Cricket: Tim Paine’s likeable losers

Tim Paine’s Australian Test side are likeable, but they’ve also been losers

Australian captain Tim Paine is in charge of a bunch of likeable losers

A spectacularly gloomy morning. Grey skies. Drizzle. Ugly scoreboard. Funereal atmosphere. Spectators stomped from the car park, heads bowed. Steve Waugh’s statue was grinning and yet even that seemed forced.

Yabba was too scared to say boo lest people thought he wasn’t a good bloke. Play was delayed because of rain but even worse, play might eventually start. The Test had become uncomfortable to the point of being unwatchable.

On the back wall of the SCG press box was a framed editorial from The Times in 1887. “Cricket reporters are upon their trial,” it read. “It would be more healthy if there were more love for cricket and less excitement about ‘results’. Cricket is only a game, the intrinsic beauties of which deserve admiration far more than a long roll of success. In an ideal state of things score sheets would be torn up after the match was over. Away with tabulated returns and averages and all the rest of the paraphernalia, and let us enjoy cricket in a quiet, contemplative atmosphere.”

Tim Paine’s Australian Test side would have pleased a 19th-century editor of The Times. They’re likeable, but they’ve also been losers. Another Times article could have saluted this mob for their impeccable behaviour and made it clear that being the first Australian side to lose to India at home was inconsequential — burn the scorebooks! — because their manner was more important. For was that not the stated aim? To be likeable?

The series against India began with endless prattle about a desire to win respect from the public. For the players to conduct themselves in a way that would make us fond of them.

Over-the-top reaction to the sandpaper fiasco was that winning was no longer worth it if it was done in unruly fashion. Now the major part of the Test season is about to finish in abject defeat, we can make a proper analysis.

The Australians have tried. Fought. Got down-and-dirty on a couple of occasions. But it’s been a ghost of an Australian Test side. Lacking in formidable figures. Devoid of clout. Clouded in how it should behave, and so it has behaved as meekly as any team in memory.

Results have mattered. A great deal. There’s been the real sense that one or two of the wrong players have been involved. The leading Sheffield Shield batsman, Matt Wade, is on the outer. He’s a prickly, combative, ferocious competitor. Might have come in handy.

There’s no batsman who’s a must-see. I saw a group of kids playing in a tennis ball game behind the Members Pavilion on day two. The flower bed behind the Walk of Fame was the boundary. Automatic wicky had better hands than Rishabh Pant. You could be caught one-hand, one-bounce.

When it was your turn to bat, you had to announce who you were. As in, which famous player you wanted to be. There used to be a time when every kid aspired to be a member of the Test XI. Not so on this occasion.

They might be likeable, but they’ve also been losers, and the latter counts a great deal. The most enthusiastic and talented kid took his stance and declared: “I’m D’Arcy Short!”

Likeable losers. Just as Michael Clarke predicted. No mongrel, no mojo. The greatest emotions at the SCG yesterday were stirred by a video tribute to Steve Waugh’s last Test. Those were the days, eh, when Australian players were larger than life. When they were bold. Aggressive. Combative. Confrontational.

Now? It’s been a great series. Thanks mainly to India. Would anyone be following the Australians if they weren’t the only show in town? What if cricket had to compete with other major sports for eyeballs?

Highlights among the hosts have been few and far between. Paine has made some cute comments into the stump microphone. Pat Cummins has been great. The rest? In an ideal state of things, scoresheets would be torn up.

The Times article finished: “Even among genuine cricketers the intense spirit of competition which is the chief feature of modern cricket precipitates itself in a worship of success. To attempt to stem the tide of invidious comparison would be idle. The best thing under the circumstances is to ensure that, if restless spirits insist upon knowing the truth, it shall be the whole truth.”

There’s been a curious and deflating sense of not watching the Australian Test cricket team. As if the real team has gone on strike and this is a collection of stand-ins. The batting line-up could be trotted out for a Sheffield Shield game and hardly draw a crowd.

The cultural review has succeeded spectacularly in confusing the culture even more. Be aggressive! But not too aggressive. Gotta be liked.

The Australians have resembled polite young cleanskin boys being dominated by shrewd men. Their manner has been meritorious if you like that understated sort of thing. But results have been deflating.

As Clarke said when the nice-guy routine was being promised: “Play tough Australian cricket. Whether we like it or not, that’s in our blood. If you try and walk away from it, we might be the most liked team in the world, (but) we’re not going to win shit.”