Winner Takes All

Yes, it was exciting, wasn’t it; but not really ‘cricket’. The method of deciding a winner after a tie was farcical. Why do you have to have a single ‘winner’ when both teams have performed equally well? It reminds me of when I first went to the USA and the Americans couldn’t understand the beauty of ‘drawn’ matches. Everything had to be measured in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. You see that, of course, in Trump. The idea of a ‘loser’ who can nevertheless be adjudged a ‘success’ in every other way seems to be anathema. Personally, I’d rather be seen as a successful ‘loser’ than as a failed ‘winner’. Trump is the latter.

The fairest result would have been a tie, with both teams sharing the trophy. Then New Zealand would have shared the credit with England, and rightly, not only for their cricketing performance but for the generous and sporting spirit in which they played the game. That’s the best accolade one can give them: that they’re not Australia. (Sorry, my Aussie friends.)

About bernardporter2013

Retired academic, author, historian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s