When they told the writer John O’Hara that George Gershwin had died, he wrote in a memorable column: “They tell me that George Gershwin is dead. But I don’t have to believe it if I don’t want to.”
I feel the same way about the great New Zealand cricketer, Martin Crowe.
His death has been announced. But I don’t believe it. To me, if only in my mind’s eye and memory, he will always be alive as I conjure up images of his elegant and imperious batting.
I can see as if it were yesterday being at the Basin Reserve in Wellington and watching Crowe belt an attack, it could be an eager England bowling squad, to all parts of the ground.
There he is, tall and chunky, as good looking as his film star cousin Russell, Edwardian in his mannerisms and method, as he plants his front leg down the pitch and with an arcing sweep of the bat sends the ball racing to the picket fence in front of the RA Vance Stand.
The next ball is short and just outside the off stump. He is on the back foot. He waits for the ball to reach the apex of its rise and then with a short, emphatic jab of a horizontal bat, he sends the ball whizzing past cover and into the pickets.
The perspiring bowler drops the ball in short again. This time, Crowe rocks back, waits for the ball to reach his jaw line and swats it away to the far boundary on the leg side.
Neville Cardus once described how Charles Macartney, the ‘Governor General’ of Australian batsmen, “dismissed the ball from his presence”.
My memories of Martin Crowe’s batting, from watching him live at the Basin Reserve and the SCG and on TV on famous cricket grounds around the world, is that there was the same masterful “dismissing the ball from his presence” aspect to his batting.
Crowe’s batting statistics are impressive. He played in 77 Tests, averaged 45.65 with the bat, scored 17 Test centuries (a New Zealand record) and 18 half-centuries. This is a very significant conversion rate. In 1999, he shared a 467-run partnership with Andrew Jones, at the time the highest partnership in Test cricket.
In all first cricket, he averaged 56.02 with the bat. This is among the highest first-class averages in cricket (although hardly Don Bradman-like but whose average is?).
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics can tell us how many runs a batsman made. But they don’t tell how they were made. And this is the critical factor with Crowe. He never scored an inelegant run. Every stroke was a thing of beauty, even his defensive strokes.
If he had played in the days of ancient Greece, sculptors would have been attracted to the line of beauty he created when he moved into his shots.
“A thing of beauty is a joy forever,” the poet Keats wrote in a verse that we all learnt as schoolkids in the days when poetry meant something and learning it was regarded as a crucial part of a good education. Martin Crowe’s batting was always a thing of beauty.
To my mind, he combined the textbook elegance of a Colin Cowdrey or a Tom Graveney with the ferocious appetite for scoring runs of a Steve Waugh or an Allan Border.
I will always remember his 299 for New Zealand against Sri Lanka as an example of his penchant for combining the best of the English and the Australian batting traditions.
When he needed only one more run for his magical 300, he was bowled a short ball outside his off stump. Instead of thumping it for yet another four, he carefully steered (or tried to steer) the ball to third man through a vacant slip area.
His nick was caught by the wicket-keeper. And here’s the thing. Crowe marched off the Basin Reserve in a torment of frustration and rage.
He had blown his first and last chance of reaching 300-plus runs in a single innings in a Test. He knew it. And he was furious with himself.
I think that this anger and frustration at missing out on perfection was the main fault, the only real fault, in Crowe’s batting. You sometimes got the feeling that his quest to play the perfect innings meant he lost interest in an innings if, early on, he had hit a catch and been dropped.
There was a tendency, perhaps, to theorise too much about a craft. Batting is more than just making runs: it is effectiveness, solving problems posed by bowlers and pitch and most important of all, making the most of any mistakes or let-offs from your opponents.
You sometimes felt that Crowe was only interested in perfection. He should have remembered that Japanese master potters always put a small mistake in their works. Why? Because perfection is boring.
It is the occasional imperfections in a master batsman’s play that make his mastery for hours on end so interesting and so compelling to watch.
If only Crowe had learnt this lesson early in his career, as he did later in his life after the cruel lymphoma ravaged his body and ultimately killed him. How much freer he would have been in his mind and, as a consequence, how much freer and even occasionally playful his batting might have become.
I played grade cricket in Wellington against Crowe’s dad, Dave. Dave was a tough, hard-to-dismiss, prodding nuisance of a left-handed opener. He was opiniated and knowledgeable. I remember having a long discussion with him years after our battles on the cricket field about various theories and practices of cricket.
One opinion, I remember, Dave Crowe was staunch on was his belief that lbw should be allowed to include balls snicked on to the pads.
Martin Crowe inherited his dad’s gift for forthright views about cricket, the players, his own career, his life and his struggles with his health. If he had been spared a remission from his ‘friend’ lymphoma, he would have become one of the great voices in the world of writing about cricket.
He became less opiniated, less like his dad, as he grappled with the mysteries of his illness and the meaning to his life that the cancer forced him to contemplate.
A couple of years ago Crowe attended the MCG to watch the New Zealand Black Caps play Australia in the final of the World Cup. “My precarious life ahead may not afford me the luxury of many more games to watch and enjoy,” he wrote on ESPNcricinfo. “So this is likely to be it. The last, maybe, and I can happily live with that.”
In life, it is not how you handle the good times that defines you. It is how you cope with adversity and the hard times that tells everyone what sort of a person you are.
Martin Crowe revealed that he was a person of substance in the brave way he handled his cancer by standing up to it and not yielding to it, in the same manner he did at the crease to the best bowlers from all over the world.
One of the intriguing aspects of cricket is that it is a game whose metaphors are centred around death. Batsmen hear the ‘death rattle’ when the ball hits their stumps. They ‘depart the scene’ as they walk off the ground back to the pavilion. They carry their gear in their ‘coffins’.
But because the game is ferociously documented, televised, photographed, and written about, players like Crowe remain in the records of the game with the singular blessing they are forever young, forever in their prime.
Vale Martin Crowe. The highest praise I can give you is to say, I loved to watch you bat.
up in the north
Roar Rookie
Nicely written.
Johnno
Guest
Important stat this one. 58.46 Crowe's average in Tests between 1985 and 1991 - the best for any batsman with at least 2500 runs in the period. Crowe made 3391 runs in 66 innings in those six years. His 12 centuries in that period also were the most by any batsman, bettering Allan Border, Graham Gooch and Richie Richardson who made 11 centuries each. Crowe's average never reached 30 till his 21st Test match and the average in his last seven Tests was less than 20 as well. He averaged 56.20 in those 50 Tests between his 20th and 71st Test, and made 16 centuries. -Now imagine if Crowe got the chance to play in 5-test series, like AB. Miandad never got many 5-test series either. And in today's terms 56 would be a batting average of around 63-65 in today's game. Injuries hampered him in the last few years of his career, but AB also faded when he was near the end, as did Ian Botham so that all evens itself out. - 12 test hundred between 1985-91 most by any batsmen. Imagine if he got the chance to play 5-test series e.g. in NZ, he'd carve up. His average of 114.00 in that World Cup is the best by a batsman in a single World Cup scoring 400 or more runs. The Nine fifty-plus scores by Crowe in World Cups are the most by any New Zealand player.
Johnno
Guest
The Bush Martyn racked up tests in an era when more test cricket was played, than both Crowe and AB. And as someone else pointed out Crowe never got the luxury of a 5 test series, and some of his averages were very good in 3 test ones imagine if he got the chance over 5.
Fadida
Guest
Great article
Dontcallmeshirley
Guest
Thanks TB, all good points - I never thought for a moment you were trying to denigrate Crowe's achievements
The Bush
Roar Guru
Dontcallmeshirley, None of this is meant to, in anyway, denigrate Crowe's achievements. You raise some interesting points about the pitches and what, if any, impact this would have had. I suppose the counter argument is that I'd have rather faced the Windies on NZD's slower decks than in Australia... As one argument. I agree that Border never had to face Australian attacks, but lets be serious guys, Australia's attacks were decent, but they weren't world beaters. Hadlee was easily a better fast bowler than any bowler produced by Australia between Lillee and McGrath. Easily. As for the longevity thing, again I'm happy to concede that it might not be as relevant as other factors. But when one guy averages 50 over a 150+ test career in the same generation as a guy who averaged 45, I really don't think there is any debate about who is the better batsman...
The Bush
Roar Guru
"Your longergivity thing is silly with Martyn example, once you get 50 tests that enough to base who is better. " And this is why talking to you is pointless. You can't even debate logically. Martyn played 67 tests, so well more than 50, why can't be used as an example to demonstrate how saying that there is "nothing" between an average of 45 and 50 is ridiculous? Crowe played more than fifty tests, so we can, according to your new/old logic, conclude that he was in fact worse than Border, because we have a large enough sample size. I wasn't the one that put a full focus on longevity, though it is important. I am more than happy to simply rely on the fact that his average is 5 runs better. The fact that he did it over a career that spanned twice as many tests is simply the ice on the cake of proof. As for the stuff about support, so what: 1. NZD won in England in 1986 while Crowe was playing, so that cancels out references to the '98 Ashes success; 2. AB started in the dark years of WSC. Yes things got a bit better from 1979 to 84, but then it got really, really bad with the Rebel Tours and he had to shoulder the captaincy, something Crowe only did for about 2 years; 3. The players you've mentioned are all bowlers. Big deal, NZD had Hadlee, who was the combined equivalent of all those bowlers you've mentioned, plus he could bat.
Johnno
Guest
Great point about 5-test series. -Back in the day Australia got 5-test series vs England/Windies, Crowe never got 5-test series. -And the bowling attacks Hadlee had it tougher as did Crowe in the batting.
Dontcallmeshirley
Guest
TB - I agree with others that it pointless comparing individuals like this. But it is also a bit of fun. I feel that Crowe had it a bit harder than Border. Border played much of his cricket on top class Australian pitches. Crowe played much of his on dodgy paddocks in NZ. Border also never had to face the Australian bowling attack which is constantly at the top of world cricket. The same was true for Hadlee. He never got easy wickets against start-up nations such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (with all due respect). He was effectively playing for a the start-up nation of his generation. His wickets all came against top tier nations of the day. By the way the number you quoted show that if Crowe had played the same number of tests as Border he would have scored more runs. NZ never play five match series as Australia do and less than 5 players have reached 100 test for the Black Caps. Sad that such a great guy has died so young.
peeeko
Guest
johnno, you just love to take the alternative
Johnno
Guest
The Bush Lille retired around 84/84 and Marsh etc, and Thommo in about 85. AB started around 1978/79 so he still played plenty of cricket with a good side, before all the dark years which really weren't that long in real terms. They won the world cup in 1987 and the Ashes in 1989, and had excellent bowlers beyond Lillee/Thommo. guys like terry alderman after he came back from rebel ban, and guys like Geoff Lawson and rackamenn and mcdermott. Your longergivity thing is silly with Martyn example, once you get 50 tests that enough to base who is better. Alec stewart must be better than Adam Gilcrhist as he lasted longer then as Gilly test career wasn't defined as longevity according to you then the bush.
Jerry
Guest
Compare Aus when Border started with NZ when Crowe finished. Not even close, Border had better support. http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/978067.html
The Bush
Roar Guru
AB had more support? This is the AB who was given the captaincy of a side in tatters thanks to a combination of WSC and the Rebel Tours? NZD actually beat Australia during this period. For a guy who claims to be "Gen X" and approaching 40, you should be familiar with the expression "100 plus Border". That was Australia's batting line up. 45 v 50 is actually a huge gap for players that played in the same generation. If it isn't, then lets call Damien Martyn the same class of batsman as Ponting. Remember longevity isn't everything.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Lovely Spiro.
Johnno
Guest
Not weird question at all, let's get real here and you dish crow's record a bit and the context. AB had more support in the batting for a lot of his career, both better batting/bowling side. Longetitivy is not everything, and Crowe still played 50 tests, but if he wasn't injured he may of played until year 2000. Martin Crowe had a very good record vs the west indies in NZ. Martin Crowe/AB/Miandad/David Gower all in the same level. Martin Crowe many say had more talent. Wasim Akram said he was the best better he bowled to. And 45 vs 50 isn't that big a difference. Put AB in NZ side, not sure he would of done as well. AB played a lot of test cricket with Dennis Lillee/Jeff Thompson etc, and alter shane warne Also ODI question as well I posed.
Bill Chapman
Roar Rookie
Very sad but at the same time uplifting. Great piece.
The Bush
Roar Guru
You ask some weird questions. No disrespect to Crowe, who was a fine batsman, may he rest in peace, but one guy played 156 tests and scored over 11,000 runs at an average of 50, whilst the other guy played 77 tests, scored under 6,000 runs at 45. They're not in the same league as each other.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Marvellous tribute, Spiro.
Coconut
Guest
Nice words there.
Coconut
Guest
A fitting tribute Spiro, really enjoyed it. I was a fourth former at Grammar when Martin came to address to us at assembly. Was always impressed by him - his name was up on the honours board - he could do it all, great rugby player, obviously a top cricketer, and an 'A' student too. We all trooped down to Eden park to watch them play the West Indies. Joel Garner, the 'bat breaker' was loping in from one end as I recall, and we had Viv Richards, wearing a gold chain and chewing gum, on the boundary at our end. I was always struck by just how far back the wicket keeper stood with those West Indian quick bowlers. Cant remember, but I think the Kiwis won that time. Martin Crowe was always great to watch, especially against Australia. Loved the quote: "Neville Cardus once described how Charles Macartney, the ‘Governor General’ of Australian batsmen, “dismissed the ball from his presence”. Thanks for the memories Martin.