I’m not sure whether South Africa’s “choking” reputation
comes from a genuine historical tendency or whether it’s just that the 1999
choke was so monumental, such a Choke for the Ages that it is by itself
equivalent to 100 separate chokes. South Africa have never made it to a World
Cup Final, but neither have New Zealand, and the New Zealand team is not seen
as a bunch of chokers but as plucky and dashing, heads always high.
Why do current teams feel responsible for the failures of
past teams? It’s like a country’s team is a Ship of Theseus
that keeps its
identity even though over time every part of it has been replaced.
Obviously it's the eye of the beholder, the projections and expectations
of the millions
of onlookers whose turnover is much slower. It doesn’t help that
when they look at the South African team at the moment they run a good
chance of beholding
Allan Donald.
Hanse
was livid in 1999, he walked away from Ian Chappell mid-sentence when
Chappelli was winding up his commiserations. The batsmen didn’t have a
chance to collapse in tears at the end of that match because the pitch
was
invaded and everyone had to run off. De Villiers looked sad and haunted,
hugely
conscious of letting everyone back home down. The presenter said he was
sure
those people would appreciate that the team had done their best and De
Villiers
winced.
You know it’s a New Zealand commentator when after a
soaring, thunderous triumph, he suggests we could all open a bottle “or maybe
make a pot of tea.”
Time, gentlemen (on Pocock and co.)
When “Monkeygate” happened, in which the person on the
receiving end of a racial slur was hung out to dry and there were calls for the
sacking of the captain that reported it to match officials, I seriously had to
track down a copy of Tom Brown’s School
Days and read it to understand what the hell was going on.
And there it was, Death before Dobbing:
In fact, the solemn assembly,
a levy of the School, had been held, at which the captain of the School had got
up, and after premising that several instances had occurred of matters having
been reported to the masters; that this was against public morality and School
tradition; that a levy of the sixth had been held on the subject, and they had
resolved that the practice must be stopped at once; and given out that any boy,
in whatever form, who should thenceforth appeal to a master, without having
first gone to some prepostor and laid the case before him, should be thrashed
publicly, and sent to
Coventry.
What school does Tom Brown go to? Rugby. If you wonder why I
hate the “gentleman’s” tradition in any code, well, this, this, a thousand
times this. It’s one thing to sweep things under the carpet, it’s the open proclamation
of the moral superiority of sweeping things under the carpet that blows my
mind. A letter writer to the Herald yesterday actually wailed “what have we
come to?” He wasn’t bemoaning a plague of political correctness, he was
suggesting that reporting an incident to a referee instead of dealing with it
on the field or “in house” was by itself a sign of moral degradation.
I can’t tell you how weird this all looks from where I sit. Weird and at the same time stinkingly familiar as a howl of wounded privilege. The horror of being like everyone else, of having to do things like everyone else, of being judged by everyone else. Report a wrongdoing? Follow a rule? I know, it's so obvious. One of us is the alien and one of us is at home in this world. Which one is it? I’d like to think it’s time, gentlemen. Or: party’s over, dickheads.
I can’t tell you how weird this all looks from where I sit. Weird and at the same time stinkingly familiar as a howl of wounded privilege. The horror of being like everyone else, of having to do things like everyone else, of being judged by everyone else. Report a wrongdoing? Follow a rule? I know, it's so obvious. One of us is the alien and one of us is at home in this world. Which one is it? I’d like to think it’s time, gentlemen. Or: party’s over, dickheads.
No comments:
Post a Comment