- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I wrote on this site not too long ago that to expect cricket to have changed in the wake of Phillip Hughes’ passing was nothing more than wishful thinking.
To this end, the comments made by BBC Test Match Special commentator Jonathan Agnew left me feeling a touch uneasy and, to be blunt, missed the point somewhat.
“Michael Clarke said very clearly that Hughes’ memory would run through the team, and would be in the way they would play their cricket.
“Cricket has gone too far. It shouldn’t be posturing, abusing. I know there has been a lot of bad blood between Australia and India for some years now, but it was an opportunity. I have that Michael Clarke speech tucked away ready to throw at the Australians. If this is really how you feel, then let’s see how you play.
“The bouncer shouldn’t be banned. Hitting batsmen, I’m afraid, is part of the game. But it’s the histrionics, the nonsense, the prancing, the in-your-face nastiness. It’s become accepted, and actually it’s not acceptable at all.
“The comments Michael Clarke made, I thought, summed up how people felt at the time about the way that cricket should be played. The onus is on Australia to lead the way, and for others to grasp the opportunity… we owe it to Phillip Hughes.”
Not to say that I disagree completely with what Agnew had to offer; his point about some of the antics being unacceptable is spot on, but it’s the implied collaboration between Hughes and how the recently concluded series was conducted that sticks.
Fellow columnist Jason Gillespie’s defence of sledging being the act of competitive sportsmen may be simplifying the matter to a certain degree but it’s true. It will never go away and while any control on the field of play has to be in the hands of the officials, the idealistic view preached by some, and Agnew in this case, is naïve.
A couple of points arise here; why is sledging going to disappear? What has it got to do with the tragic events of late November? The answers, should anybody need guiding in the right direction are; it isn’t; nothing.
The use of Clarke’s eulogy from Hughes’ funeral looks a lot like making five from two plus two. It could be interpreted in this way if a particular angle was sought – as is the case in the aforementioned quotations – but the argument could be made without any reference to Hughes.
The topic of on-field behaviour is a separate entity and to shoehorn it into the conversation at this stage and in this manner is opportunistic, an act of which a politician would be proud. If offence is the goal then offence will be found.
Did Clarke mean what Agnew says? I would argue not, and Hughes’ memory can exist regardless of how they choose to go about their business, be it passively or the opposite.
The opportunity to clean things up, as Agnew refers to, has always been there but it has yet to be grasped and it shouldn’t take an individual incident to sharpen the focus.
And the holier than thou tone is uncalled for. Unseemly behaviour isn’t the preserve of the Australians or Indians; it’s a game-wide trend and lets not pretend otherwise.
What will come from this episode is unclear. The Australians will not take too kindly to the comments, and understandably so, and no moral high ground will be claimed where there is none to be earned in the first place.
At some stage, it could be next week or it could be in 10 years time, those with any kind of power will have to sit down and come up with a plan to calm the more unruly aspects that come to the fore every now.
But putting the Australians on a pedestal and stating it is for them – ‘The onus is on Australia to lead the way’ – to change their ways as they happened to be unlucky enough to have to deal with the fallout of a collective sadness is wrong.