More World Cup thoughts

[paul moloney <pmoloney1969@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In light of recent World Cup postings I couldn't
resist this.

Paul


http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/mark_steel/story.jsp?story=304678

After 20 years, I finally want England to win
Our fans liked to express their pride by chanting 'No
Surrender to the IRA'five years into the ceasefire

Mark Steel
13 June 2002

Lefties and liberals love confusing themselves with
conundrums, such as "would people keep budgies in a
socialist society?" or "would you support independence
for Greenland if you were a gay Eskimo?" So the World
Cup can get people in a dreadful twist. Twenty or 30
hours can drift by as they debate who you should
support if Costa Rica are playing a Polish team that
has a sexist Maoist manager but there's a military
coup in Costa Rica between the end of extra time and
the penalty shoot-out.

Even better is the argument I've heard that the left
should support the defeat of its own country, in the
same way that Lenin supported the defeat of the
Russian army in the First World War. Which slightly
misses the point as Lenin was hoping the war could be
turned into revolution, which doesn't really apply to
the game against Denmark unless it's suggested that
both teams surprise us by coming out after half-time
carrying pikes.

The first point worth making to anyone in a quandary
about who to support is that it doesn't make much
difference, as you're not playing. You never see
the panellists saying "I'm wondering whether the
American goalkeeper was put off slightly, Des, by a
bloke in Hackney shouting at his TV 'come on
Portugal, get these imperialist pigs back for the
blockade of Cuba.'"

But also, supporting any football team is almost
always irrational and therefore can only be done
properly through instinct, not intellect. When I
was 10 I was so devastated by Gerd Muller's winner in
the quarter-final against England that even now,
whenever it's shown on TV, I get a shudder the way
others would if reminded of the time their teddy fell
in the fire.

Throughout the last 20 years I've often had the
opposite instinct, relieved when England have been
knocked out of championships because of the bitter
nature of much of the support. Most other countries'
supporters seemed happy to dance and sing and sit on
each others' shoulders, while English fans preferred
to express their pride by chanting "No Surrender to
the IRA", five years into the IRA ceasefire.

Even the non-violent support for England has often
been joyless, as pubs have rumbled with fists
clenching and growls of "Come on England," the
sub-text being "Surely we can beat a poxy place like
Sweden, it's only tiny and we used to run India and
that's huge." One reason may have been the way
most people were brought up with the myth of natural
superiority. One of my first school memories is of a
teacher proudly placing a globe on the table to point
at bits of it, saying "this was ours, this was ours,
this was ours, this was ours" until he got to America
and said "This was ours but we gave it back."

Back then we were taught that Britain was best at
everything; our political system was best, our Queen
was best, and a lesson about weather went something
like "Other countries have deserts and monsoons and
hurricanes or might be covered in snow, but we have a
lovely mixture, the right amount of everything."

I even remember something like "look at the shapes of
other countries. France is a boring boxy shape,
Italy's long and stringy and Denmark's got bits all
over the place. But England, straight in bits, curved
in other bits, just right." Or maybe I imagined that
one. But maybe things are changing. The fans in Japan
appear to be celebrating with a similar spirit to
those from other countries, and the atmosphere in
England is largely devoid of the traditional
grumpiness. I know this isn't representative, but I
saw the Argentina match on a huge screen at the
Hay-on-Wye literary festival, with about 800 people
supporting England, and the atmosphere was entirely
friendly.

Obviously that might not have been typical, as there
was never much chance of a bundle with the novelists
trying to take the short-story end. But in
London as well there appears to be a lively mood of
anticipation rather than the vindictive sneering of
previous competitions. It could change, and just
as Germany's penalty win in 1996 was followed by the
wrecking of Mercedes cars, defeat by Denmark may
result in crowds chucking bacon against a wall
and yelling "squash the lean bastard".

Or it could be that finally the old England is
wilting. Now the average teenager is less likely to
think of abroad as a weird place that speaks funny,
but as somewhere they might one day live and work in.
So it would be marvellous if real politics was played
under the same rules as the World Cup. Because the
charm is that once the game starts, both sides have an
even chance. Which is probably why it still hasn't
caught on in America, as they wonder why they're not
allowed to fire hundreds of balls at a time from
15,000 feet away where they can't be tackled, just
occasionally half-apologising when one of them
accidentally flies past and lands on a housing estate
for a goal-kick.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.