Tomorrow, at the Gabba in Brisbane, Sri Lanka
and Australia will play the first Test of the newly-christened
Warne-Muralitharan Trophy series. (Yes, that's what it's called. What I'd like
to know is why the Australian name always comes first in those bilateral
series... Chappell-Hadlee, Border-Gavaskar, etc.) I have
refrained from commenting on Sri Lanka's tour so far, since I was waiting to
see how they'd fare in the warm-up watches. I waited because I understood the
grave importance of this series, not only for the balance of power in cricket,
but also for my own future enjoyment of the game.
See, I have a conflict of allegiances here. I
happen to be both pro-Sri Lanka and virulently anti-Australia, and I'm not sure
which of my positions should take precedence. That might not make a lot of
sense at first, since the two views seem perfectly complimentary, yet there is
a certain logic behind it. If we were to take this series in isolation, then
sure, I'm all for Sri Lanka, and will cheer for them every step of the way. But
looking at a cricket series in isolation is not only pointless, it is also
virtually impossible -- it would involve consciously erasing all previous
knowledge about the game from the mind, as well as any future hopes or
expectations. It would turn the game into a purely superficial spectacle,
devoid of the richness of history and narrative context that make cricket such
a fascinating game to follow. (And believe me, if mindless sensory thrills are
what I'm searching for, Test cricket would be waaaaayyyyy down on my list of
places to look.)
So what is the context of this series? What does it represent? The most obvious
(and important) point is that it will be the first series without Shane Warne
and Glenn McGrath leading the Australian bowling attack. This is no small
matter -- the two of them combined for more than 1,200 Test wickets, led their
team to international domination for almost a decade and a half, and virtually
destroyed the careers of countless players, from Jimmy Adams to Darryl
Cullinan to every Pakistani opener since 2000. They (Warne and McGrath) were the ying and yang of the Australian
Machine... one a blonde virtuoso playboy with a flair for the theatrical, the
other a pulseless country savant with cocked wrists and a ridiculous haircut.
On paper, they seemed like the oddest of couples, yet they complimented each
other on the field better than any pair this side of Jordan and Pippen.
Now they're both gone, and for the first time since, um... forever... Australia
go into a series with arguably the weaker of the two bowling attacks. Mitchell
Johnson has yet to play a Test, Brett Lee is older than he looks and has never
really dazzled in Tests, and Stuart Clarke is a glorified extra at best. (As
for Stewie McGill, let's just say that, like Shooter McGavin, Muralitharan eats
pieces of shit like him for breakfast.)
And yet, I have the strange suspicion that none of that will matter, since the
Sri Lankan batting looks so frightfully out of form. Normally, that wouldn't be such
a major concern, since the team has a good mental outlook and usually finds a
way to stay competitive in any contest through sneaky 40-run partnerships in the lower middle
order and dedication by the tail. However, this is Australia we're dealing with
here, and I don't think a bunch of quiet first-innings 280's will be enough to
deal with a batting backbone of Hayden-Ponting-Hussey-Gilchrist. It just seems
like too much of an ask. (Sangakkara's torn hamstring would generally piss me off, but it wouldn't really be a tour of Oz without some sort of punch-to-the-balls injury like that to the touring team.) Unless Murali and Malinga somehow come up with three or four freakish displays of Pantheon-level classic bowling, I don't think Sri Lanka have enough to win it.
Which is why, as much as it pains me to say it, I think the best hope for the future (a bright, just future, with competitive cricket played all around the world and no one team ever dominating all others) might be for Sri Lanka to lose this series somewhat comprehensively. If they go out there and play hard, keep it tight, never give anything away, test the Australians and make them work hard for every run and wicket... they'll probably still lose. But at the same time, they'd also be helping Australia immensely -- to move on after Warne and McGrath, to give the youngsters valuable challenges and experience, and to take mid-tier Test players (like Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds) to a whole new level. Australia would only come back stronger, and the chance for world cricket to turn over a new leaf would have vanished.
On the other hand, if Sri Lanka get pummeled two-nil, with Hayden and Ponting hitting unmemorable centuries and McGill bagging a couple of profligate 10-for's, nothing will have changed. The fans would get (even more) cocky and arrogant, McGill would stay in the squad, Bracken would stay out of it... and as a whole, Australia would gently let down its guard. Then, India can come in undetected and land the killer blow that would make the entire Australian cricket establishment see stars for months.
No, actually, you know what... I can't do it. There is no possible way I could cheer for Australia to beat Sri Lanka. (Especially after the scars of the World Cup final.) So I guess all that's left to do now, like Maggie's farmhand, is to fold my hands and pray for rain. May we see a dark cloud hover above the entire Australian eastern seaboard and make it pour down relentlessly for two weeks or so. Not only would it wash out both Tests in the series (more on the categorical idiocy of holding 2-Test series later), but it might also help alleviate the drought that's plagued the country for the past decade or seven.
You can't say I'm totally anti-Australia, after all.
Dude, i love the insights, and couldn't agree more. I'm hoping for rain too. 2 Test series need to forever be 'washed out'. And yeah, the longer Bracken stays out of that test team, the better. You gots to LOVE the Australian obsession with 'specialists' in each form of the game. Hell, it kept Symonds out of the test team for almost 6 years of his international career, and it kept Bevan out of the test team for the majority of his career. Brilliant.
Posted by: Joseph Rinella | November 07, 2007 at 10:19 PM
That's one thing that makes me hopeful for the future... the Australian selectors have shown themselves completely devoid of even a sprinkling of originality and ingenuity in their choices throughout the past decade. Thanks to the presence Warne, McG and Gilly, that hasn't affected them yet. But who knows how it will in the future.
Posted by: Outside The Line | November 08, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Yeah, you're right. Their idea of originality is bringing in Tait, to 'add variation'. And not naming Shane Warne captain was one of the worst selectors' decisions I've ever seen. The list goes on, but I don't think it's prudent to elaborate, after all, who knows who's reading this?
Posted by: Joseph Rinella | November 08, 2007 at 03:57 AM