The Round Ball Game - II

[Ein Heldenleben]

A pedant writes: there was no Cricket world cup in 1976. In the 1975 cricket world cup final, the West Indies beat Australia by 17 runs. Four years later, in 1979, the West Indies beat England by 92 runs. In 1976, the touring West Indies team beat England 3-0 in a five match test series. To which of these events are you referring?

It was the ‘79 final in fact - also there outside the Tavern were Dennis Lilley and Mick Jagger . The former spent a bit of time encouraging Boycott with shouts of “come on Geoff show us your shots” . Didn’t work…Amazingly I got the tickets by ringing up the ground having noticed a tiny Ad in the Times. “I’ll send you a feorm” said the posh voice on the phone at Lords. No mucking about with time wasting ticket sites then. - so much more civilised in that respect at least.

[gurnemanz]

Trivia question: Who are the reigning Olympic Cricket champions?

Answer: Great Britain (not England).

"In the 1900 Paris Games, only four teams participated in cricket. To make matters worse, two of them — Netherlands and Belgium – withdrew from the event. After that, the other two teams – France and Britain faced each other, where England's club Devon and Somerset Wanderers defeated the hosts’ French Athletic Club Union by 158 runs in their two-day long match." - Quoted from this site.

[Mario]

Sport is politics.

Richard, no!

I swim in dangerous waters in arguing the law of semantics with you, considering English is not my mother tongue. Nevertheless, the definition of sports is,

“An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment,”

whereas, the definition of politics is,

“The art or science of government”.

I’ve just looked that up!

How can these be considered congruent? Really, I would like to know.

OTOH, if you mean politics has become involved in sports, or sport has become political, then maybe I would agree. I thought the Greeks started sport as a pastime, a common enjoyment to be shared, but yes, each athlete wanted to win.

How can politics or Government be considered by any stretch of the imagination, to be “a common enjoyment to be shared”?

But if you consider the nefarious activities of Blatter, Blazer etc, and Platini (now THERE’S an example of someone who WAS a sportsman and became a politician) and blame that on the sport they were supposed to oversee, that’s hardly fair.

Indeed, and the stylised war game of Association Football provides a clear expression of this. It plays the role of a substitute "continuation of politics by other means".

I have been watching football for almost sixty years, and not once during a game of football have I thought that Association football “plays the role of a substitute “continuation of politics by other means””.

Maybe either or both of you can enlighten me please?

Mario

[Bryn]

Richard, no!

I swim in dangerous waters in arguing the law of semantics with you, considering English is not my mother tongue. Nevertheless, the definition of sports is,

“An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment,”

whereas, the definition of politics is,

“The art or science of government”.

I’ve just looked that up!

How can these be considered congruent? Really, I would like to know.

OTOH, if you mean politics has become involved in sports, or sport has become political, then maybe I would agree. I thought the Greeks started sport as a pastime, a common enjoyment to be shared, but yes, each athlete wanted to win.

How can politics or Government be considered by any stretch of the imagination, to be “a common enjoyment to be shared”?

But if you consider the nefarious activities of Blatter, Blazer etc, and Platini (now THERE’S an example of someone who WAS a sportsman and became a politician) and blame that on the sport they were supposed to oversee, that’s hardly fair.



I have been watching football for almost sixty years, and not once during a game of football have I thought that Association football “plays the role of a substitute “continuation of politics by other means””.

Maybe either or both of you can enlighten me please?

Mario

I will not attempt to answer For Richard but I hope you got the Clauswitz reference in my response. All team sports are basically war games. The aim is to defeat the opposing team, often, as in the recent final, by fair means or foul (such as grabbing and pulling on the shirt of a member of one's opposing team). A dictionary definition is an attempt to describe a term already in use. It often fails to deal with all aspects of a term it seeks to so define. This, I find to be very much the case with that which you offer. I think it far better to play war games such as Association Football, even with its sometimes rather weak rules, to real war. However, the tribal following it attracts and some of the on-field actions of its participants, very much confirm its status as a war game.

[Mario]

I will not attempt to answer For Richard but I hope you got the Clauswitz reference in my response. All team sports are basically war games. The aim is to defeat the opposing team, often, as in the recent final, by fair means or foul (such as grabbing and pulling on the shirt of a member of one's opposing team). A dictionary definition is an attempt to describe a term already in use. It often fails to deal with all aspects of a term it seeks to so define. This, I find to be very much the case with that which you offer. I think it far better to play war games such as Association Football, even with its sometimes rather weak rules, to real war. However, the tribal following it attracts and some of the on-field actions of its participants, very much confirm its status as a war game.

Sorry Bryn, but again, no!

I’m happy to withdraw from this discussion if it inflates any further, as the last thing I would wish to accomplish is alienating you of all people, who has been so instrumental in my enjoyment of HE-WHO-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED!

But I think it is you who is looping and conflating.

A dictionary definition is an attempt to describe a term already accepted to be in general usage, and it is impossible for it to deal with all aspects of its definition, although its definition has been accepted as crystal clear. We cannot all go around putting our own definitions on a term.

No, I’ve never heard of Clauswitz and have just looked him up. Still don’t see the connection with football.

If by supporting Manchester United I’m seen to be in a war game (using YOUR definition), then I’m in serious trouble.

I don’t want to continue this discussion Bryn, but only because genuinely, I have too much respect for you.

Anyway, it’s 33C outside, the first Brits are arriving, and I’m off for a swim…

Best wishes,

Mario

[Bryn]

No need to be Cagey about JC, Mario.

I think the problem here may mainly, indeed, be semantics. A war game is a less violent, less lethal form of struggle between opposing groups than is war itself. As such it can serve to avoid the escalation to more dangerous forms of struggle. It is not a condemnation of Association Football, or any other organised and codified team sport to recognise this role. The problem I see is with the minority of its participants and supporters who sometimes take it beyond the formerly popularised call in China of "Friendship first, competition second", a call which, admittedly, I don't think was followed through on to any great extent om that county.

I will just add: well said, Johnny Mercer.

[Mario]

No need to be Cagey about JC, Mario.

Ha! No Bryn, wrong again!

I don’t know a single note of any work by that composer… oh! Wait! Yes I do!

You see, there you go again, helping me expand my knowledge!

Mario

[french frank]

The term 'political' can be used in a philosophical way as when Aristotle said that man is by nature 'Zoon politikon' - a political animal. Politikon derives from Greek polis - a city, where men (actually humans ) live together and everything they do is affected by and affects the others who live together (in the city). And Aristotle said that a man who stood aside from this interaction with others was either below or above human beings: an animal or a god.

So when (to enter controversial waters) a government minister, or anyone else, says that those who 'take the knee' are playing politics they are clouding the issue with unclear terms. Those they attack are not 'playing politics' they are making a 'political' statement which is very clear, very well understood and you either do or do not agree with that statement. Even in a limited way they are saying, "All footballers are equal, and we want to say this because other people treat them as if they weren't equal." If anyone says that 'all that' should be kept out of football they speak like an animal or a god.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think this is where a misrepresentation occurs: who is critical of 'the simple game of football'? How could anyone possibly criticise that?

It's more about being appalled (OED 'dismayed, shocked, discomfited, terrified') by the behaviour of those "involved" with the game. And by "involved", I'm not targeting the genuine fans but the hangers-on - the thugs, the WAGs - plus the excesses of emotion, joy, despair, rage, and the media hype, the money, the celebrity culture. Nothing to do with the 'simple game of football'.

Desperately unfair to include "excesses of emotion" (who gets to decide "excess"?) "joy, despair" alongside "thugs and rage"....this reminds me of Putin equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

Football may seem "a simple game". But, like Formula 1, the tactics, the strategy necessary for potential victory are often complex. Which true fans know, and have known, for years.

I am a "genuine fan", of Liverpool and England, of so many years, of so much joy, despair and....intense emotion. A vital and essential part of my life. Excessive or intense? This a vital matter of language, of choices, of implied judgement - of what Richard Rorty termed "redescription". Is it wrong to have such intense emotions about football, as you might about...LGBTQ rights and campaigns, or Bruckner, or Roussel? Standing up for what you believe, defending them against ignorant attack?
You think such intensity isn't involved in Tennis, or Cricket, or....? Take a look at how Indian and Pakistan Cricket fans and crowds react to their great defeats and triumphs...

*****
As for "WAGS". Oh, PLEASE!
There is now a fully-developed Professional Womens Game (several of whose stars were a part of commentary and analysis at EURO 2020/1), reported daily in most national newspapers.
To reduce this to "WAGS" is appallingly dated. The last time such stereotypical phenomena were prominent was at the 2006 World Cup. Perhaps you still have fond memories of the very popular ITV show "Footballers' Wives"? It could never be made now - and thank goodness.

*****
OF COURSE Politics and Sport cannot be separated. Just look at the Olympics....
Going back to Jesse Owens' Golds in Berlin 1936 (and his treatment in the USA after that) and the exhilarating (yes, at the time, to many of us) Black Power Salutes in the 1968 Mexico Games. The latter widely condemned then and since. But what an impact they made. Now we have Marcus Rashford and Tyrone Mings telling the truths to the foolish people in power in Westminster, NOW, right now.

All credit to them, and the England Squad - with the RAINBOW captain's armband Harry Kane chose, and the wonderful "Dear England" letter Gareth Southgate addressed to EVERYONE just before the tournament.

*****
Always hits the spot, every week......

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/11/this-england-team-arent-playing-for-the-tories-version-of-the-country

[french frank]

jayne

By WAGS I was thinking especially of a very current legal dispute between WAGS, so not entirely dated, and the situation where they become celebrities in their own right (no, I have no memory of Footballers' Wives: I haven't had a television for over 25 years).

As for 'excesses of emotion', this referred back to what I was saying 'appalled' (see OED definition given) me: and by excess I mean strong emotions which I've never come across in my (very) ordinary life, and which when displayed by crowds do 'frighten' me. But I've never been moved by being a spectator to sporting events, amateur or professional.

[jayne lee wilson]

jayne

By WAGS I was thinking especially of a very current legal dispute between WAGS, so not entirely dated, and the situation where they become celebrities in their own right (no, I have no memory of Footballers' Wives: I haven't had a television for over 25 years).

As for 'excesses of emotion', this referred back to what I was saying 'appalled' (see OED definition given) me: and by excess I mean strong emotions which I've never come across in my (very) ordinary life, and which when displayed by crowds do 'frighten' me. But I've never been moved by being a spectator to sporting events, amateur or professional.

Oh I see..... so why not focus on Womens' achievements in football, sports and sports media, rather than this trivialised, silly, tabloid-fanned dispute between two women who have been so stereotypically represented themselves? Or do you think that "WAGS" is all these two, individual women are?

"Whereof you do not know, thereof be silent"

[french frank]

Oh I see..... so why not focus on Womens' achievements in football, sports and sports media, rather than this trivialised, silly, tabloid-fanned dispute between two women who have been so stereotypically represented themselves? Or do you think that "WAGS" is all these two, individual women are?

Well, in the context, I was talking of what had been described as 'criticism' of football, so it would have been changing the subject to rhapsodise over the success of the women's football team. I wasn't focusing on 'this trivialised, silly, tabloid-fanned dispute between two women who have been so stereotypically represented themselves'; it was just a mention of an aspect which has become part and parcel of 'football' but has nothing whatever to do with the 'simple game' (quoting Auferstehen's phrase)

"Whereof you do not know, thereof be silent"

Wittgenstein. I think I'll stick with Aristotle and his 'Politics'. On which subject, I meant to add below that the word idiotēs originally meant one who kept himself apart from public affairs, didn't participate. Apolitical, you might say.

[Sir Velo]

"Whereof you do not know, thereof be silent"

[Mario]

Aristotle? Wittgenstein? Clauswitz? John Cage?

Purleese!

Stop this, my head is about to explode!

Mario

[teamsaint]

Well here's a simpler one.
"Covid certification" looks almost inevitable now at sports stadia.
Unbelievably depressing.

What a terrible state we are slipping into.