Prev
Next

I’ll take coiffed wankers over mustachioed macho men

Sam Clench

by Sam Clench

20 Aug 01:30pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Cricket, Dennis Lillee, Men, Michael Clarke, Sport, The 70s

88 comments

Line a modern sportsman up next to the stars of decades past and you will struggle to believe that they even hail from the same species. The younger man is bigger, buffer, much prettier and way more sober.

Howzat for masculinity?

This is a truly cataclysmic thing, if anyone over the age of thirty is to be believed. The wizened heads of this world seem to pine endlessly for the days of airborne booze fests and handlebar moustaches.

Well, those days are long gone, and they are never coming back. Nor should they. Today’s stars may be pampered, preened, excessively moisturised brats, but they have also raised the standards of sport to unprecedented levels.

Consider the Australian cricket team. Our current breed of willow warriors are much maligned for their supposedly effeminate ways. When people refer to the cricket highlights these days, they tend to be having a go at the streaks in Shane Watson’s hair.

Shane is hardly alone. Current captain Michael Clarke makes more appearances on the gossip pages than on the cricket pitch. His predecessor in the top job, Ricky Ponting, has become a walking advertisement for Swisse multivitamins, challenging the old doctrine that beer was nutrition enough.

Even Warnie has succumbed to the reality of the new age, losing his trademark gut, hooking up with a famous actress and becoming the major spokesman for a hair regrowth company.

All of these things are inevitable side-effects of sport’s professionalism. When our cricketers are essentially full time celebrities, they are going to start giving a damn about their receding hairlines and blotchy skin.

Granted, these blokes do not look nearly as tough as Dennis Lillee, Merv Hughes or Allan Border as they strut onto the field like proud peacocks. But there is still more than enough masculinity to go around, if you care to look a little deeper.

These guys are consummate professionals. They have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation. Even Mike Hussey, the earnest nerd of modern cricket, could probably bench press more than Lillee.

Clarke and company also withstand more public pressure than any previous Australian team. Every move the players make is subject to withering criticism from the media.

If any current player reprised David Boon’s famous airborne drinking session he would be dumped on the first flight back to Sydney and given a lifelong suspension. A few years ago, Andrew Symonds outraged cricket officials with an unscheduled fishing trip.

On the one hand we disparage our sporting stars for being wussy cleanskins, while on the other we condemn them for the tiniest indiscretions. The armchair critics can’t have it both ways.

So lay off the modern sportsman. It’s okay that he uses moisturiser and maintains a basic level of human hygiene. Who cares if he dates a socialite and actually brushes his hair in the morning?

These pampered narcissists have made sport way more entertaining. Instead of having a go at them for being typical modern men, nostalgic fans stuck in the ‘70s should just sit back and enjoy the show.

Most commented

88 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Markus says:

      01:46pm | 20/08/12

      ‘On the one hand we disparage our sporting stars for being wussy cleanskins, while on the other we condemn them for the tiniest indiscretions. The armchair critics can’t have it both ways.’

      The problem here is that you seem to have lumped two different groups of armchair critics in together with an ill-placed collective ‘we’.

      One of these groups actually watches cricket. The other is comprised of people who hate all sport, and resent the fact that they are not as respected as what they see as merely trained neanderthals.

      Then there is the media, who, desparate to manufacture outrage at every possible situation, regularly blow up/misrepresent both opinions in order to play one group off against the other.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      02:04pm | 20/08/12

      I agree with everything Markus just said.

    • JoniM says:

      02:32pm | 20/08/12

      “These pampered narcissists have made sport way more entertaining.”

      Yep !
      Well at least for those that don’t care about winning sporting performances ! Those that don’t care about the World Cups, the Bledisloe Cup, the Olympics, the Ashes, Wimbledon, and any other sports that we used to achieve in !
      Todays prima donnas languish well behind the sporting achievers of the 70’s, but those tats and piercings are such a fashion statement and their respect for women, gays and animals is obviously beyond reproach !

    • Richard says:

      03:05pm | 20/08/12

      Oh snap!
      Marcus 1 - Samuel 0

    • Bazza says:

      03:22pm | 20/08/12

      @JoniM…. the current mob don’t care about winning or not because they get the fat pay check win, lose or draw. They spend their spare time preening themselves by looking in the gym mirrors. Then they go out and latch on to some bimbo who is looking for a way to get noticed and enhance their “modelling” career

    • Gordon says:

      05:35pm | 20/08/12

      Nailed it Markus. Epic logic fail young Sam’l. For your punishment you must grow a droopy tash for 30 days and them post a pic on The Punch. You must also post all the put-downs you get from the female contingent at work, but in the interests of balance you can tell us if they start jumping you in the stationery cupboard.

    • Tator says:

      08:46am | 21/08/12

      Gordon,
      lets just enter Sam into Movember and get him to raise funds for charity at the same time

    • kiko says:

      11:23am | 23/08/12

      is cricket a sport? it is just a game.

    • Tolerant Jungle says:

      01:48pm | 20/08/12

      Hey Sam, I mostly agree with your points except for this one “On the one hand we disparage our sporting stars for being wussy cleanskins, while on the other we condemn them for the tiniest indiscretions” We (the public) disparage our sports stars for acting like girls etc,  but they dont get condemned by us for going on fishing trips. It’s their governing bodies that seem to decide, sometimes ridiculously, that these sports stars have offended us (the public) another example is the recent “Facebook Gun photo scandal” with Nick Darcy. The only people who seemed to have a problem with it was the governing body, and you guys (the media). The public thought was fairly nonchalant about the whole thing, as we are we most things that are drug/alcohol fueled binges.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      02:56pm | 20/08/12

      This. Governing bodies of all sports seem so intent on appeasing/pandering to any and all complaints, despite the fact that the majority come from people who are professionally outraged (media), or people who weren’t watching the sport anyway.

    • M says:

      01:49pm | 20/08/12

      Give me the pigs of yesteryear.

      Reply

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      02:05pm | 20/08/12

      Any day. We forgave their indiscretions because of the moustache, not in spite of it.

    • Don says:

      02:51pm | 20/08/12

      Please - let the little boys of our current team face the West Indian bowlers in their prime - WITH NO LIMITED ON BOUNCERS PER OVER - then we will see how the averages go. I don’t really take much notice of the current averages when comparing them to the old days. Different game and much much safer (and easier) for the current crop of pampered babies. Write about something you know about yeah?

    • Fiddler says:

      03:33pm | 20/08/12

      In order to qualify for the baggy green you should have to be able to consume at least 55 beers on a Sydney - London flight.

    • M says:

      03:57pm | 20/08/12

      As long as I don’t have to drink Australian beer.

    • Tubesteak says:

      04:27pm | 20/08/12

      “As long as I don’t have to drink Australian beer”

      Try Coopers or James Squire. You won’t be disappointed

    • Little Joe says:

      06:52am | 21/08/12

      @ Don

      Then you could always put them on a sticky pitch, with no side screen, no helmet and with a wafer thin bat without a carbon fibre handle ..... like in the age of Bradman.

    • SydneyGirl says:

      01:59pm | 20/08/12

      The News Ltd ladies seem to be already experiencing “moustache epiphanies.”

      Time to start cultivating yours Samuel.

      Reply

    • PB says:

      10:21pm | 20/08/12

      More like Mo-envy I’d say.

      The 70s era players are hard to understand when your entire experience is based on the view from a distance of 30 years…..

    • Charlie says:

      01:59pm | 20/08/12

      Nice troll. But i really do pity for you, the author, as you seem to have missed out on real life in regards to how we lived and behaved. Sure some of it was bad, like drink driving, domestic abuse and racism, in general life was so dam cool. Unlike today where young people are sold lifestyles at inflated prices, are deceived and engineered into being mindless consumer drones and are in general have no idea on living life. You mention the current Australian cricket side, being a former cricket fan, who plays for us again? In the past i could name nearly or most of the international cricketers and ALL of them were characters. These days they are robotic drones. You can have them all for yourself, i know many people who feel and think like i do. But hey it’s all about you, the pathetic gen yers..right?

      Reply

    • Anon says:

      02:48pm | 20/08/12

      You should write a strongly worded letter to your member of parliament expressing your outrage that the world has changed and society has left your ideals behind. If that doesnt work, perhaps you could circulate a pamphlet to your local community, and call a talk back radio show.

    • Maddy says:

      02:00pm | 20/08/12

      WHY does Michael Clarke have a tattoo? It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

      Reply

    • ronny jonny says:

      02:25pm | 20/08/12

      What the stars of yesteryear had that the stars of today don’t is respect. Boonie, sucking down 52 casn of VB on the way to London? Respect.
      Clarkey, sipping an Evian while having a pedicure? Pathetic.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      02:01pm | 20/08/12

      “They have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation.”

      This goes for any sport though, and is inevitable as a sport is played more over time and better techniques, training methods and even technologies are developed to assist in playing a given sport.

      Ease up on the moustache hating - I think that there are far fewer moustaches out there simpy for the following logical reason: that the power of the moustache, combined with the natural increases in talent in a particular sport, would be far too much for the human body to handle. It can only be exposed to so much awesome at one time. Usain Bolt sprinting at full speed with a moustache would likely tear a hole in the space-time continuum.

      I personally don’t trust a man who doesn’t have a moustache. (Proffesional athletes excluded)

      “So lay off the modern sportsman. It’s okay that he uses moisturiser and maintains a basic level of human hygiene.” No. No it certainly is not okay.

      “Who cares if he dates a socialite and actually brushes his hair in the morning?” If he’s brushing his moustache hair - no one.

      The world would be a perfect place if there were more of the following:

      -Starwars Parodies;
      -Bacon; and
      -Moustaches.

      In short, challenge accepted Sam, I’m bringing it back.

      Reply

    • Evalee says:

      04:21pm | 20/08/12

      “Usain Bolt sprinting at full speed with a moustache would likely tear a hole in the space-time continuum.” 

      Hilarious

    • -28 says:

      08:33pm | 20/08/12

      This…“They have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation.”.... is rubbish
      Bigger muscles and prettier maybe but Dennis Lillee would be the first picked bowler in the current team were he to replay his career.
      There’s plenty of past cricketers who were equal or better than the new guys.

    • Carz says:

      02:05pm | 20/08/12

      I daresay that if the cricketers of today had to deal with the same issues that those in the 70s had to deal with they wouldn’t be quite so buff looking. For a start they wouldn’t be able to afford it, nor would they get time off from their real jobs to be preened and polished. All things being equal I still have a greater respect for the sports stars of yesteryear than those of today.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      02:05pm | 20/08/12

      Better skills? That’s debatable. Physically stronger? Yes, that’s without dispute. You just need to look at a video of our cricketers in the 70’s or 80’s and compare them to those of recent years to see the difference in build. But skill levels? Very debatable.

      Would you say the level of skill shown by today’s fast bowlers are better than Imran Khan, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Marshall, Holding, etc? I can’t see how that can be said with any credibility, they all knew how to swing a cricket ball regularly, something today’s bowlers seem to have troubles with.

      Are today’s batsmen ‘better’ in terms of skill? Very different again due to the protection today’s batsmen wear (and rightly so). Techniques in the 80’s took into account the fact that helmets were new and rarely had face guards. I would also be interested to see today’s batsmen deal with the MCG or Perth pitches of the 80’s. That said, today’s batsmen seem to handle fast bowling better.

      There is no doubt today’s cricketers are better fieldsmen, in terms of ‘skill’ they are definitely superior.

      Reply

    • Swingdog says:

      02:35pm | 20/08/12

      It’s highly debatable.

      On batting, none of today’s batsmen face anything like the West Indies at their peak. That’s not one bowler faster and better than the current best in the world, Dale Steyn, charging in at you.

      That’s four.
      All day.
      With fewer bouncer restrictions.
      On dodgy pitches.
      With the boundary at the fence, not 20 metres in to help you score better.
      With a weaker, lighter bat in your hand.
      With less body protection,
      In the 70s, with no helmets.

      Bowling - no difference other than the blokes in the 70s knew how to stay on the field, not break down every two minutes.

      Out fielding is definitely better, catching not so much.

      Sam might want to watch some cricket and think first before spouting off but then he would spoil a career as a comment journalist.

    • wolf says:

      02:39pm | 20/08/12

      Todays modern bowler is so finely tuned they break if they follow through incorrectly.  Sure the old school had their fair share of crippling injuries too (that hasnt changed) but on the whole they didnt worry about any ‘stress fractures’, ‘soreness’ or ‘sprains’ they just got on with it.
      Compare that with the current bunch of brats who play one or two games a year, and spend the rest of their time divided equally between injury rehab and the tatooist chair.  I know who I’d rather have in my team.

    • JoniM says:

      04:57pm | 20/08/12

      @swingdog

      Spot on choice of that Kim Hughes 100 !
      The best century under enormous pressure you are ever likely to see !
      And not a tattoo in sight !

    • Fred says:

      11:20pm | 20/08/12

      @Swingdog.  Thanks for that.  I watched that innings live.  I still consider it the best I’ve seen. That bowling attack on that wicket!  Amazing innings.

    • Tezza says:

      01:37pm | 21/08/12

      @swingdog
      Thanks for opening my eyes to the Kim Hughes video.
      I don’t remember seeing the innings before.
      It happened at a time that I had pretty much lost interest in the doings of Australian cricket - a more unlovely bunch of “look-at-me"s and piss artists is hard to imagine, mixed in with the unspeakable Kerry Packer. I just stopped watching cricket for about a decade or more.
      But Kim Hughes - I dips my lid to you for this beautiful innings.

    • Tezza says:

      01:36pm | 21/08/12

      @swingdog
      Thanks for opening my eyes to the Kim Hughes video.
      I don’t remember seeing the innings before.
      It happened at a time that I had pretty much lost interest in the doings of Australian cricket - a more unlovely bunch of “look-at-me"s and piss artists is hard to imagine, mixed in with the unspeakable Kerry Packer. I just stopped watching cricket for about a decade or more.
      But Kim Hughes - I dips my lid to you for this beautiful innings.

    • Groper00 says:

      02:08pm | 20/08/12

      what we seem to address here is that these athletes from then had real jobs as well as their on field jobs! the rugby league teams of the 70’s were often a who’s who of the building trade with brickies and carpenters making it to training on wednesday nights and having a few brews after the game on sundays. there wasnt the attitude that the athlete was bigger than the game that there is now! look at sonny bill, mundine, and even ackers! they tell their story like they were the best and had to leave because of being held back or that they were before their time in the game. i apologise for nothing exept liking the way the games were played, hard and at full pace, not like today when a scrum isnt part of the game, there are no shirtfronts, or the bouncer was an intimidation to the batsmen not a reason for the umpire to enforce his role on the field. Bring back the NO Attitude and honest athlete so we can once again enjoy pure sport not the enhanced for tv entertainment extravaganza we see most weekends here in OZ!

      Reply

    • Weary says:

      02:16pm | 20/08/12

      Hey Samuel - know what else was disgusting about men from decades past - they had testicles.  Ewww!  Not like you modern blokes who have them removed to allow for easier waxing.  But I’d have to say that the thing I remember most about Aussie sport in decades past was how we used to actually WIN.  You say consider the Aussie Cricket team - consider what?  How many decades it’s been they were even vaguel competitive?  THese unprecedented levels you speak of?  Where?  We can’t win Rugby, League, Cricket, Tennis, Athletics… Are you referring to an unprecedented level of failure.  I’m sure if there was an example to support your theory you’d have referenced it…
      Sorry Samuel, but all you’ve really said here is that you find hairless men with big rippling muscles more attractive than men from yesterday.  Not that we asked.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      04:00pm | 20/08/12

      You’ve read an awful lot into this Weary. Bit of projection happening maybe?

    • Greg says:

      09:00am | 21/08/12

      2003 less than a decade ago we had just won our second world cup in a row, then warne and mcgrath retired and it all started to go dowhill.

      So less than 10 years since the end of our complete domination of cricket.

      Problem with today’s sportsmen is that they are all atheletes first and sportsmen second, they put some kind of preference on being super fit and then try and learn the skills needed for their sports.

      Especially in cricket give me a half fit start cricketer over a star athlete weekend slogger any day.

    • 30 year old realist says:

      02:17pm | 20/08/12

      If you think the bowlers of today had more skill than D K you clearly do not watch cricket.

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      05:34pm | 20/08/12

      ...and if ‘Lilley’ did not get you ‘Thommo’ will !!!

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      02:22pm | 20/08/12

      “They have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation.”

      really?
      I can think of a few people that might disagree with that…

      Reply

    • Esteban says:

      02:31pm | 20/08/12

      I don;t care if they have hair gel just restore world order by winning back the bloody ashes.

      Our problems didn’t start with the socialists winning power in 2007 it was the loss of the ashes.

      Reply

    • JoniM says:

      05:05pm | 20/08/12

      “Our problems didn’t start with the socialists winning power in 2007 it was the loss of the ashes. “

      Yeah ! But that didn’t help things !
      Rudd started going to the Test matches with his Bronco’s scarf !
      The dressing rooms were in a panic !

    • HappyG says:

      02:32pm | 20/08/12

      “Granted, these blokes do not look nearly as tough as Dennis Lillee, Merv Hughes or Allan Border as they strut onto the field like proud peacocks”.

      Nor my young friend can these coiffed, spoilt, over trained and over exposed media tarts play like the above mentioned gentleman.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      02:36pm | 20/08/12

      It went downhill when Mo Matthews got his hair back. Now every cricketer has a right of passage with a hair replacement company. Saurav Ganguly’s efforts last summer were classic…Yeah Yeah baby!!

      Reply

    • Big Scotty says:

      02:54pm | 20/08/12

      You Gen-Y apologist nancy boy!
      People would care less about the tattoos, streaked hair and moisturiser overuse if these blokes had one important thing in common with the stars of years gone by.
      That one thing? Ticker.
      You list Michael Clarke and Shane Watson as poster boys for this new pansy era athlete. You’d struggle to find two bigger pea hearts in world sport.
      Further, they might be fitter and more professional etc, but 30 years ago you couldn’t be that fit because YOU NEEDED A JOB OUTSIDE OF SPORT. The desirable side effect of this was sportsmen were well-rounded individuals not the cliche-spouting, third-person-referring dullards of today.
      I weep for the future

      Reply

    • Badjack says:

      03:03pm | 20/08/12

      He loikes the new buffered look because he is a shirt lifter

    • Peter Thornton says:

      02:55pm | 20/08/12

      If the title of this piece wasn’t a giveaway then the writer’s photo sure as bloody well was; a coolsie, self-absorbed schmo with drip-dry attitudes and an horrible haircut.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      03:57pm | 20/08/12

      I’m gonna take most of that as a compliment. Just lay off the hair mate, I’m a sensitive gen-y boy remember.

    • John Stuart Mill says:

      03:08pm | 20/08/12

      Samuel, unlike you, I was here for both the Chappell and Clarke areas. You must be out of your mind if you think that Clarke’s bunch of talentless, politically correct prima donnas can be held up as superior to the Australian team which took on England in 1974-75. Sadly, like so many of your generation, you simply don’t know what you are talking about - yet you will no doubt continue to comment as if you do.

      Reply

    • Scotchfinger says:

      05:28pm | 20/08/12

      but you won’t deny him the freedom to express himself, will you Mr Mill? he he.

    • P says:

      08:08pm | 20/08/12

      ‘Samuel, unlike you, I was here for both the Chappell and Clarke areas.’

      *eras

      When you’re all dead, we can comment on things that a new, younger generation won’t know about.

      Still, moustaches are great.

    • dancan says:

      03:08pm | 20/08/12

      I’ll take the old rough VFL over the new age poncey AFL any day

      Mullets flowing in the wind like a lions mane as players dive head first into carnage

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      08:37pm | 20/08/12

      Those were the days. Remember Dippa wrestling two Geelong players at once?

    • Badjack says:

      03:11pm | 20/08/12

      This article is nothing more than a gee up. All we have here is a pansy stirring up over 50’s. Us old blokes just have to realise the new generation can’t make up their mind if they want to be Arthur or Martha.

      Reply

    • Emmy says:

      03:14pm | 20/08/12

      What does Richie B have to say about all this

      Reply

    • Ally says:

      03:16pm | 20/08/12

      Today’s professional sportsmen (and women) are boring. They’re sooky, whiny little shits that like to complain loudly about the SACRIFICE of their chosen career while pocketing exorbitant player fees and spruiking every product possible, while having to clear every word they say through their manager. And lots of them are dismissive of young fans unless a camera happens to be trained on them.

      Sport back then was more colourful and the performances are more impressive when you consider that they were paid a pittance and had to actually work for a living while training, touring and playing. Not to mention they didn’t have the teams of coaches, trainers, psychologists, nutritionists etc that’s common today.

      You tout Shane Warne as an example of the modern metro. Last time I checked some of his best bowling was done while he was texting dames, scoffing baked beans and smoking like it was going out of fashion.

      Reply

    • Emmy says:

      03:46pm | 20/08/12

      @Ally… you are so right, our female sporting teams are tougher than the male wimps playing cricket today and including the current bunch of Wannabie Wallabies

    • M says:

      03:54pm | 20/08/12

      “You tout Shane Warne as an example of the modern metro. Last time I checked some of his best bowling was done while he was texting dames, scoffing baked beans and smoking like it was going out of fashion. “

      A true Australian hero from a bygone era.

      Emmy, if the chicks are so tough, why all that whining about economy class seats? Man up, princesses.

    • Ally says:

      04:21pm | 20/08/12

      Actually Emmy, I included the women in my rant. They’re just as bad as the blokes, except we get the constant calls for equal pay in things like tennis where their games are shorter and for more coverage in sports no one wants to watch.

    • LJ Dots says:

      03:29pm | 20/08/12

      Samuel, oh man! What were you thinking?

      Somewhere out there, Viv Richards is glaring and chewing gum and you’re not making things easier.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      03:58pm | 20/08/12

      I dare say Vivs glare would turn the author of this tripe article into a melting jibbering mess of submission. Now go fetch the ball little boy. And use the cherries shiny smooth surface as inspiration when you shave your testicles tonight.

    • John says:

      03:36pm | 20/08/12

      Sam, you are a coiffed wanker like the current generation of sports stars, where non sports behaviour is more reported than the sport.
      In the 1970s, sports stars were real people. Most had a real job & sport was part time - amateur by today’s standards. 
      Behaviour away from sport was generally their private business & publicity outside the sport was avoided. 
      No drugs (except for recreational), modern technology, teams of support staff & other aids. Just sport.

      Reply

    • Ausy says:

      03:59pm | 20/08/12

      I heard that Boonie even groomed his pubic hairs in to handlebars.

      Reply

    • eRon says:

      04:23pm | 20/08/12

      Boonie has never seen his pubic hair.

    • Luke says:

      04:06pm | 20/08/12

      Samuel i gaurentee you your orifice would have been firmly Clench-ed if DK was charging in at you from the other end in all of his hairy glory!

      Reply

    • SydneyGirl says:

      04:10pm | 20/08/12

      So in keeping with my love of vintage I am a fan of old time cricketers - you know the blokes who played during Bodyline and before.

      Do they qualify as the real, real men over the overt masculinity of the 70s and the over groomed men of today?! What’s the modern take on them..or is the time far too distant?

      Reply

    • Charlie says:

      04:44pm | 20/08/12

      No you are just a fan of a friggen current trend, which is the vintage trend. The cricketers of those times were the ones depicted sitting around being toffs at the ICC last might, including one Don Bradman who should be singled out more for his involvement in refusing the players get paid accordingly.

    • Esteban says:

      05:09pm | 20/08/12

      Keith Miller was a hit with the ladies and probably would be well coifed if he was a young man today.

      He stopped playing cricket to join the RAF as a fighter pilot where he excelled as much as in cricket.

      The war must have given him some good perspective on life because when bieng interview by Parkinson and asked how he dealt with the pressure of cricket he answered “There is no pressure in cricket. Pressure is when you have got a Messerschmitt up your arse”

      Miller had his public extramarital affairs when his playing days were finished so drew little attention to the media.

    • SydneyGirl says:

      06:37pm | 20/08/12

      Apart from not being on a trendwagon:-) and not being a Don fan (yeah he’s vintage but lots of not so nice folk back then too), what about say Stan McCabe? Or Trumper?

    • eRon says:

      04:29pm | 20/08/12

      I love it when some coiffed wanker starts talking up other coiffed wankers, just because they are similarly coiffed, and similarly wankers.
      He clearly knows a lot about coiffing and wanking, and F***-all about cricket.

      Reply

    • Please... says:

      04:56pm | 20/08/12

      *bows down in respect of this comment*

    • Scotchfinger of Evil says:

      05:15pm | 20/08/12

      you have talent for the snappy, biting put-down, my boy. Come here! I need your powers… *smiles, exposing needle-like teeth*

    • d says:

      05:26pm | 20/08/12

      keep it up eRon - love ur work.

    • Please... says:

      04:48pm | 20/08/12

      Sam has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.

      This Englishman remembers when Australian cricket teams used to handle frigging business. Turn up in the UK, kick some arse, shake some hands, sink a beer, pat some backs, make some friends and go home usually victorious.

      I hated those bastards but totally respected them. West Indies even bloody worse. Smashed everyone for 15 years and still managed to charm the behind of everyone they came in contact with.

      I met Viv Richards once at an event. It was like meeting Zeus, Gandhi and Keith Richards in one man.

      Clarke and co aren’t even in the same stratosphere as men.

      Aussie cricket died the day Clarke posed on his jocks.

      Reply

    • Horthy says:

      06:03pm | 20/08/12

      Clenchy, it’s pretty obvious the real change has been a movement from heart and gut to wallet. One can argue it not entirely the poor boys’ fault, because the game has changed so very much outside of their control.

      What we _are_ able to criticise though, are the elements and events inside their control which, by and large, they’ve dealt with in hilarious fashion.

      You get three out of ten for troll-fu though.

      Reply

    • Kimbo says:

      06:05pm | 20/08/12

      That team from the 70s was a champion match winning team compared with the current batch who are ranked very low in all forms. Maybe if they rediscovered their mongrel they might win more often at least. Don’t think they can ever be classed as champions

      Reply

    • Ellis says:

      06:40pm | 20/08/12

      “They have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation.”

      No. Just no.

      Reply

    • sham says:

      06:47pm | 20/08/12

      The main change in cricket has been the decline of the West Indies.  It is absurd to compare a century against the Windies at their prime to any innings now.  Look at some of Alan Border’s knocks against the Windies.  Compare Border or Steve Waugh to Tubby Taylor.  Tubby’s record against the Windies was very poor but he regularly tonned up against pie throwing pop gun attacks.  Taylor was a dead rubber specialist.  The current Australian side lacks the sort of ticker that we had in the past - that is why the batting collapses.  It is about mental toughness.

      Reply

    • Tango says:

      06:57pm | 20/08/12

      You say modern cricketers have better skills, bigger muscles and more cricketing smarts than any prior generation. You also say that every move and action is scrutinised by the media. I say utter codswallop because I don’t know whether the actual words I want use are allowed to be published.

      I say this because Bradman, for example was under the spotlight every day of the week. If he had a cold, it was reported. The only difference is that they only had papers and a couple of radio stations, not 103 different places where you can repeat the same story. And when Australia had a bad series it was a national tragedy, not a joke as it is today.

      You don’t need big muscles to play cricket. Blokes called Brian and Sachin come to mine and they can play a bit. A bowler named Glen wasn’t exactly Hulk Hogan was he? And Warnie was never exactly Adonis either. Dennis Lillee was the best fast bowler who ever pitched a shortish delivery just outside the off stump. 

      And as for the modern manicured, pedicured, aromatic and so called chiselled cricketers, they have no more skills than the part timers running around in previous eras. The great West Indian bowlers of that era when the Windies dominated were no less physically impressive that their modern counterparts. Neither was Wes Hall much earlier.

      Smashing a ball to or over the fence in the 20/20 game is not an demonstration of skill either. Bowlers don’t send the ball down any faster these days and they are no more accurate. Thommo bowled at breakneck speed on a diet of whatever. Viv Richards’ physique puts any modern day cricketer’s to shame.

      And as for skills, please. A bloke called Garfield wasn’t exactly clumsy, was he. The modern player is fitter because it’s his full time job. Same goes for footballers who can be brought in and out of the game when they run out of puff.

      Players can take more risks today because they have the protection of a jousting knight. Doesn’t make them more skilled. Their running between the wickets is no better or faster. They don’t time the ball any better and they don’t have a more diverse selection of shots.

      Reply

    • Simon says:

      07:05pm | 20/08/12

      I lost interest in cricket when Clarke got the captaincy. The only Australian Captain who wouldn’t, or couldn’t, drag you out of a pub and kick the crap out of you if required. Maybe he would just indicate his annoyance on Twitter

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      10:14pm | 20/08/12

      I don’t care if they’re coiffed or not, I just wish they were allowed to have an opinion. All the sports are so terrified that players aren’t allowed to speak out about anything. In footy Jason Akermanis may be a bit of a tool, but at least he’s not a mindless drone like everybody else. In the 70s sport was full of characters, that is what is now sadly missing. There’s no doubt both eras had skilled and talented players, it;s just that nowadays we aren’t allowed to really get to know them, all we get is stage managed glimpses mostly.
      As for the 70s facial and body hair…..so glad that that part of the era is long gone, it never hurt a bloke to give a damn about his appearance!!

      Reply

    • Al says:

      10:59pm | 20/08/12

      “Today’s stars may be pampered, preened, excessively moisturised brats, but they have also raised the standards of sport to unprecedented levels.”

      I call bullshit, across the board I’d rather have the characters of yester year and the not too distant past personified by Denis Lilley, Rod Marsh, Niki Lauda and Mick Doohan than the characters portrayed by Stef Rice et al.

      The exception to that; Casey Stoner - 4th place with a broken ankle.  Far better than the half arsed effort by our swimmers after texting.

      Reply

    • HappyG says:

      09:01am | 21/08/12

      @Al. Well said sir. Steph Rice tarting around the Olympics, hanging off Kobe Bryant was one of the all time “puke” moments in Australian sport. The swimmers in particular gave the impression that they were there for a party. When the media and public dared to question their level of performance they got all sooky and offended. I can’t for the life of me imagine stars of previous eras like Lilley, Beetson, Lee Mathews or Mark Richards behaving, or even thinking of behaving like today’s prima donnas.

    • Achmed says:

      07:29am | 21/08/12

      Comparing todays full time cricketers with yester years part-timers.  Bit of a stretch.

      Reply

    • Stewart says:

      09:39am | 21/08/12

      And all it took to inspire this article was to watch two hours (sic) of Howzat ... Kerry Packer’s War last Sunday night where all the moustachioed cricketers of the 70’s dared to stick it up the establishment ... and naturally, facial hair appeared to be the norm for Chapelli and his team who dared swash (definately not buckle). Most of the non sportsmen had no facial hair ... and as for Douggie he was and still is a champion.

      Reply

    • seanb says:

      02:01pm | 21/08/12

      Just because you can’t grow facial hair is no reason to go hating on the great DK and Boonie (*quietly genuflects*).

      Now get off my lawn.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 13 03:56PM

@newsbanks ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 13 03:46PM

Words that annoy me #1: 'cracking' when used as an adjective.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 13 03:26PM

RT @ConradLiveris: Thanks @drpiotrowski for highlighting Coalition MPs who support #marriageequality: http://t.co/l502Tw2oIH

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 13 03:14PM

@w_m_lewis Thanks WM

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter