After reaching his 100th international century, Sachin Tendulkar said it would be selfish for anyone to retire at the top. “When you are at the top,” he said, “you should serve the nation.”
Nevertheless, selfishness is an important, even necessary, element in the makeup of elite athletes. Even a team sport like cricket is a duel between two people: the batter and the bowler. And while the elements of selfishness and selfishness are seen as necessary in individual sports like golf and tennis, it doesn’t take much imagination to see these as universal traits.
You just have to look at the run-outs in the game – the better hitter is always protected, the weaker player makes the sacrifice even if it wasn’t his fault. The senior batter knows he’s being selfish, but that comes down to team effort. Of course, this can also be taken to a ridiculous degree, such as when an older player pulls out of a game because he thinks the course looks too fast (this often happened in Indian cricket).
Ben Stokes is probably the most exciting all-rounder of our time, even if he doesn’t bowl as much these days. His decision to step down from his retirement and return to the England team for the World Cup in India can be seen as either selfishness that puts the individual first or a decision that is in the best interest of the team. Australian Tim Paine called it “I, I, I…” and leaves us in no doubt as to his opinion.
But whether the selfishness lay in the team or in individual cases can only be decided after the fact. Patterns are only recognizable in hindsight – individual greed or team needs? A game-winning performance makes everything obsolete.
Stokes’ change of heart deprived one of England’s most exciting youngsters, Harry Brook, of his chance. We cannot say which of these would have had the greater impact. Brook is 24 and his chance will come again. Stokes is 32 and with his body parts already complaining it’s unlikely he’ll get another chance. But that’s a sentimental view. India is known to think this way, unlike Australia where emotions don’t get in the way.
An old story (attributed to the leading athlete at the time and therefore probably apocryphal) goes like this: The coach of the great basketball player Michael Jordan tells him that he is selfish and that there is no “I” on the team. Jordan’s answer is, “But there is an ‘I'”.
Top athletes view selfishness as crucial to team performance. Don Bradman, who disliked hitting on wet tracks, usually avoided it. CLR James calculated that Bradman’s prime wet average was 16.66 (95.14 overall), so the logic was sound. The team is entitled to the best version of their best batsman.
When South African sports scientist Tim Noakes coined the phrase “Selfish Athlete Syndrome,” he was describing the selfishness of the athlete who focuses on their sport and excludes everything else, including family. But it can be applied to the elite athlete who is realistic about their role on the team. It’s as if he’s saying: I’m selfish because that’s what best serves the team. When used in this way, it is something positive and even desirable.
Perhaps the duality that economists speak of, selfish and altruistic desires, doesn’t have exactly the same meaning in sports. What if you want your team to win?
As a rule, individual and collective ambitions merge. What is good for one is also good for the other. But sometimes the two are at odds, such as when a defensive hitter is told to attack bowling to make fast runs. Then he must sublimate his natural instincts for the greater cause.
When individual selfishness leads to an altruistic outcome (for the team as a whole), it is difficult to criticize that attitude. In any case, a cricket team must not consist of people of identical temperament. The unselfish, the neutral, the egotist, the opportunist, the fortune seeker – they all come together on the basis of skill and form. And that’s enough range to prevent one type or the other from dominating.
This is a premium item available exclusively to our subscribers. Read more than 250 premium articles like this every month You have reached your limit for free articles. Please support quality journalism. You have exhausted your free item limit. Please support quality journalism. X You have read {{data.cm.views}} out of {{data.cm.maxViews}} free articles. X This is your last free item.
Comments are closed.