Today, Michael Clarke became the new member of an elite team.
Yes, he's already the captain of the Australian cricket team - a
position some regard as a higher office than that of the Prime Minister -
but today he literally hit an altogether higher plain: the umpteenth
Australian to score over 300 runs in a test match. The exact figure will
be all over the news tonight and the footage will replay for months, if
not years, ahead.
YouTube will have a flurry of hits on the topic, while Clarke's management and appearance fees will most likely also head north. Sheepish sponsors will rueing their decision to give Clarke a wide berth this year, no doubt doing some fast talking tonight to tee up lucrative offers from companies spruiking supplements, sunscreen and sporting goods. Ricky Ponting, in the meantime, must be wondering why his first century in almost two years had to be so resoundingly eclipsed. Already cynics are suggesting match-fixing on the part of the Indian team, recalling similar "triumphs" that were later revealed to be the result of some illegal manoeuvres by a few dodgy players seeking a quick buck. But my question comes not from wanting to understand how sportsmen can pull off such awesome results (after all, that's what they train for and dream of incessantly, and records are made to be broken), but why, in previous years, players on the cusp of reaching or surpassing such records purposely chose to "bow out", retire early and leave the hallowed records created by the likes of Donald Bradman unchallenged. Is it innate gallantry, good sportsmanship or just good PR? We all remember Mark "Tubby" Taylor choosing to stop short of surpassing Bradman's 1930 record in 1998, only for Matt Hayden to play on in 2003 and smash that same record out of the ballpark. But perhaps it's got nothing to do with gallantry or good PR, perhaps it's ego - pure and simple. Perhaps the difference between the choices that Taylor and Hayden made on those historic days came down to their personal need for a win, their need to prove their worth - the size of their ego.
These days 'ego' is deemed a dirty word, but all it really means is 'the conscious thinking self' (that's the dictionary definition for ego). No harm in that surely, but I guess the potential for harm comes down to how each of our 'conscious thinking selves' operates in our community and the world at large - how our ego manifests; whether (in general) we choose the well-being of another over ourselves, or whether we live life with no thought or concern other than looking after "Number One". We humans have altruistic origins, but it's pretty apparent our selfishness, aggression and egocentricity is getting out of hand. The danger lies when the pendulum falls too much towards "Team Number One" - when the feelings of others, not just their sporting records, is no longer a source of concern, or even warrants an afterthought; when our conscience is no longer haunted by our own and others' evil actions. In short, when egocentricity bats empathy out of the ballpark.
YouTube will have a flurry of hits on the topic, while Clarke's management and appearance fees will most likely also head north. Sheepish sponsors will rueing their decision to give Clarke a wide berth this year, no doubt doing some fast talking tonight to tee up lucrative offers from companies spruiking supplements, sunscreen and sporting goods. Ricky Ponting, in the meantime, must be wondering why his first century in almost two years had to be so resoundingly eclipsed. Already cynics are suggesting match-fixing on the part of the Indian team, recalling similar "triumphs" that were later revealed to be the result of some illegal manoeuvres by a few dodgy players seeking a quick buck. But my question comes not from wanting to understand how sportsmen can pull off such awesome results (after all, that's what they train for and dream of incessantly, and records are made to be broken), but why, in previous years, players on the cusp of reaching or surpassing such records purposely chose to "bow out", retire early and leave the hallowed records created by the likes of Donald Bradman unchallenged. Is it innate gallantry, good sportsmanship or just good PR? We all remember Mark "Tubby" Taylor choosing to stop short of surpassing Bradman's 1930 record in 1998, only for Matt Hayden to play on in 2003 and smash that same record out of the ballpark. But perhaps it's got nothing to do with gallantry or good PR, perhaps it's ego - pure and simple. Perhaps the difference between the choices that Taylor and Hayden made on those historic days came down to their personal need for a win, their need to prove their worth - the size of their ego.
These days 'ego' is deemed a dirty word, but all it really means is 'the conscious thinking self' (that's the dictionary definition for ego). No harm in that surely, but I guess the potential for harm comes down to how each of our 'conscious thinking selves' operates in our community and the world at large - how our ego manifests; whether (in general) we choose the well-being of another over ourselves, or whether we live life with no thought or concern other than looking after "Number One". We humans have altruistic origins, but it's pretty apparent our selfishness, aggression and egocentricity is getting out of hand. The danger lies when the pendulum falls too much towards "Team Number One" - when the feelings of others, not just their sporting records, is no longer a source of concern, or even warrants an afterthought; when our conscience is no longer haunted by our own and others' evil actions. In short, when egocentricity bats empathy out of the ballpark.
Brendan Stamde is a freelance travel writer with an interest in
the outdoors. Occasionally he watches grass grow (an activity also known
as cricket). Brendan enjoys reading about history and in particular
human evolution. Currently he is studying Jeremy Griffith's biological
treatis on the human condition and how that helps explain our ego.
No comments:
Post a Comment