Enjoyable to read but I'm not sure if Oz is a functioning republic when the Queen is still head of state. Anyway ...

If I can take a different tangent. The win at all costs strategy was started by Allan Border after Australia went through a horror period of about 15 years. Both England, SA and the Windies demolished us. The latter nearly killed us. Payback for Lillee and Thompson.

I well remember poor old AB dragging himself out to the middle after the openers had scored a paltry 20 or 30, only to face Holding, Garner, et al.

Border saif 'stuff this'. No more hand shakes. No more drinks with the opposing side. No more Mr Nice guy. Taylor and Waugh followed suit. They built Australian cricket up from schools, kids cricket coaching clinics and grade cricket. The ACB groomed the best to be the best in the world - and we are.

That kind of thinking (win at all costs) was born from defeat. I liked the nationalism angle but out in the middle, nationalism doesn't count for much. Only the scoreboard matters.

That article had so many different issues/aspects which the author tried to bring together...rather complicated...

but the 'Win at all costs', as demonstrated by the Australian cricket team, has clearly left us with very few friends.' is the corporate media attack on our cricket team...so does it have any merit...I dont agree...I think our team show how each player, each excels at what they do, come together as an organized and effective force to play with excellence in each moment...which does produce results and which in this case win games and currently world best...something every other cricket team should aspire to and in the process take the whole game to a higher level...

So I hope everyone else just detunes off the destructive attack of the media on a good cricket team...or tell the medxia back exactly what they are doing ie as worthless manipulative and destructive attack on something good...and keep supporting a good team continue with what they have got right...and as far as media goes...how about channel 9 putting some commentators without bias...like in this series with India, something 'against' Australian team is agreed with straight away...while 'for' our team is analyzed with slow motion replays and in depth analysis to correctness of it...from a general trend I have seen that when it gets too much I just turn off the volume...

Sam

Probably the greatest 'win at all cost' example was the me tooism at the last election. Author is dreaming if he thinks that it is only the Aussies with this mentality. If India did not have the same attitude they would not of spat the dummy when their racist bowler was suspended and the Paki's would not sack or rid themselves of coaches every time they lose. Sure the Aussie success has brought about an arrogrance but that is mainly due to the idolization of these men who believe their own press. Mr Warne is one of the finest examples of this.

Much more to Australia's international relations with India on the SCG's turf than the Dept. of Foreign of Affairs could conceivably do over in a week, and Australia is receiving the kind criticism of the international cricket community (not to mention locally) reserved only for major powers.

In truth the way Ponting and Co carried on last week after rolling the tail with two overs to spare in the most controversial of circumstances was reminiscent of a fourth grade side at midnight on an end of season trip. So maybe the harshness of the umpiring decisions coupled with the Aussies arrogant behavior and the accusation of the exceedingly vicious racial insult of ‘monkey’ being said out in the middle tipped the Indian camp.

It is a sad fact that the days of the Benaud-Worrell days of teams sharing dinners are gone, as ‘professionalism’ has seemingly caused a major rift between the world’s cricketers. The author’s suggestion that Taylor, Waugh & Ponting captain like the coalition did is an interesting connection, no wonder Mr Howard is such a regular at the ground.

Perhaps our ‘Conflict Nationalism’ has made tall-poppy’s of ourselves since we’ve become the envy of the cricket world, with the cutthroat and over-reactive vibes we often see from the Cricket Australia fat cats. Indeed we are succumbing to our own medicine, and not due to our cricketing ability, but maybe we are bad winners? We’re dobbing on animal insults when we are the biggest sledgers in the world, and remember the Martyn shove? The Indian’s definitely do.

In our own backyard, I get the sense that maybe just as the Australian people turned away from the conflict nationalism of Politics we might do the same in Cricket. Big names such as the media’s Peter Roebuck and former players of the calibre of Ian Chappell, Geoff Lawson, Jeff Thompson and 48’ invincible Neil Harvey have all expressed their concern for the image of the baggy green.

Interestingly Dr Nelson came out in support of Ponting’s boys. So much for generational change.

He should have left it for the keeper.

Nice one with the sport-reflects-society/politics point. I’ve long been sticking up for the much-maligned (in academia) sports history field of history. There are many ways in which sport reflects society (the author has highlighted a few) – look at how commercialism and the cult of celebrity have also been played out in sporting arena (what with a baseball player not permitted to sign the puma cap of a fan because of contractual obligations to his own sponsors!).

In my humble opinion, an analogy could even be drawn between Australia as top dogs of the sporting world and the US as top dogs of the international political world. The sort of anti-Americanism which is prevalent in the world at the moment (even amongst America’s allies) seems to be replicated in the way that the rest of the cricket world views Australia. And might it have something to do with a similarity between the ‘ruling’ styles of the American state and the Australian cricket establishment?!?

One more thing: why is it when the Windies went through a similar (if not as lengthy) stint of dominance in world cricket that it didn’t engender the same kind of antagonism in the rest of the cricketing world? They played a similar brand of attacking, dominant cricket as our boys do at the moment but wherever they toured they were welcomed and, hell, even half the opposing supporters were barracking for them. I would bet my bollocks that doesn’t happen when we tour these days. Was it because they handled primarily victory (but also defeat) a little better than our lads do?!

OK runner: the most (but not only) racist thing about the Harbajahn incident is that the adjudicator (in this case Mike Proctor) – purely on the word of Australian players against the word of Indian players without any independent, corroborative evidence – handed down a hefty three-match suspension. Dangerous precedent to be setting based on ‘he said/she said’ stuff, wouldn’t you think!?!

Cheryl: Australia’s dominance today probably had more to do with the grassroots development you mentioned than anything Captain Grumpy ever did…

I wrote a longish piece called Life mirrors cricket a few weeks ago. I left it to the gnawing crticism of the mice. In the article I looked at the spirit of the game, retrospectivity, David Hicks and tax avoidance.

I concluded:

Rules need to be judged in context. Symonds and others should have walked. There should have been no appeal against Dravid. David Hicks is innocent and should be free to walk. And tax avoiders should abide by the spirit of the game.

Not many people like winners. Especially not the generality of whiners.

Misery loves company and success invites resentment.

A few relevant comments from David Stove's essay `Cricket Versus Republicanism' (in the book of same name):
"... at cricket the Australian is a Pom-beating animal. The margin of superiority is slight, but it is consistent, and therefore calls for explanation. I have heard dozens of theories advanced to account for this. My own belief is that it is caused by a difference in attitude towards the opponent: that whereas the Australians hate the Poms, the Poms merely despise the Australians. I was very interested, therefore, when Neil Harvey, during the wonderful centenary test just ended [1977], said something similar only in politer words: that Australians always <I>want</I> to win more than their English opponents do".

Australia was beaten.

Happy now?

Will we have any more friends?

Yep, as an avid bush cricketer in my time, Hamlet, reckon the good beating our blokes got, should do them good, because the whole team had got too hungry, as we used to say in the old days.

Was glad to see them shaking hands with the Indians at the end, with almost a look of relief on their faces, as if to say - we bloody needed this....

Maybe even to draw the series might be now the best thing, giving us back the decent sort of sportsmen we had in the old days of Miller and Lindwall, even though Keith Miller liked the ladies too much, maybe he was more like one of our chivalrous Knights of old.

Probably still all bullsh-t but maybe there's a bit of truth in it?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Oh dear,

'Nationalism and foreign policy are changing in Australia. The Howard years were marked by what we might call “conflict nationalism”. We played hard on regional security and illegal immigration. We played in defiance of international sentiment on Iraq and Kyoto. We played strictly by the rules of national security. By contrast, the Rudd Government seems to subscribe to a different game plan, better described as “co-operative nationalism”, where international rules change the way we play and where collective efforts are made to improve the quality of the game.'

This author equates the winning Australian team's efforts, but apparently not it's results, with the efforts of John Howards era. There is absolutely no doubt that era has had a very positive effect on the standard of living of all Australians.

But now things are changing and Rudd is equated with a more 'co-operative' and 'collective' effort. It is fearful for both Australians and the Australian cricket team if this week's change in attitude by the team is equated with this 'new' approach.

We lost a test we should have won on a 'bouncey' WACA wicket. We were talked out of it by a call for an idiotic change from an aggressive attitude. An attitude which the Indian team happily and gracelessly applied.

God help us all if this is our future. But I suppose all those who hate Australian success and tall poppies are now content and will want this new attitude to remain so for many years to come.

Oh and this assertion the Howard foreign policy wasn't based on co-operative effort is just utter rubbish. And look at Rudd's results so far. We signed Koyoto, had a seat at a table that oversaw absolutely no advance on what Howard had achieved at a co-operative summit in Sydney. Our relations with Japan are strained because of our co-operative menacing of Japanese ships on the high seas and of our outright support for the act of piracy.

But what would I know I only look at results on the scoreboard not airy fairy woolly wishful thinking or propaganda.

Cricket is afterall sport not politics. Apart from some poor umpiring decisions (and they come around as evidenced in Perth test) the cricket in Sydney and perth has been riveting and some of the best cricket ever.

Attempting to allign attitudes in sport with politics will never work and is fraught with dangers.

Clearly the Indian team was struggling under the Rules and Umpiring and so successfully aplied some politics to the Sport. Under pressure and adided by some bleeding heart commentators Australia blinked and was bashed.

Did we have any effergies burned and demonstrations in the streets or clearly racist taunts at matches to support the Australian team as did occur in India.

Any sport at International level is tough and played hard and should be. India is a good team, very much on a par with Australia and yet all seem to forget the behaviour of the public and unwillingness of the Indian Cricket board to act in India.

Play it hard, Australia , and dismiss the bleeding hearts next time round.

The time has come. Let 'subcontinent' cricket be played by those of the subcontinent.

Let everyone else who wants to play it without undue influence play it amongst themselves.

Or perhaps it is time to let the game die.