Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

AUSTRALIA

Idealists don't own cricket

  • 20 January 2008

If one is forced to choose, idealism is preferable to cynicism. Unfortunately, idealists are prone to naïvete. The fuss over the behaviour of the Australian Cricket Eleven in its desperation to beat India at the Sydney Cricket Ground recently owes much to the idealistic — and perhaps anachronistic — attitude that many observers have towards the game.

Cricket is a microcosm of society and the furore over sportsmanship reflects the division of Australia into two classes — the venal, whose ultimate measure of success is the potential for profit, and the naïve, who believe in higher values. While insistence on the retention of sporting ideals is more than nostalgia for some mythical golden age, idealists cannot influence top-level sport unless they accept reality. As with so many important social institutions, top-level cricket no longer belongs to the people.

Cricket lovers would like to think that international cricket is just as much a sport as it ever was. At junior level, the old values of equal opportunity, patience, self-discipline and rejection of unfair advantage persist. In his novel Cricket Kings William McInnes created a team and a match that exemplified those values. Chris Anderson, captain of the Yarraville West Fourths preserves the best traditions of the game, and McInnes suggests the rest of society could do worse than to emulate the sporting spirit of the Saturday afternoon cricketer. At several points Anderson condemns racism as incompatible with the cricketing ethics he holds dear.

The survival of these traditions is a tribute to the coaches and parents who instil such values into young players. Children are unlikely to find great role models in star players as the media generally create idols for their own cynical, commercial purposes. Coaches must now teach their players to distinguish carefully between the abilities of national heroes and their behaviour. While junior cricket might retain traditional values, full-time national players are professionals who serve a different master. The separation is enforced by contracts that keep the stars too busy to participate at state, let alone club level.

All but the most naïve must accept that international cricket today is essentially a business. The pattern of creeping commercialism is similar in most sports.

In phase one, the traditional, players and administrators are amateurs. Far from being rewarded for their time, dedication and skills, they suffer financially because of their love for the game. The game prospers and