College lecturer and freelance writer Paul McElhinney reflects on cricket's standing in the Irish psyche and society...
Official Ireland (at least, south of the border) has always had a problem with cricket. In all its formality and gentility, it has always been associated with the Ascendancy and Empire which has contrasted sharply with the real or perceived sense of wildness and rebelliousness of the Celt. For 'official' Ireland, the notion that cricket may have been seen by our former colonial oppressors as a 'civilising 'influence on the unruly Celts would simply have reinforced the antipathy.
Things are changing, however. Ireland's successes in the two last World Cups and an increasing openness and self-confidence, has led to a more tolerant attitude to foreign games (sic). The opening up of Croke Park to rugby and soccer exemplified this new tolerance. Against this more positive background, Ireland's strong performance in two successive World Cups and the ascent of a number of high profile Irish cricketers into the English game, also gave the game a boost in Ireland. Ireland's victory against England in the 2011 World Cup brought national euphoria to a new level at a time when national spirits had been low for some time.
Cricket is one of the most complex endeavours ever made by man - part Chinese puzzle, part a game of chess, while sharing many of the features of a military campaign. Like learning Mandarin Chinese, it takes almost a lifetime to understand fully the nuances of the game. This is perhaps one reason why older, more portly people can continue to play, relying on experience in the absence of youthly vigour. The game is not overtly physical in the way rugby or soccer are, although fast bowling and leg drives require a strong physical element. Much of the game is sedate. The key to unlocking success is both mental and tactical. Whether to bat or to field, how a field is positioned, when to declare and how you mix up your bowlers are all tactical decisions that can have a strong bearing on the outcome of a match as much as actual performance in the match. People who can master these tactical issues and channel them towards success are vital in cricket. The example of former England captain, Mike Brearley immediately springs to mind. A calm inspiring influence, a psychologist by training and not particularly prolific with bat or ball, he was able to lead England to success because of his strong understanding of the tactical and mental aspects of the game. Botham and Willis provided the brawn, Brearley the brains.
The game is also very character-building. Its strength in the English public schools was linked to the need to produce leaders particularly for the Empire. Playing up, playing with a straight bat and accepting the rulings of umpires unquestioningly were all characteristics encouraged and revered in the game. Cricket was not only a game but training for life.
To many outside observers, the game must seem an absurd one. Most Americans can barely get their heads round it (baseball it isn't). The fact that for long stretches of a match, very little seems to happen means that those nurtured in our low attention span, easy gratification culture lose patience and switch off. One of the sops to this culture has been the rise of the 20/20 game - exciting but no substitute for the prolonged 'chess match' of a Test. Chess is a good analogy. A cricket captain's role in marshalling his forces against his opponents (and against time and weather) is akin to that of a chess grandmaster planning the eventual checkmate. You feel that it is an endeavour as much planned on paper and in the mind as on the field rather like the 1944 D-Day invasion.
The notion of a draw in cricket is an interesting one. In most sports, a draw is the same as a tie. Not in cricket. It is a very rare thing for there to be real tie in test cricket (a little less rare in limited over cricket), yet a draw is a frequent result in cricket. A draw represents essentially neither side winning as opposed to an equal score on both sides. The idea of a draw or an inconclusive result also has its roots in English notions of fair play where neither side obliterates the other, dignity is preserved, the good of the game is maintained, the king is in his castle and all is good in the world. Traditionally, cricket was always less about winning and about playing up and 'playing the game'. Breaking for tea, not arguing with an umpire's decision, clapping opposing batsmen into and out of the crease, the attention paid to the 'right kit' are all part of the essence of the game The term , 'it's just not cricket' says everything about the values of the game. It was not all about winning, but about playing the game. The fact that so many matches end in draws suggests that the concept of win vs lose is not integral to the game.
It might surprise many that cricket has a romantic side. The sound of leather against willow, the taste of warm beer on village greens on summer evenings are all redolent images in cricket lore. This was the vision of England that was so close to the heart of John Major, former British PM. Not a very distinguished PM, yet John Major managed to rise in my estimation when, after his 1997 electoral defeat, instead of moping over the election defeat, he took himself off to the Oval the following day to watch the Test match. In a poignant way, it said there is more to life than politics. A defeat has to be seen in perspective and part of a wider scheme of things. Margaret Thatcher would never have had that self-effacing sense of perspective. But then, Margaret Thatcher never took an interest in cricket
On the face of it, cricket would appear to be an elitist sport. Visit Yorkshire, Glamorgan and most of Australia and you will see how much of a myth that is. Cricket is now very much a professional sport, but there was a time when it was a sport divided between 'gentleman' and 'players'. The last English captain to represent that class divide was probably Peter May in the 1950's. Latter day heroes by contrast have been swashbuckling buccaneers like Ian Botham and Freddie Flintoff or stubborn plodders like Geoff Boycott. More 'The Terminator' than 'Boy's Own'.
Will cricket ever really take off in Ireland? Politics and culture (rightly or wrongly) do impinge on sport. In Ireland where the discussion of our culture is often a divisive one and what it means to be Irish a deeply emotionally-charged issue, cricket faces many challenges. In an 'in your face' society where instant gratification is important, the patient modulations of a game of cricket may not appeal to everyone. I suppose a massive surge in interest in cricket in Ireland would represent a final exorcism of our post-colonial demons - a final growing up. If the euphoria over our World Cup performances earlier in the year is anything to go by, we seem to be on the right road.
Paul McElhinney
Paul McElhinney is a college lecturer and freelance writer. His articles have been published in a number of sports and current affairs journals. With a strong family cricketing tradition, he has been a keen fan himself since the early 1970's. Originally from Dublin, he now lives in County Wexford.
