British wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill is often revered as one of the most important figures in World War II. His inspiring speeches galvanised the battered spirits of the British people, and his strong leadership inspired the British army and their allies towards victory. Any man of lesser resolve and determination would have caved in and surrendered to the then mighty Nazi Germans.
That is what everyone knows. What very few people know is the fact that Churchill nearly died about 10 years before World War II. No, he didn't nearly die in some battlefield somewhere in the then vast British Empire. He nearly died after he was knocked down by a taxi in New York City! Churchill had an American mother so he was probably there for a social visit. He did not die but the injuries sustained were serious enough he had to be hospitalised for an entire week.
"What if?" is a question many would ask while imagining alternative eventualities in life. What if Churchill had died? Would the Germans successfully conquered Great Britain and gained absolute control of Western Europe? If that had happened, perhaps most of us today would be reading and writing in German rather than in English, and perhaps most football fans in the world would be following the Bundesliga rather than the English Premier League.
One may ask "what if?" for any issues, from the most profound to the most trivial. What if Hussein Onn had persevered and appointed Ghazali Shafie (instead of Mahathir Mohamad) as Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister in 1976? Mahathir probably would never become prime minister, ousted most likely from the government by Ghazali and forced to return to his Maha Clinic in Alor Star. No Mahathir, no Proton Saga, no Penang Bridge, no KLCC, and no KLIA. How backwards Malaysia would still be ;)
What if Eric Cantona had joined Liverpool, and not Leeds United and eventually Manchester United in the early 1990's? In 1992, Liverpool manager Graeme Souness was asked by Michel Platini (then manager of the French national team) to bring the talented yet temperamental young striker to England. Souness refused the offer so Cantona went to Leeds United instead. Leeds won the league that season. He was sold to Manchester United the next season and the club immediately won the league for the first time in more than two decades and went on to win more league titles over the years, enough to even surpassed Liverpool's proud long-standing record of 18 English league titles. Liverpool of course depressingly has not won the league since 1990.
Pondering with "what if" may also be an act of regret for not doing something that perhaps could have prevented a tragedy from happening. Former Wales manager and football player Gary Speed died tragically a few months ago. Most likely, he had committed suicide but expert testimony given during the coroner's inquest suggests that it might have been purely accidental. Whichever, it will not take the pain away from Gary Speed's wife who confessed that she and Gary had an exchange of words about "something or nothing" the last time she saw him alive. She went out for a ride to clear her mind but soon returned home only to find she had accidentally locked herself out. She spent the night in the car and in the morning found her husband's body hanged in the garage.
Imagine how it feels like that your very last conversation with your late spouse was an unpleasant one. Imagine the "what if" that goes through Mrs. Speed's mind. "What if I did not leave the house?"; "What if I had brought my house keys with me?"; "What if I did not make such a big deal about the 'something or nothing' we had argued about?" Imagine that... Well, I certainly can. The circumstances surrounding my wife's death were certainly different. She certainly did not take her own life but we did have our own incident over 'something or nothing' on that fateful day. And because of that, I have continued to ask myself "what if" I had done this or that, and "what if" I had said something that night.
It's not easy to move beyond these "what if's'". One cannot choose to have selective amnesia. I cannot simply extract specific data from my brain and delete it from my memory. It stays with me and continues to haunt me. Deal with it one must and as a Muslim, I've learned to accept all that has happened as God's will, the wisdom of which I shall learn to understand for the rest of my life.
Fate is to be accepted, not questioned. To sometimes ask 'what if?' is instinctive, to be burdened by it however is maladaptive and un-Islamic. "I am enslaved to fate, of all else say no more; With a sweet tongue speak, else I plea say no more; Speak not of troubles, of treasures tell me more; And if of this you know not, be not troubled, say no more." (Rumi 149, Divan-e Shams)
For the first time in almost a year, I feel strong enough to move on, to finish all that I've started and to begin the search for a new mother for my three young children. Regaining some level of optimism is essential. Optimistic I am of many things, including for Liverpool to finally win their 19th league title next year (or sometime before the end of time:)) and for Roger Federer to finally beat Rafael Nadal at Rolland Garros. Churchill, Cantona AND Mahathir are best left to history.
Showing posts with label Football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Football. Show all posts
Friday, 10 February 2012
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Mengapa Malaysia Tidak Pernah Layak Ke Piala Dunia?
(Berikut ialah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 9 July 2010. Dipaparkan juga di bawah komen yang diberikan oleh 'Peminat Bolasepak' yang saya rasakan sangat bernas dan wajar diberikan perhatian yang serius)
Pertandingan Piala Dunia Bolasepak 2010 di Afrika Selatan sudah hampir ke penghujungnya. Sudah hampir sebulan peminat bolasepak di Malaysia bersorak menyaksikan pertarungan antara negara-negara selain daripada negara tanahair mereka sendiri. Dalam keghairahan bersorak pasti ramai yang tertanya, "bilalah agaknya pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia akan beraksi di pusingan akhir Piala Dunia?"
Melihat pada prestasi pasukan kebangsaan sepanjang beberapa tahun yang lalu, agak mustahil Malaysia dapat beraksi di pentas Piala Dunia. Senarai ranking mutakhir Persekutuan Bolasepak Antarabangsa (FIFA) meletakkan Malaysia di tangga 146, setaraf dengan 'gergasi' bolasepak yang lain seperti Turkmenistan, Burundi dan Madagascar.
Walhal, kurang 30 tahun yang lalu pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan duduk setaraf dengan Jepun dan Korea Selatan yang sudah berturut kali layak ke pusingan akhir Piala Dunia. Saya sempat menyaksikan pertarungan antara Malaysia dan Jepun sebanyak dua kali di Stadium Merdeka pada tahun 1980-an. Pertamanya di peringkat separuh akhir Pestabola Merdeka 1986: Malaysia menang 2-1 dalam masa tambahan. Perlawanan kedua ialah di pusingan kelayakan Piala Asia 1988: Malaysia tewas 0-1.
Sekarang, sekiranya Malaysia berjaya menewaskan Jepun ataupun tewas tipis di tangan mereka, pasti dianggap kejayaan yang sangat besar. Walaupun tewas 0-1 pada tahun 1988, hakikatnya Malaysia pada perlawanan tersebut menguasai pasukan Jepun sepanjang tempoh perlawanan. Kekalahan tipis ketika itu dianggap cukup mendukacitakan.
Kemerosotan pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan boleh dilihat daripada pelbagai sudut. Yang pasti, kemerosotan ini banyak mencerminkan beberapa perkara 'pelik' yang berlaku di dalam negara.
Pertama, jika dilihat pada barisan pemain kebangsaan sekarang, sudah tidak ada lain pemain berbangsa Cina yang menyarung jersi kebangsaan. Malah, hanya S. Kunalan, pemain dari Negeri Sembilan yang merupakan pemain bukan Melayu tunggal yang sering turun dalam kesebelasan utama pasukan kebangsaan.
Sudah pasti kemerosotan prestasi pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan bukan kerana tiadanya pemain berbangsa Cina. Cuma, apa yang berlaku ialah menularnya polarasi kaum dalam arena sukan negara. Bolasepak kini boleh dianggap sukan untuk kaum Melayu sahaja, manakala kaum Cina lebih tertumpu pada acara sukan lain seperti bolakeranjang dan bolatampar.
Dalam bersukan pun sudah kurang integrasi antara kaum! Bukankah ini sesuatu yang amat menyedihkan?
Saya percaya kepelbagain kaum dalam sebuah pasukan bolasepak ada manfaatnya. Lihat saja pada pasukan Jerman dalam kejohanan Piala Dunia kali ini. Dalam kesebelasan utama pasukannya yang membenam England dan Argentina, ada permain yang berbangsa Turki, ada yang berasal dari Ghana dan Tunisia, dan di bangku simpanan ada pemain-pemain yang berasal dari Sepanyol dan Brazil.
Pemain-pemain ini membawa pembaharuan dalam corak permainan pasukan Jerman. Jika sebelum ini mereka dianggap hanya bergantung kepada disiplin dan organisasi permainan yang tinggi, pasukan Jerman kali ini dilihat mempamerkan aksi menyerang yang baik dan kreatif.
Pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia dahulunya punya kelebihan ini. Pemain-pemain Melayu dan India lebih ekspresif mempamerkan skil permainan manakala pemain-pemain berbangsa Cina dan Sikh punya daya tumpuan dan disiplin yang tinggi. Maka, tidak hairan jika dilihat pada senarai pemain kebangsaan pada tahun 1970-an dan awal 1980-an, tonggak pertahanan negara dibarisi pemain-pemain seperti Soh Chin Aun, Santokh Singh, Lee Kin Hong dan Serbegeth Singh; dan tonggak serangan dibarisi pemain seperti Mokhtar Dahari, Shukor Salleh, Hassan Sani dan Zainal Abidin Hassan. Budaya yang berbeza membawa gaya permainan yang berbeza, dan ini membawa manfaat bila diadun dengan sempurna.
Seperkara lagi yang menyedihkan dalam bolasepak negara ialah penglibatan ahli-ahli politik. Memang benar, daripada sudut kewangan penglibatan ahli-ahli politik itu membawa manfaat. Mereka mampu menarik dana yang diperlukan untuk mengurus persatuan bolasepak tempatan. Selain daripada itu, penglibatan mereka sebenarnya tidak perlu.
Saya tidak faham misalnya mengapa jawatan presiden persatuan-persatuan bolasepak negeri sering dipegang menteri-menteri besar. Tidak cukupkah kerja di pejabat menteri besar sehingga perlu mencari kerja tambahan mengurus persatuan bolasepak? Mengapa tidak dibiarkan sahaja pentadbir profesional mentadbir dan membuat keputusan? Saya percaya ramai menganggap penglibatan ahli-ahli politik ini tidak lebih daripada usaha mencara publisiti murahan.
Kita tidak mahu ahli-ahli politik masuk campur kerana tidak mahu 'penyakit politik' meresap dalam bolasepak. 'Penyakit' yang paling ketara ialah kurangnya fokus pada rancangan jangka panjang. Banyak dana dan tenaga lebih tertumpu pada kejayaan serta merta. Siapa di kalangan ahli-ahli politik yang mahu membuang masa merancang pelan jangka panjang seperti 'Malaysia ke Piala Dunia 2018'? Tahun 2018 itu sangat jauh dan jangka hayat politik mereka mungkin tamat sebelum itu.
Sekiranya perancangan rapi dibuat, saya percaya pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan mampu bersaing di peringkat antarabangsa. Saiz dan tubuh pemain yang kecil tidak lagi boleh dijadikan alasan. Pemain-pemain Jepun dan Korea Selatan sudah membuktikan ia bukanlah penghalang untuk mengecap kejayaan. Kejayaan pasukan kebangsaan merangkul pingat emas Sukan SEA tahun lalu perlu dijadikan asas kejayaan yang lebih besar pada masa hadapan.
Bersorak untuk pasukan Brazil, Sepanyol dan Argentina dalam pusingan akhir Piala Dunia banyak membawa kepuasan. Namun, bagi setiap peminat bolasepak di tanahair, tidak ada yang lebih memuaskan dan membanggakan daripada bersorak untuk pasukan Malaysia dan mendengar lagu Negaraku berkumandang di Piala Dunia. Bilalah agaknya impian ini akan menjadi kenyataan?
Komen ‘Peminat Bolasepak’:
Point 1 : Polarasi kaum
Saya rasakan kurang adil jika kita jatuhkan hukuman polarasi kaum kepada kualiti bolasepak kita. Hakikatnya, memang itu sahajalah yg kita ada. Saya berpendapat jika ada kaum bukan melayu yg mahu bermain pun, tak akan berubah kualitinya. Germany memilih Khedira, Ozil dan Klose bukanlah kerana mahukan integrasi kaum, tetapi kerana itulah yg terbaik mereka ada. Saya yakin bahawa jikalau 23 pemain terbaik German adalah yang memang dilahirkan di German, mereka itulah yg akan dipilih.
Sepanyol pernah mencuba kaedah yg lebih kurang serupa pada piala dunia 1984 dengan seberapa boleh menyenaraikan pemain-pemain dari kesemua regional, contohnya Basque, Catalonia, Madrid, Valencia dan Andalusia. Ternyata, ia langsung tidak menjadi, dan persembahan Sepanyol pada piala dunia itu adalah tersangat mengecewakan.
Kesemuanya adalah bergantung sepenuhnya kepada perkembangan pemain-pemain kita. Kita selalu melihat kepada bolasepk Inggeris. Corak latihan, akademi bolasepak, kesemuanya adalah merujuk kepada pasukan-pasukan dari Inggeris, padahal, sebenarnya England tidak langsung menyerlah di peringkat antarabangsa. Corak permainan Inggeris yg pantas, laju dan fizikal sebenarnya tidak sesuai dengan keadaan fizikal kita yg sekarang lebih kecil dari Jepun. Bagaimana jika kita menitik beratkan kepada skil teknikal individu? Cara memegang bola, 'close-control', 'dribbling', 'possession', semua ini kurang ada pada bolasepak Inggeris. Kalau kita melihat kepada pemain-pemain dunia yg mempunyai skil seperti yg saya sebut di atas, kesemuanya bertubuh kecil! (Messi, Xavi, Pedro, Iniesta) Jika kita boleh menitik beratkan aspek ini pada permainan kita, tak mustahil kita boleh mempunyai Messi kita sendiri.
Point 2 : Politik
Saya setuju 100%. Tahukah kita bahawa bolasepak Jepun boleh berada di tempat mereka sekarang dengan pelan 20 tahun mereka yg bermula pertengahan 80-an? Dan kita dapat menyaksikan sekarang mereka boleh bersaing di pentas dunia. Dimana pelan kita? Sedangkan format liga malaysia pun seringkali ditukar 1-2 tahun sekali, apatah pula dengan 'blueprint'?
Pertandingan Piala Dunia Bolasepak 2010 di Afrika Selatan sudah hampir ke penghujungnya. Sudah hampir sebulan peminat bolasepak di Malaysia bersorak menyaksikan pertarungan antara negara-negara selain daripada negara tanahair mereka sendiri. Dalam keghairahan bersorak pasti ramai yang tertanya, "bilalah agaknya pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia akan beraksi di pusingan akhir Piala Dunia?"
Melihat pada prestasi pasukan kebangsaan sepanjang beberapa tahun yang lalu, agak mustahil Malaysia dapat beraksi di pentas Piala Dunia. Senarai ranking mutakhir Persekutuan Bolasepak Antarabangsa (FIFA) meletakkan Malaysia di tangga 146, setaraf dengan 'gergasi' bolasepak yang lain seperti Turkmenistan, Burundi dan Madagascar.
Walhal, kurang 30 tahun yang lalu pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan duduk setaraf dengan Jepun dan Korea Selatan yang sudah berturut kali layak ke pusingan akhir Piala Dunia. Saya sempat menyaksikan pertarungan antara Malaysia dan Jepun sebanyak dua kali di Stadium Merdeka pada tahun 1980-an. Pertamanya di peringkat separuh akhir Pestabola Merdeka 1986: Malaysia menang 2-1 dalam masa tambahan. Perlawanan kedua ialah di pusingan kelayakan Piala Asia 1988: Malaysia tewas 0-1.
Sekarang, sekiranya Malaysia berjaya menewaskan Jepun ataupun tewas tipis di tangan mereka, pasti dianggap kejayaan yang sangat besar. Walaupun tewas 0-1 pada tahun 1988, hakikatnya Malaysia pada perlawanan tersebut menguasai pasukan Jepun sepanjang tempoh perlawanan. Kekalahan tipis ketika itu dianggap cukup mendukacitakan.
Kemerosotan pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan boleh dilihat daripada pelbagai sudut. Yang pasti, kemerosotan ini banyak mencerminkan beberapa perkara 'pelik' yang berlaku di dalam negara.
Pertama, jika dilihat pada barisan pemain kebangsaan sekarang, sudah tidak ada lain pemain berbangsa Cina yang menyarung jersi kebangsaan. Malah, hanya S. Kunalan, pemain dari Negeri Sembilan yang merupakan pemain bukan Melayu tunggal yang sering turun dalam kesebelasan utama pasukan kebangsaan.
Sudah pasti kemerosotan prestasi pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan bukan kerana tiadanya pemain berbangsa Cina. Cuma, apa yang berlaku ialah menularnya polarasi kaum dalam arena sukan negara. Bolasepak kini boleh dianggap sukan untuk kaum Melayu sahaja, manakala kaum Cina lebih tertumpu pada acara sukan lain seperti bolakeranjang dan bolatampar.
Dalam bersukan pun sudah kurang integrasi antara kaum! Bukankah ini sesuatu yang amat menyedihkan?
Saya percaya kepelbagain kaum dalam sebuah pasukan bolasepak ada manfaatnya. Lihat saja pada pasukan Jerman dalam kejohanan Piala Dunia kali ini. Dalam kesebelasan utama pasukannya yang membenam England dan Argentina, ada permain yang berbangsa Turki, ada yang berasal dari Ghana dan Tunisia, dan di bangku simpanan ada pemain-pemain yang berasal dari Sepanyol dan Brazil.
Pemain-pemain ini membawa pembaharuan dalam corak permainan pasukan Jerman. Jika sebelum ini mereka dianggap hanya bergantung kepada disiplin dan organisasi permainan yang tinggi, pasukan Jerman kali ini dilihat mempamerkan aksi menyerang yang baik dan kreatif.
Pasukan kebangsaan Malaysia dahulunya punya kelebihan ini. Pemain-pemain Melayu dan India lebih ekspresif mempamerkan skil permainan manakala pemain-pemain berbangsa Cina dan Sikh punya daya tumpuan dan disiplin yang tinggi. Maka, tidak hairan jika dilihat pada senarai pemain kebangsaan pada tahun 1970-an dan awal 1980-an, tonggak pertahanan negara dibarisi pemain-pemain seperti Soh Chin Aun, Santokh Singh, Lee Kin Hong dan Serbegeth Singh; dan tonggak serangan dibarisi pemain seperti Mokhtar Dahari, Shukor Salleh, Hassan Sani dan Zainal Abidin Hassan. Budaya yang berbeza membawa gaya permainan yang berbeza, dan ini membawa manfaat bila diadun dengan sempurna.
Seperkara lagi yang menyedihkan dalam bolasepak negara ialah penglibatan ahli-ahli politik. Memang benar, daripada sudut kewangan penglibatan ahli-ahli politik itu membawa manfaat. Mereka mampu menarik dana yang diperlukan untuk mengurus persatuan bolasepak tempatan. Selain daripada itu, penglibatan mereka sebenarnya tidak perlu.
Saya tidak faham misalnya mengapa jawatan presiden persatuan-persatuan bolasepak negeri sering dipegang menteri-menteri besar. Tidak cukupkah kerja di pejabat menteri besar sehingga perlu mencari kerja tambahan mengurus persatuan bolasepak? Mengapa tidak dibiarkan sahaja pentadbir profesional mentadbir dan membuat keputusan? Saya percaya ramai menganggap penglibatan ahli-ahli politik ini tidak lebih daripada usaha mencara publisiti murahan.
Kita tidak mahu ahli-ahli politik masuk campur kerana tidak mahu 'penyakit politik' meresap dalam bolasepak. 'Penyakit' yang paling ketara ialah kurangnya fokus pada rancangan jangka panjang. Banyak dana dan tenaga lebih tertumpu pada kejayaan serta merta. Siapa di kalangan ahli-ahli politik yang mahu membuang masa merancang pelan jangka panjang seperti 'Malaysia ke Piala Dunia 2018'? Tahun 2018 itu sangat jauh dan jangka hayat politik mereka mungkin tamat sebelum itu.
Sekiranya perancangan rapi dibuat, saya percaya pasukan bolasepak kebangsaan mampu bersaing di peringkat antarabangsa. Saiz dan tubuh pemain yang kecil tidak lagi boleh dijadikan alasan. Pemain-pemain Jepun dan Korea Selatan sudah membuktikan ia bukanlah penghalang untuk mengecap kejayaan. Kejayaan pasukan kebangsaan merangkul pingat emas Sukan SEA tahun lalu perlu dijadikan asas kejayaan yang lebih besar pada masa hadapan.
Bersorak untuk pasukan Brazil, Sepanyol dan Argentina dalam pusingan akhir Piala Dunia banyak membawa kepuasan. Namun, bagi setiap peminat bolasepak di tanahair, tidak ada yang lebih memuaskan dan membanggakan daripada bersorak untuk pasukan Malaysia dan mendengar lagu Negaraku berkumandang di Piala Dunia. Bilalah agaknya impian ini akan menjadi kenyataan?
Komen ‘Peminat Bolasepak’:
Point 1 : Polarasi kaum
Saya rasakan kurang adil jika kita jatuhkan hukuman polarasi kaum kepada kualiti bolasepak kita. Hakikatnya, memang itu sahajalah yg kita ada. Saya berpendapat jika ada kaum bukan melayu yg mahu bermain pun, tak akan berubah kualitinya. Germany memilih Khedira, Ozil dan Klose bukanlah kerana mahukan integrasi kaum, tetapi kerana itulah yg terbaik mereka ada. Saya yakin bahawa jikalau 23 pemain terbaik German adalah yang memang dilahirkan di German, mereka itulah yg akan dipilih.
Sepanyol pernah mencuba kaedah yg lebih kurang serupa pada piala dunia 1984 dengan seberapa boleh menyenaraikan pemain-pemain dari kesemua regional, contohnya Basque, Catalonia, Madrid, Valencia dan Andalusia. Ternyata, ia langsung tidak menjadi, dan persembahan Sepanyol pada piala dunia itu adalah tersangat mengecewakan.
Kesemuanya adalah bergantung sepenuhnya kepada perkembangan pemain-pemain kita. Kita selalu melihat kepada bolasepk Inggeris. Corak latihan, akademi bolasepak, kesemuanya adalah merujuk kepada pasukan-pasukan dari Inggeris, padahal, sebenarnya England tidak langsung menyerlah di peringkat antarabangsa. Corak permainan Inggeris yg pantas, laju dan fizikal sebenarnya tidak sesuai dengan keadaan fizikal kita yg sekarang lebih kecil dari Jepun. Bagaimana jika kita menitik beratkan kepada skil teknikal individu? Cara memegang bola, 'close-control', 'dribbling', 'possession', semua ini kurang ada pada bolasepak Inggeris. Kalau kita melihat kepada pemain-pemain dunia yg mempunyai skil seperti yg saya sebut di atas, kesemuanya bertubuh kecil! (Messi, Xavi, Pedro, Iniesta) Jika kita boleh menitik beratkan aspek ini pada permainan kita, tak mustahil kita boleh mempunyai Messi kita sendiri.
Point 2 : Politik
Saya setuju 100%. Tahukah kita bahawa bolasepak Jepun boleh berada di tempat mereka sekarang dengan pelan 20 tahun mereka yg bermula pertengahan 80-an? Dan kita dapat menyaksikan sekarang mereka boleh bersaing di pentas dunia. Dimana pelan kita? Sedangkan format liga malaysia pun seringkali ditukar 1-2 tahun sekali, apatah pula dengan 'blueprint'?
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
FIFA World Cup: The Moral Equivalent of War
It was William James who first called for a moral equivalent of war. In his article published in 1910, James wrote:
"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."
Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.
James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.
There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.
Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.
People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.
Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.
We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.
The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.
Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.
If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.
Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.
"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."
Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.
James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.
There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.
Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.
People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.
Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.
We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.
The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.
Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.
If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.
Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)