been adjudged not out by the umpire in the semi final against Sri Lanka.
My suspicion is that Gilchrist is seeking a plum job in the administration, and more power to him. We need diplomats, noble acts and dignity now more than ever. Here's hoping some poet finds enough inspiration in his performance to produce a few lines of praise, in the spirit of peace.
make cricket.
It is difficult to formulate a response to such a banal piece of writing. The analogy between cricket and war has not been made out, the author him/herself acknowledging the 'long bow' that s/he uses to try and justify one. Cricketers can not be 'counterparts' to the Australian army, just as the Australian forces are not counterparts or allies of John Howard. Perhaps some of the soldiers are, but I really don't know.
I have not heard anyone say 'big deal' in relation to this quite marvellous world cup win, in such trying circumstances (the losses of Warne and Gillespie and the controversy over playing in Zimbabwe). I would have thought that such a collosal score and a captain's century are admirable achievements.
The clear thrust of this article is that Australia's cricketers are somehow illegal and immoral, like the war in Iraq. As a regular reader I find it unfortunate that cordite would publish such, well, indie/undergrad-style bullshit.
I should point out to the author that Australia came very close to losing to both England and New Zealand earlier in the tournament.
The author is the cynic, so caught up in the triumphalist and aggressive 'no war' fever, that s/he can't think straight.
I don't want a war either, but I don't want people calling our triumphant cricketers soldiers. You might as well call the Australian armed forces world champion cricketers.
Also, Amorosi was spelt incorrectly.
hear hear sam aggressively make cricket peace not war. more war is the last thing anything needs.
Hi Nick, Sam,
thanks for your comments. I should have made it clear that the author of the article is myself.
In any case, I am glad it provided stimulation on an otherwise “banal” day.
David
hi david well i guess we were all tired and emotional after watching the final on sunday night. it was disappointing that tendulkar disappeared so quickly but the australian mojo was just too powerful- something to behold. i havent had a chance to check out the cd yet, but i know its very exciting (and at times amusing) to go to a one day game and hear the players songs as they come in to bat- im not sure if this could be captured in a recording.
Yes Nick,
it is hard to accept that it is all over. I am, however, looking forward to the West Indies tour. If anyone is planning to go, we'd be very interested in talking to them about filing match reports …
For me, the interesting aspect of the cricket/war analogy is this: both sport on the national level, especially televised sport, and wars (illegal/immoral or otherwise) which are of course also televised, have as part of their agenda a fantasy of unity – they both aim to create & sustain large markets (for both politicians and for tv networks & advertisers), in both cases based around the nation – ie. “we” Australians – so is it possible to support the Australian cricket team and then not support the Australian soldiers? Or, can one buy into one fantasy of unity (proud of “our” cricketers) & reject another (ashamed of “our” soldiers)? ….