From the Oval Office
This is the season of endings (with one interesting beginning [infra]). Peter Jackson's epic three-film version of The Lord of the Rings has been completed (at least in cinema release form) and Stephen Rodger Waugh has retired from international cricket. One of the great ironies is that the man some called 'the Iceman' was the centre of one of the more emotional farewells witnessed in Australian culture. As those who read these dispassionate missives on morality and philosophy realise, I am normally among the more phlegmatic of chaps, rarely delving into the maudlin or other base emotions. But even I was affected by the last appearance of SR Waugh as a Test cricketer, in Sydney in early January. It has been said that the sinecure of captain of the Australian cricket team is the second most important post in the nation. (I understand that such who make this assertion are assuming that the Prime Ministership is the first most important. I wonder if they've ever read the Constitution governing our nation, which document makes no mention of the Prime Minister, but seems to confer supreme executive power on a cove called the Governor-General. Talking of whom: has anyone seen Major-General Michael Jeffery, the alleged holder of this post, who has been missing in action at the normal sort of events [openings of railways, memorials, welcomes to foreign heads of state] that his predecessors were wont to attend? Even the recent farewell appearance of the Australian cricket captain was attended by the Prime Minister, but not by the GG.) If I can return to where I was before that parenthesis: in my view, the emotion generated by SR Waugh's farewell had little to do with his holding the captaincy. It had more to do with his career as a whole and what he represented in the cricket world. Waugh was still a teenager when he came into the test team and he stayed for nearly twenty years. Coming from a working-class background in the south-western suburbs of Sydney, he was an early precursor of the group that became known as the "aspirationals" (or "Howard's battlers"). Interestingly, when he first made the team, he was had the adventurousness of youth and was an exciting batter with a wide variety of shots. However, his adventurism led to a series of scores which, while not classifiable as failures, were not the kind of success being sought at a time when Australian cricketing stocks were in decline. So, during a brief period of exile, he underwent a metamorphosis - perhaps a maturation - and re-emerged as the hard man of Australian cricket. He became unwilling to sacrifice his wicket. In the words of Kerry O'Keeffe, a former Test cricketer who strove for twenty years to be accepted as a commentator before achieving immortality in that role in the last couple of years, Waugh "smelled the ball" onto his bat. His defence improved and his array of shots was curtailed. And he started scoring runs, a plethora of runs, from the 1989 tour of England when Australia regained the Ashes for the first time in a decade. His run-scoring helped turn around the fortunes of the team. For example, Australia has not lost a series to the Poms since that 1989 confrontation.
In a further irony, it was this new hardness which made him more appealing. Unlike any number of his contemporaries, in all walks of life, who wanted to be liked, Waugh was prepared to be himself and you had to accept that. In his on-field and off-field capacities he made no concessions to the requirements of modern sport. He was not always available to journalists, and particularly not to the former cricketers who form the phalanx of commercial television commentators. This did not endear him to them and they were among his most persistent critics, which might have colored the way in which her was perceived by the public, except for the fact that his torrent of runs never really abated in the 1990s and, when he spoke, he was direct and forthright. Then he was promoted to the captaincy and had the chance to influence the direction of the team more directly. He did so in a surprising way. Instead of leading his charges into the back bar for teambuilding drinks, as earlier captains may have done, he led them out of the hotel and into the streets. He introduced them to the people of India and Zimbabwe and northern Australia. In his own conduct, he demonstrated a social conscience that is increasingly rare in a major cultural figure. He sponsors charities in India and has shone a light in inequities in Australian society. And he turned his team into the winningest team in Test cricket history. There are many sides to Stephen Rodger Waugh and many reasons why he has touched the hearts of Australians. I noted in an earlier Necessity the events of January 2003, when he scored a four off the last ball of the day to reach a well-deserved century against the Poms. It is apposite in respect of that episode to recall the contemporary commentary of Kerry O'Keeffe, who was broadcasting at the time with visiting Englishman Jonathan Agnew. Agnew, as the final ball of the day approached, noted that Waugh didn't need to take risks as he could come back 'tomorrow' to complete his hundred. O'Keeffe responded, perceptively, that 'tomorrow' was for 'silver medallists' and that Brits might be prepared to accept that position; but Australians loved gold medallists and gold medallists went for it. O'Keeffe predicted, correctly, that Waugh would go for the boundary on that last ball, whatever the cost. Waugh did. Successfully. And a full ground stood and cheered.
On the last day of his last Test, Stephen Waugh was called on, again, to save Australia. The Indian bowlers, needing to bowl his side out, had some early success and, by mid-afternoon, Waugh and new-comer Simon Katich were in a position where an Australian win was increasingly unlikely but an Indian victory may have occurred if either had been dismissed. Without resorting to completely defensive tactics, they set about ensuring that defeat was avoided. But Waugh, being Waugh, was not content for the silver medal. With the game seemingly well beyond the grasp of the Indians, he went on full attack towards the end of the day, in an attempt to go out with a bang, not a whimper. In trying to reach yet one more century, he holed out on the boundary when he was 80. But he went out doing what we wanted him to do - not to go gently in that good night. And the afficiandos all around us, in a nearly full stadium, understood viscerally what had occurred and rose as one to the man as he strode from the field one last time. Or perhaps the penultimate time as he returned after the game for a presentation to mark his last Test and received a further standing ovation as his team-mates carried him around the ground. Nor was that the end: in Newcastle, at the Olympic Stadium and in Canberra, he has played further innings for his state (or for the PM's XI) and, in each case, drawn unbelievably large crowds. If there was ever a doubt about the popularity of a cultural icon, the Waugh 2003-4 farewell tour has laid it to rest. It's going to be strange for a few years: there'll be no SR Waugh for stability in the middle of the order. The team is going to need to find a new hard man in his stead; Katich seems the ideal candidate and I trust that the selectors stick with him.
In his appreciation of SR Waugh, author and speechwriter Don Watson says some things which echo, in a more cogent form, what I have attempted to say about Waugh's impact:
Perhaps it was for his cricket that Steve Waugh was loved. But if it was also for his character, then truth is alive and there is still something good in sport. It means that artifice and narcissism are not essential, that blandness is only optional, and to feel something for people of a different country is not unpatriotic.
As a last note on SR Waugh, I was disappointed with his being named Australian of the Year which was neither necessary nor, I think, warranted. First, because too many sportspeople have previously been awarded the honor; secondly, because both his predecessors in the captaincy were awarded it; and, thirdly, because, while he was Australian of the Decade in the 1990s, his actions in 2003 weren't of the same character. We need better to spotlight our scientists, industrialists, artists and philanthropists before we again so name a sportsperson. I'd be the last person to downgrade the importance to our society's well-being of sport but there are other arenas of equal value. The only saving grace is that, at least, the Queensland nominee, Steve Irwin, who uses babies to taunt crocodiles, was not the recipient.
And the beginning
The rise of Mark Latham and the concomitant revival of interest in Australian politics have been salutary. We may be in for some interesting times if the newly re-animated ALP can actually sheet home some of the deserved criticism of the Howard government - and more importantly get the game played on its turf, rather than his, for a change. Latham's proposals floated in diverse areas such as border protection, dental health and family policy have all hit close to the right note. I just hope it lasts for a while.
First written: February 2004
return to Raves/Essays index