| The old and the new
Old habits die slow, or so they say... As world cricket enters a new centaury it seems obvious to many that the classic game which many of us grew up to know is now changed forever by the necessities of modern day commercialism and an ever-quickening drive towards efficiency and cold, hard professionalism. Gone are the overweight and slightly unstable characters of the game, and with them the lightheartedness off the sport. The meat pies, the binge drinking and larrikinism have all been left behind to the past, replaced it seems by hard work, fitness and technology controlled umpiring. Like all games, indeed all aspects of society, cricket has reflected the tone of our world and captured the things which we both loved and which we now feel ashamed of. First it was the "gentleman's game", played by the Keith Miller's and the Richie Benaud's, those classy, fair-minded and tuxedo clad men who we remember with fondness today. Then came the 70's and 80's, a time of bad hairdos and daggy clothing- how on earth we've managed to make a white shirt and pants change style every decade is beyond me-, the Lillee's, Botham's and all the other beer swilling, 'man's men' symbolized perfectly the innocence and laziness of their time. And now as we enter a new age of society and of sport, there are two questions which we must ask ourselves: Can we rely on the experiences and expatiations of past generations in order to give us guidance today? and perhaps more importantly, has cricket changed for the better or for the worse?
In years to come Steve Waugh will perhaps be remembered as a vital link between 20 years of international cricket. Waugh knew how to win the game, a classy batsmen and successful captain, he raised many eye-brows not just because of his success but also because of the way in which he and the Australian team achieved it. For many, the 'spirit of cricket' went out the window when Waugh became captain, replaced instead by an insatiable thirst for victory at any cost. As the Aussie onslaught rolled over almost every challenger with ease, complaints of sledging and what would previously have been thought to be un-fair play erupted.
At the same time questions of greatness were being asked by those who wondered if the 'dominators' could ever possibly be beaten. Were these players better than the great West Indies? Or were the likes of Mathew Hayden and Ricky Ponting simply feasting on the lack of real quality which now existed among modern day cricketers? Certainly it seems almost impossible to compare teams between generations. Weather Viv Richards could have handled Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath bowling in tandem, along with energetic and well drilled fielders circling around waiting for the kill is debatable, yet people will always enjoy speculating. Bias clouds the judgments of most of us, the general dislike for many Australian players and a feeling of nostalgia towards the great players of old has made many laugh at any idea Australia may have put up a challenge. Statistically there is no doubt that the WI of the 80's may have had their hands full, however this is countered by the argument that the standard of cricket has fallen. But has it really fallen that much? Players today have access to better facilities, top class coaches and technology to improve their skills. They are also fitter and more financially secure than their predecessors, so surely the standards can't have fallen too much? The answer is much more complicated than it sounds though. As we learn more about bio-mechanics and sports science we are beginning to learn that perhaps too much interference is hurting the game. Watch any video (or should I say DVD), of Don Bradmen or Keith Miller and you will instantly be able to pick out 'technical deficiency’s' in these players games. What scientists have shown though is that these err's in technique today have their own advantages as well as draw-backs. In any-case, who can argue with a batting average of 99?
Almost as if to prove this point, just take a look at some of the most important players in the Aussie team today and some of the younger players too. No better an illustration can be found than in Shaun Tait, the apparent heir to the new ball in the Australian attack. Tait came out of nowhere to bowl for the South Australian team... stuck with a C grade district side it was only by chance that he was found and now his un-orthodox action presents a new challenge to batsmen around the world. So are we over-coaching our youngsters? The same as international cricket itself, domestic and local cricket has become almost a business, generating more cash than it possibly needs and thereby allowing coaching programs and clinics to set out kids into casts. To be a bowler now days it seems that you must bowl like Brett Lee or Glenn McGrath, with efficiency and economy of movement. But these sorts of actions aren’t the same as those used by the Garner's, Thompson's and other great bowlers who had individual techniques.
The Age newspaper, reported a telling series of events in Queensland where the son of Jeff Thompson was told to alter his technique, which by chance was very similar to that of his father. More worrying was that it was Queensland authorities who tried to change it. Only thanks to the intervention of Dennis Lillee and his father was young Thompson’s action restored to its former effectiveness.
And what about selection wise? It wasn’t to long ago that to debut at the age of 31 would be considered a temporary move to plug a gap. Yet today we are seeing this long wait as an almost necessity for a top class player. With the advantages of science and a greater understanding of health care, players are gaining the ability to last longer and perform better in their positions, potentially stopping the progress of younger players who might benefit from the experience of first-class and international standard cricket.
I can't say that I've any answers to most of these questions, perhaps I'll write back to you in 2015. Until then enjoy the game as it is and not as what it was, could or should be.
__________________
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them!
Nietzsche
| 
21-11-2005, 07:14 AM
Linear Mode
