Opinion/commentary

Alasdair McClintock’s “Should Netball Be Our National Sport?” appeared in the Sydney-based magazine The Beast on 1 May 2019. Its question asks: How is tone used to shape the meaning of this text?

The title raises a large question about national identity, but the column approaches it through familiar sporting complaints and jokes. It gradually makes an affectionate case for netball, then ends by encouraging readers to attend or watch games. It offers playful advocacy rather than a formal process for selecting a national sport.

The likely audience includes Australian readers familiar with sporting rivalries and local references. The commentary should explain those assumptions without claiming that every Australian shares the writer’s tastes. Read the whole short column first, then follow the selected passages beside each stage of the analysis.

The source layout remains available above the transcript. Its photograph shows a contested moment in a netball match; the accompanying caption reads “Great for the joints, by Liz Ellis.” The image gives the sporting topic a concrete setting, but the guiding question makes the development of voice our main focus. This walkthrough and model are original teaching material, not an official marked response.

The opening strings together exaggerated complaints about other sports. The stretched “soooo” makes boredom sound like a performed whine, while the exclamations create the noisy energy of sporting rivalry. These are presented as things people say, not as a settled statement of the columnist’s own beliefs.

The question about anyone attacking netball’s “good name” prepares an exception. “Well, I think it’s about time someone did” appears to announce that the columnist will supply the missing attack. The isolated sentence delays the reversal just long enough to establish that expectation.

“Joking!” abruptly cancels it. The reader has briefly been led toward hostility, only to find a defender of the sport. This teasing movement makes the column’s affection entertaining rather than solemn. The writer’s refusal to insult netball also begins to establish its unusually protected status.

The follow-up exception for UFC undercuts the broad claim to love every sport. Preferring its participants to punch each other rather than him makes his objection comically self-protective. The voice invites readers into a casual conversation where qualifications arrive as jokes.

Calling netball “the favourite child of the Aussie family” turns a public question into a familiar domestic relationship. Personification gives the sport an agreeable character: it is “genial,” lacks its siblings’ “hang-ups” and wants a “merry old time.” The analogy makes affection, rather than size or dominance, the reason for its special standing.

The aside “but not too good looking” gently punctures the praise. Netball should be attractive enough to like without becoming so perfect that it provokes resentment. This small qualification sustains an amused, affectionate tone and keeps the paragraph from sounding like an official promotional statement.

The family comparison also carries the opening’s structure forward. Other sports have already attracted criticism; now they become the more troublesome siblings against which netball appears uncomplicated. The paragraph therefore develops the argument through its tone of fond familiarity, not merely through a decorative metaphor.

The government website appears to offer a more factual basis for the claim. Yet the writer cannot confidently identify what its participation ranking measures: a state, the country or children in a particular age range. That accumulating uncertainty interrupts the expectation that an official statistic will settle the question.

“Smarter people than me” turns the joke against the writer. His confession that the page gave him “a headache” and made him “slightly angry” presents a fallible, impatient reader rather than an expert researcher. Readers who recognize the frustration may feel closer to him, even as the admission weakens the statistic’s value as evidence.

Keep those effects distinct. The passage can build rapport without establishing factual authority. Do not state that netball is definitely Australia’s sixth most popular sport on the basis of a sentence that openly leaves the population uncertain.

This is also more than a random digression. It prepares the next paragraph’s move away from numerical ranking toward affection as the basis of national importance.

“But, while the numbers may not fully add up” concedes a weakness in the quantitative case. The column then shifts the standard: netball holds “the dearest spot in our national hearts.” What matters is now its supposed place in collective affection, rather than a verified participation total.

The short parallel claims “We all like it. We all smile when we see it” sound warmly certain after the preceding confusion. Inclusive “we” invites readers into a shared response, and “all” makes agreement seem universal. That is the voice’s persuasive claim; the column has not surveyed everyone.

The national team’s success adds pride to affection. “They win a lot of things” gives achievement an understated, conversational expression. The suggestion that such victories are now “like hens’ teeth” carries a wry implication that successes elsewhere have become scarce. We need not identify an unstated sporting scandal or tournament to explain the contrast.

Across these paragraphs, the writer moves from uncertain research to confident communal feeling. The humor makes that change of grounds seem relaxed, while the repeated collective language encourages readers to accept netball as something “we” value together.

The ending turns a grand question about a national sport into a modest action: “You should get down to a few games.” The colloquial invitation fits the companionable voice already established. Readers can also watch on free-to-air television, so support appears accessible rather than demanding.

The description of the competition as “creatively named” is a small ironic jab at its straightforward sponsored title. It maintains the teasing voice even as the writer offers practical information. Admiration does not require him to stop making jokes.

“Channel Nine, to be precise” supplies a concrete detail after the earlier confusion about statistics. Finally, “You know, like most major sports” makes recognition the closing issue. Its conversational reminder implies that netball already belongs alongside the sports readers take seriously.

The column never needs to establish an official national designation. Its movement from mock attack to affection and invitation encourages readers to give netball attention and support. Tone makes that advocacy feel like a recommendation from a witty fellow spectator.

A possible thesis

McClintock uses teasing reversals and jokes at his own expense to make his praise of netball feel like a friendly conversation. The column moves from mock hostility to shared affection and an invitation to attend or watch, encouraging readers to give the sport more recognition.

Choose a manageable argument

A response could first trace how the opening establishes a teasing supporter, then examine how the uncertain statistic gives way to collective affection, and finally explain the closing invitation. The family comparison can support the first or second idea. This is one possible organization; you do not need a separate paragraph for every tonal label or every paragraph of the source.

Model paragraph

McClintock shifts from uncertain research to shared affection to make his case for netball. A government website initially seems to offer reliable support, but he cannot work out which group its ranking describes. The growing list of possibilities makes his confusion comic. “Smarter people than me” directs the joke at himself, creating an approachable voice rather than an expert one. He then describes netball as holding “the dearest spot in our national hearts.” This changes the basis of his argument from participation figures to affection. “We all like it. We all smile when we see it” makes that affection sound widely shared. The shift invites readers to value netball for its place in community life, even though the statistic has not been established.

The paragraph follows a change in the argument and connects it to a change in tone. It explains what the self-deprecation achieves without confusing an approachable persona with reliable research. Its quotations are selective; the analysis does not need to retell the entire column.

Write a paragraph on the opening reversal. Connect the threat to attack netball, “Joking!” and the UFC aside. Explain what kind of relationship with readers this sequence establishes and how it prepares the later praise.

Alternatively, connect the affectionate family comparison with the final invitation. How does making netball seem likeable prepare readers to give it attention?

Before exporting, check whether each tone word identifies an attitude toward something specific. Replace “the tone is humorous” with an explanation of what is being joked about and what that joke allows the writer to say.

For another opinion piece, trace the particular relationship between voice and argument. Anger may make an issue urgent; a measured concession may make a proposal seem fair. Do not assume that another columnist’s jokes or pronouns serve the same purpose as these.