Double-click on any word and see its definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online.

Return to blog

What can a Pommie Australian say about this series, other than that I will always be on the winning side!  What a cop out, where is your heart? Am I not stirred by seeing one's country perform in this extraordinarily English invention which no other nations (other than a few ex British colonies) can either understand or appreciate?  Well yes and no and yes I can and do - because both are my country.  I do very much like the Englishness of cricket (despite Packer's interventions) and I do like to take the piss when with English friends, but am somewhat chastened by my Aussie mates who consider me a Pom.  But I also enjoy the aggressiveness and competitive nature of the Australians.  So I sit on the fence and can freely support the winner while enjoying the game (maybe a definite Pom at heart).

Well my heart at the moment does go out to the English, entering the third day of the third test with Australia only wanting a third win (good things come in three's) to win the Ashes and turn a temporary phenomenon (England winning any sporting event) into normality (Australia winning all sporting events). Can England summon the will, the determination, the energy, the guts, the backs to the wall spirit of 1940 to turn this game around. Frankly NO.

A friend of mine (an Australian) who played grade cricket for NSW and captained a Kent county side in the UK for a couple of seasons in the 80's, once observed: the English play cricket for the game, the Australians to win. While this little adage has lost some of its currency and England in all sports across the board are more competitive generally, the legacy remains. Namely, when it comes down to the wire, they bottle out: they cannot perform in front of goal in international penalty shoot outs, they cannot convert tries when the need is desperate and they will not defeat Australia in test series. Thus they will lose their temporary possession - the Ashes after all represents the death of English cricket - and will remain about number 4 or 5 on the international cricket ladder. What a shame! But is it? What is going on here? Are we expecting too much from the mother country?

To explore this question we have to go back to the origins of the many games which the English (sorry British) have brought to the world and popularised (even though they may not have been the originator) and examine this legacy. These so called games include: association football, rugby union and league, cricket, croquet, tennis (although the Chinese also lay claim to this), Badminton, lawn bowls, hockey.... there are numerous others. What was it that the English had in mind when these games were "invented"? A GAME! A social event to titillate and engage people, to divert from the pressures of (often) the court. These events are first and foremost - games of cricket, football, union etc. While this attribute is not recognised by Australians (even at primary school level) nor increasingly by the British, influenced as they are by the lure of mega quids and bucks, it is nevertheless a fundamental underpinning of the English culture and its way of life: thus we have the expressions in the ENGLISH language - "it simply isn't cricket" or "play the game" or "it's all in the game" etc, etc to depict desirable cultural characteristics. Moreover, there is a belief in this ideology. Cultural anthropologists have opined that a nation's culture can take numerous generations to change and with the English this is likely to extend to millenia because the English generally consider their way of life and culture to be right, the best, the one to be imitated and emulated (hence the British Council). So, the will to win (at sport) and the "killer instinct" so revered by and necessary to sports people who succeed and aspire to the pinnacle of their profession, is often absent in the English sports person (at least to the degree necessary for sustained performance). A generalisation it is true as there are clear examples of the contrary (Botham, Martin Johnson, possibly Freddie Flintoff) but a swallow does not make a summer and if all the team are not so committed, then one man cannot hope to sustain their team constantly, especially in the case of a cricket test over a potential 25 days. To examine this sublimated aggression, take an example from yesterdays proceedings at the WACA - one member of the Australian side. A new (old) man reintroduced into the side: Andrew Symonds (born in Birmingham England by the way). Just one of 11 but what prowess as a fieldsman, what a commitment, what an athlete! Nothing got past him, he was always waiting, ready, anticipating the flight of the ball when it came his way - like a cat ready to pounce on an unsuspecting mouse and with the same dexterity and energy. Did we see this in the English field? The difference could be put down to competition for places, so much greater to get into the Australian side. But is it this alone?. I don't think so, there are other reasons and one of these relates to history and culture. Ask yourself, who in the English side apart from Flintoff shows any real aggression? Surely it is Pietersen and he is South African.

So, will the Poms win this match? No.  Will Australia regain their rightful possession? Yes.  Should we be surprised? No.  Is there anything the Poms can do about it? No.  Is there any point in watching any more cricket - well yes IF you like the game for itself and are not obsessed by the outcome.  This antidote to life is after all why we like to be so diverted and indeed need to be from time to time - so enjoy!

Return to blog