This week we have lost from rugby two of its biggest names, though of course for vastly different reasons—one a tragedy. But as we all mourn the passing of Jonah Lomu at such a young age, we can I think call it a point of maturity—not to say, common sense—that we have not allowed it to overshadow Richie McCaw’s retirement announcement. That announcement was handled superbly, I thought. It paid homage to the great Jonah, sensitively mixing sadness and some humour, and then it moved on. As I now do. In fact, I move back. Rarely does Fryday repeat any of its postings, but I am here repeating one I wrote on December 16, 2011, when it was first mooted that Richie McCaw was right to decline a knighthood—then! And that was then. Now is different and whilst I have changed nothing of the earlier posting I think it still has relevance today. By the way and as some small barometer of the esteem in which Richie is held, this December 16 edition is the most read of all Fryday blog posts since I started recording them in May 2010. The second is a Fryday post (29/6/12) that opined Mickey Mouse was gay. I do not think the two are connected. Here is what I wrote on Richie.
"This morning the Prime Minister revealed on Radio Sport that he offered All Black captain Richie McCaw a knighthood in the New Year’s Honours List. John Key further revealed that Richie had declined because he (McCaw) felt it was too early for such an honour. Implicitly that left the door open for one later, and most New Zealanders would probably applaud that. Having said that, I can think of a number of New Zealanders who have accepted the honour who are far less deserving of it. The criteria of who gets a knighthood these days seems to be a lot looser than that of the Knights of Old and Knights of Bold. If we go back to those days, to gain a knighthood one had—generally—to be brave, chivalrous, to exhibit considerable prowess on the battlefield, and to be diligent in protecting the sanctity of a woman’s maidenhood. Well, if we replace battlefield with rugby field and acknowledge that protecting maidenhoods may be more honoured in the breech than the observance, nobody would be more qualified than Richie. But it won’t be this time. Richie’s decision. But when they do come knocking again—as they will, perhaps on your retirement Richie—accept it then. You deserve it. We deserve it. It honours you. And in some way it honours us, and who we like to think of ourselves--the Real McCaw.
"This morning the Prime Minister revealed on Radio Sport that he offered All Black captain Richie McCaw a knighthood in the New Year’s Honours List. John Key further revealed that Richie had declined because he (McCaw) felt it was too early for such an honour. Implicitly that left the door open for one later, and most New Zealanders would probably applaud that. Having said that, I can think of a number of New Zealanders who have accepted the honour who are far less deserving of it. The criteria of who gets a knighthood these days seems to be a lot looser than that of the Knights of Old and Knights of Bold. If we go back to those days, to gain a knighthood one had—generally—to be brave, chivalrous, to exhibit considerable prowess on the battlefield, and to be diligent in protecting the sanctity of a woman’s maidenhood. Well, if we replace battlefield with rugby field and acknowledge that protecting maidenhoods may be more honoured in the breech than the observance, nobody would be more qualified than Richie. But it won’t be this time. Richie’s decision. But when they do come knocking again—as they will, perhaps on your retirement Richie—accept it then. You deserve it. We deserve it. It honours you. And in some way it honours us, and who we like to think of ourselves--the Real McCaw.
No comments:
Post a Comment