Paz on 7/7/2006 at 00:33

---

Right, I was mulling over this last night. Mostly because my bedside light blew the bulb, meaning I had to use half the wall-lights to illuminate the room instead - and they're at a terrible angle so OH GOD MY EYES, MUST THINK ABOUT FOOTBALL INSTEAD. It's vaguely relevant.

Why is football good? For me, it's about narratives. Mini-drama, melodrama, massive epics - football has it all. Like all quality narratives, football requires all manner of exciting incidents and plot twists. It needs winners and losers; it needs goodies and baddies. Fabulously, thanks to the fluid and unending nature of the overall "story" the winners/losers/goodies/baddies can fluctuate and change over time.

Football needs Maradona's "hand of god". It needs Schumacher's assault on Battiston. It needs the Battle of Santiago. Just as much as it needs Brazil's fourth goal in 1970.

Without these events, football is impotant. Nobody would be terribly impressed with a film in which all parties seemed like thoroughly nice guys with acceptable motives - and football has a crucial one-up on cinematic portrayals: viewers have radically different perspectives.

Growing up in England, I have been saddled with the England narrative. This sees, for example, Maradona in 1986 in very specific terms. The Argentinian version of events will be suitably different. Gradually, through Football Italia on Channel 4 and USA '94 being the first World Cup I paid attention to, I've come to be intrigued by the Italian footballing narrative. These alternative experiences of the same game I find quite fascinating. Somewhere, someone is watching Star Wars and witnessing a bold empire being brought down by terrorists ... it's that kind of deal.

Moreover, of course, these "wrongs" and rivalries create new stories of their own. Millions of Australians saw Fabio Grosso go over easily and cursed this pansy sport they'd somehow been drawn into. Millions of Italians saw Guus Hiddink, remembered 2002 and smiled. Revenge was now complete. For Australia, that time will come later. Perhaps in 2010, perhaps in 2014 - but when it comes, it will be twice as sweet for the injustice suffered in 2006.

If we strive for a utopian "fair play" version of football (assuming it were possible), many of these dramas and interwoven circumstances would be lost forever. However much the media pundits complain about diving, violent play and controversial decisions, at heart they know they are the lifeblood of the game. Removed of these things, football would be a sterile environment in which the team which "deserved" to win probably always would do. A truly terrible state of affairs, almost devoid of excitement or unpredictability.

The final on Sunday can create all manner of stories. It could be a partial redemption of Italian football, it might be a superb end to the career of Zidane, it may replicate the final of Euro 2000 or be delicious vengeance for that result. Who knows?

It will continue the wonderful narrative.

Would the narrative necessarily be worse for the inclusion of some dubious decisions or cunning opportunism amongst great goals and tactical genius, or could these "negative" aspects actually paint a fuller picture?

I'll be screaming outrage if France win it with a dodgy Henry dive - but not because of the concept of diving, nor because I would necessarily wish such things removed from the game. I'll be calling Henry a cheating bastard and claiming Italy were "robbed", but deep down I'll eventually accept that all of these feelings are part of the rich tapestry.

They'll just make victory in Euro 2008 that bit more special.

I'm not sure if this all makes sense ... hopefully it will, to some degree. I'm aware there are holes in my theory. Taken to an extreme, it could be a justification for hooliganism and all kinds of nationalist unpleasantness which are undeniably important parts of football 'history' (and present in some cases, alas). I'm not wishing to do that - though such things do need to be recognised as 'playing a role' in the story. They are things which I see as an unwelcome role which CAN be removed without affecting the purity of the drama on the pitch, however.


tl;dr - FOOTBALL NEEDS SOME OF THE BAD SHIT

Scots Taffer on 7/7/2006 at 00:52

---

Epic post, Paz. As I've already pointed out, my interest is light-weight compared to some of you guys but I must highlight the following:



I don't understand how, if football became all about the quality of play and the style and flair with which the ball is handled and much of the harranguing about tackling and dodgy refereeing was eliminated, I don't see how that would lack excitement or become predictable. If you mean that the best teams will always win then that is a tried and tested falsehood that has been proven wrong in this tournament as much as any other, and it was not purely the result of poor decisions or dodgy play.

Otherwise, I agree but my hyperbole on the subject is limited. Football is not a religion to me, merely a distraction.

SD on 7/7/2006 at 10:54

---

Back to the World Cup, and FIFA have (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5154248.stm) shortlisted 10 players for the Golden Ball (player of the tournament) award.

Most of them are pretty understandable, but... Ballack and Henry? WTF have they done in this tournament to be considered one of the ten best players in it?

Paz on 7/7/2006 at 13:51

---

This is a disgrace - where is Lampard?!

Anyone except Cannavaro and Zidane are just making up numbers really though, aren't they? Depending on how the final goes, one of those two will surely get it (unless Henry pops up with a hat-trick or whatever).

I'd put Ribery before Henry to be honest. Henry *has* been involved with a few events and scored the crucial goal against Brazil, but for 85 minutes of every game he's been standing around with his hands on his hips looking like someone stole his Lego.

Presumably Ballack is there for "host nation representation" reasons, but they already have Klose in the list and I think Lahm wouldn't be too much of a stretch if they want more Germans.

Also, I know Italy are overloading the nominations already ... but no Gattuso?

SD on 7/7/2006 at 15:44

---

Gattuso made the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5158636.stm) WC 23-man squad at least. That is a rather better representation of the top performers in the tournament, although it bizarrely includes Totti and Toni from Italy, who have been decent but hardly earth-shattering, and neglects the superior Appiah and Essien of Ghana, as well as the imperious Marquez of Mexico.

My Team of the Tournament is:

GK: Buffon
DE: Zambrotta
DE: Cannavaro
DE: Marquez
DE: Lahm
MF: Gattuso
MF: Pirlo
MF: Essien
MF: Zidane
FW: Crespo
FW: Klose

Which, for the benefit of those individuals who accuse me of over-rating English players, includes precisely ZERO individuals from my own country ;)