Have you heard the joke about the ballet critic and dog feces? In February, the ballet director of the Hanover State Opera, Marco Goecke, was so enraged by a negative review written by Frankfurter Allgemeine ballet critic Wiebke Hüster that he tracked her down in public and smeared his 14-year-old dachshund’s feces in her face. Now, I believe we can all agree that this is a poor response to criticism.
Astonishingly modestly, Goecke subsequently described his assault on Hüster as “absolutely nothing special.” He also refused to repent, citing years of “annihilating criticism” as the cause of his clumsy behavior. As excuses go, Marco’s is a poor one.
When I read this unfortunate and genuinely mind-boggling feces-related story, it reminded me of someone else who has had a difficult time recently: Zak Crawley. For “destructive criticism,” Marco should try being a professional athlete who makes mistakes. Try being a football player who misses a penalty kick or commits a pivotal foul. Try being a professional athlete in the current era of social media and fervent devotion. And try being an England cricketer out of shape with the Ashes on the horizon. Try being Zak Crawley.
Crawley’s entire 33-Test tenure has been shrouded in uncertainty. Picked based on potential rather than quantity of runs, there is a nagging sense that he has been coddled from the beginning, that he was the preference of the former selector Ed Smith and is the pet project of the current managing director Rob Key. Crawley is the cricketing equivalent of a Tamagotchi that is passed between the pockets of the two men who maintain the teamsheet – he has been given and greedily consumed too many opportunities that were denied to players with better records.
A brilliant inning of 267 against Pakistan in 2020 was the knock that should have heralded his arrival as a significant player in the Test arena.
However, as Test matches passed and his notable scores became less frequent, his average fell. In his prime, Crawley resembles a cross between Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen, and he possesses a destructive classicism. Crawley’s Test batting average in 2021 was 10.81, but he still described last summer as his “worst ever”.
With each subsequent low score, the 267 against Pakistan appeared more and more like an anomaly, a fluke, and an albatross that not only draped limply around his neck but also squawked and defecated down his long back.
There is a lingering sense that each of the opener’s scores has purchased his time rather than cemented his position, even though he has now amassed three centuries and a handful of other spirited knocks for England. Crawley was selected as the player of the future, and you already know what they say about the future.
With the Ashes imminent, the cricketing community turns its attention to Test match selection.
The selection dilemma created by the ascent of Harry Brook and the return of Jonny Bairstow leaves underperforming Crawley as the scapegoat.
Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum have supported Crawley at every turn, and they were undoubtedly pleased to hear that he scored 170 runs against Essex this past weekend at Canterbury. His innings exemplified shot-making, dismissive draws, and powerful drives. Crawley said he had fun for the first time in a while in a quick interview after the event. His average under McCullum is still below 26. Even during the past year of the Bazball circus, Crawley has frequently resembled a lone, melancholy clown.
That is comprehensible, correct? For the past several years, Crawley has had to face each day with a sensation that the walls are crumbling and the knives are drawn and that he is in the crosshairs. It must be tiresome.
Crawley, admirably and wisely, does not use social media.
In an interview with the Evening Standard shortly after his Test début, Crawley discussed blocking out online noise. “I don’t want to read too many people praising or criticizing me.”
This avoidance of social media has benefited the 25-year-old in recent years, preserving his mental health and ability to persevere. No defensive tweets or emotive Instagram posts for Crawley. A portion of him remains unknown. This approach is uncommon among professional athletes or persons of his age, though perhaps this is changing.
Emma Raducanu is said to have erased all social media from her phone, including WhatsApp. Even if it’s not a complete withdrawal, it’s a significant move for the 20-year-old, given that she has 2.5 million Instagram followers who are accustomed to hearing from her almost daily, as well as several corporate sponsors.
A cursory examination of her Instagram reveals that the majority of posts were published to fulfill a contractual obligation. Raducanu has stated that she “lives under her little rock” and is “self-absorbed.” Her recent run of poor form and spate of injuries, coupled with an endless torrent of online commentary and criticism, is without a doubt contributing factors: “Whether you do well or poorly, people will attack you.”
Last week in the Sunday Times, Rob Stephen referred to Raducanu’s digital abstinence as “a lesson for us all,” citing numerous studies that demonstrate how social media can lead people, especially young people, down a path of loneliness and self-loathing. Stephens is a teacher and master in charge of cricket at Tonbridge school – Crawley’s alma mater – though their time there did not overlap, he and his fellow staff members are pleased Crawley is back in the runs. He is also unequivocal: “We need to actively push back against the creeping, purposeless, and [literally] depressing march of smartphone addiction.”
It is difficult to give up, particularly for those who can earn thousands of pounds for a single post, though he is not alone in this regard.
Thus, we reach the recent case involving Harry Brook. After four Test centuries and an average above 80, Sunrisers paid a lot for Crawley’s England teammate. Cricket fans mocked Brook online for three bad scores.
In his fourth match, Brook scored a century off only 55 deliveries. With perspiration still on his brow, Brook boasted, “There are many Indian supporters out there who will applaud tonight. A few days ago, however, they were criticizing me. I’m glad I could silence them.” Brook acknowledges that he was distracted by the online chatter, and it’s evident that it affected him. Which is intriguing in a year in which he has received so much praise. It is never sufficient.
Failure is inscribed all over cricket, especially batting – the next low score is never far away. With three additional low scores, Brook has attracted even more online vitriol and commotion. Perhaps the wisest course of action would be to follow Crawley and, more recently, Raducanu’s example. The only way to truly “shut them up” is to log off. Otherwise, the situation may become confusing.
