Today, Michael Clarke became the newest member of an elite team. Yes, he’s already the captain of the Australian cricket team, a position some consider higher than Prime Minister, but today he literally stepped up a notch: the umpteenth Australian to score more than 300 runs in a match. Test. The exact figure will be all over the news tonight and the images will play out for months, if not years, ahead.
YouTube will get a flurry of views on the subject, while Clarke’s management and appearance fees will likely head north as well. Embarrassed sponsors will regret their decision to give Clarke a wide berth this year, no doubt speaking fast tonight to win lucrative deals from companies offering supplements, sunscreen and sporting goods. Ricky Ponting, meanwhile, must be wondering why his first century in nearly two years had to be so roundly outshone. Cynics are already suggesting match-fixing by the Indian team, recalling similar “wins” that were later revealed to be the result of some illegal maneuvering by some dubious players looking for a quick buck. But my question does not come from wanting to understand how athletes can achieve such impressive results (after all, that is why they train and dream incessantly, and records are there to be broken), but why, in previous years, the players of the on the cusp of reaching or surpassing such records, he deliberately chose to “retire,” to retire early and leave the hallowed records created by the likes of Donald Bradman intact. Is it innate gallantry, good sportsmanship, or just good public relations? We all remember Mark “Tubby” Taylor deciding not to break Bradman’s 1930 record in 1998, only for Matt Hayden to play in 2003 and break that same record outside of the ballpark. But maybe it has nothing to do with gallantry or good PR, maybe it’s ego, pure and simple. Perhaps the difference between the choices Taylor and Hayden made in those historic days was due to their personal need to win, their need to prove himself to him, the size of his ego.
These days ‘ego’ is considered a dirty word, but all it really means is ‘the conscious self that thinks’ (that’s the dictionary definition for ego). Surely there’s no harm in that, 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 egos manifest; if we (generally) choose the welfare of others over ourselves, or if we live life with no other thought or concern than to take care of “Number One”. We humans have altruistic origins, but it is quite evident that our selfishness, aggression, and self-centeredness are getting out of control. The danger lies when the pendulum swings too far toward “Team Number One”, when the feelings of others, not just their sports records, are no longer a source of concern, or even warrant an afterthought; when our conscience is no longer obsessed by our own and others’ bad actions. In short, when self-centeredness overcomes empathy.