Outside The Line

Seconded Salutes

What JRod said.

A Post By Any Other Name...

Straight into my inbox this morning, courtesy of my good comrade LeftyJ:

Wow, so Thushara gets five wickets, and smashes 40 off 29 balls, and they give the M.O.M. award to Raina for his 76. Giving mom awards only to the winners is cricket's version of mvp awards only being given out to NBA players on teams with 50+ wins.

Tools.

And an amen to that.

Unless The Goal Is To Bankrupt Krusty the Klown, Why Bother?

They say the very least you can do is nothing.

A boycott usually achieves even less than that.

In practical terms, nothing is exactly what you do during a boycott, while still presenting yourself and your (in)action as principled and praiseworthy. The act of boycotting then becomes a symbol of status, since only the powerful can afford to boycott. The rest can only compromise and look the other way.

So we won’t say Outside the Line has been boycotting the Olympics (or the India v. Sri Lanka one-day series) because that might give the impression that we are seeking commendation for our actions.

The Olympics were not ignored due to any overriding ideological differences, or great moral convictions. Even though it’s fun to scoff as big, bloated, corporate megaevents, I'm still reminded that as a geeky sports-obsessed kid, I used to love IT every time the Olympics came around. Ideally, it's easy to see the appeal of such an event -- to reward athletic achievements inclusively and comprehensively, expose the viewing public to still frames of an ever changing world and its inhabitants, and to highlight excellence in one of the only facets of life where it can be objectively measured.

Too bad it degenerates into a UN-styled version of a midnight parking lot dick-measuring contest.

This year’s Olympics were billed as China’s coming out party, the belated release of decades of collective humiliation and shame, manifesting itself in the most intricate Opening Ceremony in Olympic history. 

What did they give us? A spectacle, no doubt, but one with distinct mid 20^th-Century overtones to it. Militaristic nationalism rising to inflate the collective ego and threaten competing egos in the vicinity. Triumph of the Will aesthetics and layer upon layer of airbrushed symbolism. (Oh, and a little girl who was not cute enough to protect the "national interest".)

That doesn’t really impress us. In the 21^st century, what the hell does the ability to control and mobilise a vast array of people prove? What, is China planning to invade Mongolia? Russia? (The Party functionaries are probably too busy working out how to stay in power to bother with useless, costly exercises like war.)

You know what would’ve been impressive? If they used the Olympics as an opportunity to embrace technological development and innovation, and shown us a glimpse of a bright, interconnected future, one where China is at the forefront of thought and development.

Imagine if they had set up a state-of-the-art online interface, allied to a great website (launched on 08/08/08) loaded with data, providing access worldwide, with streaming feeds of every event, available to be picked and chosen by the individual anywhere in the globe, with clear guides for times and locations. (These feeds could’ve also been interspersed with tourism ads and short pieces about Chinese history and culture, or something along those lines.)

But no, they’re still too busy trying to censor Wikipedia, so a working model for free access and coverage is just too much to ask at this point. All we get instead is the typical jingoistic coverage of local providers. In New Zealand (thanks to the worthless cockmonkeys at TV One) that meant ignoring every single men’s basketball game (including the US v China group match, arguably the most watched sports event in history) up to the gold medal game, and then only showing 40% of that final, on delay.

And you know what? That's cool. It’s not a dig on New Zealand as such. I know every country does it, every time. And they probably do it because that's what the populace demands. And that, right there, is where the problem lies.

The fact that we’re still treating the nation-state as some irreducible unit of identity. That we still have these pesky, annoying lines drawn on the dirt generations ago serving to define us, and control us, and keep us docile and atomised. (Self-determination may be the rallying cry, but who defines the self?) That conception of the world has little to do with me, or this blog, and anyone involved with. It’s backward looking and willfully ignorant.

I don’t give a shit about how Kiwi athletes do. (Or American athletes, or Chinese athletes, or athletes from Burkina Faso, for that matter. Flags, uniforms and anthems are mere branding tools, no more or less legitimate than the logos and team songs of the New York Yankees, Red Star Belgrade, or the Kolkata Knight Riders.)

I care about great athletes, and terrible athletes, and interesting athletes. Because I'm a sports fan.

I don’t, however, take any pride in their accomplishments -- I wouldn't feel entitled to, having done nothing to assist them -- and I don’t feel like they  represent me in any way.

There is no “we” in sports following. We didn’t come 4^th or 7^th or 89^th in the medal tally. We didn't exceed pre-Games expectations. We didn’t beat the Russians in gymnastics.

We are merely gawkers at the sight of someone else’s excellence.

If we wish to celebrate that excellence, our praises should be targeted at the individuals, at the teams, and at the coaches. Not at ourselves or the symbols of our imagined communities.

[As for the one-day series between India and Sri Lanka, that was ignored for much simpler reasons… it’s a rerun. Those same teams played just last month, in the same format, and Sri Lanka won. Case closed. Much like Gareth Keenan, we don't do sloppy seconds.]

Sleepy Growls At The Easy Swoon

You ever seen a bear coming out of hibernation in the spring? It looks sprightly, and eager, and wicked skinny, with flaps of loose skin hanging down like old labia from his every quarters.

I was hoping to come out like that at the end of the winter -- yet another miserable, blustery one for the Kiwi books -- fresh and ready for new sights and new adventures; a springtime of body and mind. I didn't feel like being bothered before that. Sometimes, though, noises outside the den rock your sleep and force you to begrudgingly get up and check out the commotion.

Noises like this Guest Column on cricinfo, after the conclusion of South Africa's Test series against England...

I suppose I could count as a fierce Smith critic, since I have attacked him numerous times for his many sins. So is Houwing right? Is this the end of the road? Is there nothing left to do than kneel at the Capt'n's feet and repentantly accept his highly load?

Um, how about... no?

I understand that journalists, commentators, and those in the loop all love Graeme Smith. They can barely hide their chubbies under their pants half the time. And it makes sense. He's jovial and gregarious. He jokes with them.  Gives them good quote. Makes them feel like they belong. (He's even got the hot blonde girlfriend with no reservation about parading her hotness around in public). I get all that. If you wanted to have a cricketer over for a barbeque, Smith'll probably be the one.

But what exactly am I supposed to "salute" the guy for? For his team winning a series against a mediocre, has-been English squad? His 2nd-ranked team (which apparently also houses a better all-rounder than Garry Sobers) beating the 5th-ranked team, a team whose spearhead for the series was James Anderson, and who at one stage shared the new ball with Darren fuckin' Pattinson?! Get serious.

Oh that's right, it's because South Africa's first victory in hallowed English soil 43 years, right? That's why it's such an event. Brave King Graeme, conquering territory uncharted since 1965...

Well, not quite. Twenty-five of those years were covered by apartheid, so it doesn't seem fair to include them as part of the "legacy of loss" which Smith apparently inherited. (By that logic, we could also claim that South Africa went undefeated for a quarter of a century, and have suffered one of the most vicious continued declines, comparable to that of the West Indies, for almost two decades since.)

Even after readmission in 1992, though, it's not as if South Africa have performed that badly while touring England. They drew twice (in 1994 and 2003), and lost only once (1998) by a one game margin. Are these unbearable crosses to bear? Hardly. If Smith wants to impress, he can try beating the Aussies or the Sri Lankans on their turf. Then I'll listen.

But okay, fine, I guess England is somehow relevant in the grand scheme of things because, um... it's old. (And that oldness tradition, after being unabatedly pumped into cricketers' heads since childhood, can start to screw with their minds, cause them to feel an added level of pressure and make them a tad more likely to fail when playing against said old foe.)

So basically Smith & co. managed to not lose a series they should've been favoured to win from the start. Congratulations, boys, you didn't choke for once. Want a parade?

As for Smith himself, I'll credit him for his innings at Edgbaston. I have no problem with that.  To score an unbeaten century in the fourth innings while chasing 280 is an impressive feat under any conditions, and I'll be glad to applaud anyone for their batting prowess in a situation like that. Great knock.

But that's a mere batting feat, and the credit it deserves is purely on terms of batsmanship, of the same kind as Ashwell Prince's two very Chanderpaulesque centuries and Neil McKenzie's 500-ball extravaganza to guarantee the draw at Lord's. It doesn't deserve any greater praise because it comes from Smith, or from whoever happens to be the captain.

[N.B. The idea of a "captain's innings", incidentally, is another one of those cricket clichés that is hollow to the point of meaninglessness. Isn't every innings played by a captain, by definition, a "captain's knock"? If it isn't, then what quality does it possess that differentiates it from a regular good knock? Is there a certain kind of good innings played by a captain that does not qualify for "captain's innings" status? Why does a quality innings that just so happens to be played by a captain apply to a rarefied level of achievement?]

"Hopkins, Chill Out... How Do You Know They're Booing Yooouu?"

APPLICANT'S NAME:
Outside the Line

TODAY'S DATE:
August 3rd, 2008

APPLICATION FOR THE POSITION OF:
Coach of the New Zealand Cricket Team (Black Caps)

It wouldn't be an Outside the Line entry if it wasn’t slightly too verbose, somewhat beside the point, and delivered on the nick of time, right? Well, we’re here to please. As the fourth- or fifth- most prominent New Zealand-based cricket blog, it feels almost like a duty to present at least a token application for the position. Thanks to JRod for creating the groundswell of support and interest in this nominating process.

So why Outside the Line? It seems like an odd choice, doesn’t it? Even though I’ve lived in New Zealand for the better part of four years now, I don’t think I’ve written more than a handful of posts about NZ cricket in that time. I remember there was one about Stephen Fleming’s retirement, and ode or two to Scott Styris and Brendon McC, some disparaging remarks about the Black Caps’ faceless middle order, but little beyond that.

(I don’t think I’ve even mentioned John Bracewell’s name once. Meanwhile, “Shooter McGavin” comes up at least three times in my searches.)

And that, right there, is precisely what makes OTL supremely qualified for the gig. It’s that understanding of the realities on the ground; the pragmatic air of indifference; and the ultimate acceptance of the utter irrelevance and meaninglessness of the gig itself.

Seriously, what can a new coach possibly do to improve Kiwi cricket? Will a new coach bring Shane Bond back and give him another 2-3 years in his prime? Will a new coach grant Kyle Mills an extra 10 kph of pace? Will a new coach find a way to bend the space-time continuum so that Chris Cairns’ son would be old enough to fill in the allrounder spot solely reserved for members of his family?

Let’s face it: it’s not bad coaching that has kept New Zealand from achieving any great honours in cricket… it’s bad demographics.

Take a look around this little country sometime -- by my count, it seems there are about 67 people in the entire South Island, and I’m sure at least 33 of those are out in the rain this very moment, practicing rugby line-outs on a muddy council pitch.

(A quick Wiki search tells me that New Zealand ranks 122^nd in population and 204^th in population density in the world, nestled somewhere between Ireland and Lebanon in the former rankings and Paraguay and Sudan in the latter.)

There is just no way a country like that can expect to compete with behemoths like India, especially in a sport like cricket that magnifies slight differences in talent and infrastructure. The fact that New Zealand has managed to do so damn well thus far should already be a reason to gasp in awe and celebrate. They are a team full of well-disciplined overachievers who should be encouraged to just keep on doing whatever it is they’ve been doing so far.

                                                                   *** 

So as far as matters of performance on the field, OTL wouldn’t propose any real changes. The only tweaks we could suggest are more conceptual than anything else.

• For instance, more of this is good…
  

  

  In fact, anything that accentuates the rivalry with Australia is a positive, since New Zealand will always come out as the emotional folk favourite. The plucky upstart with the sense of humour and the Pacific Island influence, battling the big, bloodless bully with all the riches from across the Tasman.

• The beige and brown combo of the uniform definitely works for retro comedy purposes, but I think I like the opportunities black provides for forming a team identity. Studies show that teams dressed in black regularly face an unconscious officiating bias in American football and hockey, leading to more fouls and penalties for aggressive behaviour being called against them during the game.
  
  Maybe New Zealand should see that as an opportunity… and come back as a bad-ass, anti-hero team, of the Oakland Raiders in the 1970s mold. Behave badly, break norms, disrupt, get suspended, banned – what’s Jesse Ryder up to these days, anyway? – and, you know, get people on their toes. Do the Haka before taking the field. Roast wild pigs in a hangi pit just outside the boundary ropes. Let the Mongrel Mob handle security at the grounds. Hand out free Chappell brother effigies to burn joyously under the crisp summer night.

• In fact, that might well be priority no. 1…
  
  Make sure no one, EVER, forgets the Underarm Incident. It should be brought up at all possible times, even when it has nothing to do with the conversation. (“Say, what horrible weather we are having today, gentle sir.” “Verily, my good man, but not nearly as black as Greg Chappell’s soul.” “Mmm, quite.”Or something like that… I was never much good at dialogue.)

• Oh, and since it’s worked out pretty well for Zimbabwe so far… guess who else has a vote at the ICC that’s up for sale to the highest bidder? That’s right, New Zealand is ready to be wooed again, and she can prove very, ahem, “accommodating” of the winning bloc of nations at the ICC, if you catch our drift. Will it be the Asian bloc? The white bloc? See, all this talk of blocs is getting her all hot and flustered already…
  
  
• For any further ideas on management, we'll just draw from those who know what they're doing...