"Are you too intelligent to be a football manager?"

[True Gooner]

"You can never be intelligent enough"

Wenger later expands on football and life, duty and beauty. "I believe a big club must have the ambition to win with style ... You know, there is a famous saying, that the only way to deal with your life is to transform it into art, every minute of your life. Football is an art, like dancing is an art – but only when it's well done does it become an art. If you see me painting, that is not an art. If you see my wife painting, that is art."

A Wenger interview which touches on his vision for the club, his personal side and, more importantly, Arsenal and the community which hasn't got enough credit for the work they do. Apart from one or two of you whining at the 'loserish' outfits they're made to wear.

Couldn't find a thread to fit this in so I started a new one.

 

[kamikaze80]

good stuff. the man is on a different level from most of us.

 

[progman07]

I'm glad our manager is so classy, even if sometimes I have issues with his decisions.

"I have been 27 years in this job and I've won more games than I have lost, you know."

 

[Swish]

Pretty much the statement that trumps everyone else's.

 

[Lazaq]

Good read that. He's a class act through and through...

 

[Kroket]

Whenever he decides to come out and give an interview he never fails to impress me. Great stuff from a great man.

 

[alboots101]

big respect to Yva.

read it first thing.

 

[brady-hero]

i absolutely love AW.... we may get annoyed that he puts his vision ahead of results sometimes (unproven yourh policy etc.) but he is a genius. he's superman without the cape, using his power for good.

 

[kamikaze80]

nice avatar, brady. classic film, that.

 

[Biggus]

I disagree.
Football is not an art anymore than war is an art, it is the desperate struggle to assert your dominance over your opponents and piece of ground.
Yes "big" clubs have to win with "style" but first they have to win things consistently to be considered big, it's simply not enough to have a fancy stadium or a large fan base or legions of adoring hack's writing column inches about you.
If you want to see art go to the art gallery or the theatre but if you want to see your opponents bested and vanquished go to the football, they satisfy two very different needs in people.

So in that respect I think Wenger is too intelligent to be a football manager who's first and most important task is to produce a winning team, he gets distracted with peripheral things like style and economics and he possibly lacks the single mindedness that's sometimes necessary to win- At all costs.

 

[True Gooner]

I disagree.
Football is not an art anymore than war is an art, it is the desperate struggle to assert your dominance over your opponents and piece of ground.

Sun Tzu would say that war is an art. :wink:

Anyway, I don't think Wenger would disagree with you in the sense that nothings more important than winning, however:

Yes "big" clubs have to win with "style" but first they have to win things consistently to be considered big, it's simply not enough to have a fancy stadium or a large fan base or legions of adoring hack's writing column inches about you.

So in that respect I think Wenger is too intelligent to be a football manager who's first and most important task is to produce a winning team, he gets distracted with peripheral things like style and economics and he possibly lacks the single mindedness that's sometimes necessary to win- At all costs.

All those 'peripherals' are ultimately aimed to serve a greater cause. It's simply a different way of seeing things, one which I personally agree with. Single mindedness is just a step away from being narrow minded and I think a lot of clubs in the league are far too narrow minded for their own good.

 

[AnthonyG]

War's an art too. Ask 'Socrates' (or have him ask you).

Sorry US.

I don't even think there is anything to agree or disagree with here. All roads are being built towards winning, but some are straighter and more obvious than others.

 

[yuvken]

Any single layer, one dimension or single value type of reduction, to serve simplicity (for comfort? as an end on it's own?), practicality or some other aim, is bound to hit the hard turf of life's complexity, plurality and many aspects of most every field. Certainly an area so thrilling to so many can hardly yield to such reductionism: who said what is "the right way" to view football? It's very definition is a form of sport, entertainment, etc.
There may be criteria for survival - economic, losing all your games (and thus, failing to qualify for the very basic range of defining rules). But within that - who says what is right or wrong? I can think of one strong indication that things are right: when people love them, encourage them, feel they are a significant part of their life. But if this is one of "the roads that lead to winning" (winning what? how much? rules there too? any minimum?), than surely not "winning titles is the one and only ranking".
would a team that consistently wins titles, and plays the most boring, dreadful game, last forever? if it was the only criteria, they should. But with the aesthetic (I put the word "art" on diet for now) part of our life being part of what defines us - what we are sensitive to, what "paints our world", or simply - how important it is for us that our life be beautiful (see, war doesn't really sit comfortably here), this monochromatic avenue doesn't seem to be persuasive in the long run.
It's a bit late (in the night) to elaborate, perhaps later. Had to say something here after "someone saved my life tonight" (a great dane, you might say). We were ugly today, and even I am happy with that.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

Any single layer, one dimension or single value type of reduction, to serve simplicity (for comfort? as an end on it's own?), practicality or some other aim, is bound to hit the hard turf of life's complexity, plurality and many aspects of most every field.

I've read this sentence six times now and I'm still not sure what it means I think I agree with your post though.

Anyway, there are two types of people in the world: pod people, and people who realise that there are aesthetic and artistic qualities to everything we do, eat, read, watch, listen to and wear. If you're a pod person you don't get what I just said. If you're not a pod person you get it, and you also already know why beautiful, entertaining football is preferenced over ugly, boring football.

 

[irishgunnerz]

Biggus winning at all costs is not an option nor should it be

 

[Anzac]

Biggus winning at all costs is not an option nor should it be

I think the 'ideal' is something in between the 2 views - particularly in the PL.

 

[Burnwinter]

Anyway, there are two types of people in the world: pod people, and people who realise that there are aesthetic and artistic qualities to everything we do, eat, read, watch, listen to and wear. If you're a pod person you don't get what I just said. If you're not a pod person you get it, and you also already know why beautiful, entertaining football is preferenced over ugly, boring football.

Always preferring "beautiful" football to ugly, boring football is pod-like in its own way, of course. A bit like only being able to appreciate one or two genres of music, and considering them to be absolutely, ineffably superior.

There is no one, true, beautiful method to football. Including the oft-cited-around-here concept that beautiful football is winning football.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

Always preferring "beautiful" football to ugly, boring football is pod-like in its own way, of course. A bit like only being able to appreciate one or two genres of music, and considering them to be absolutely, ineffably superior.

No, not really.

There is no one, true, beautiful method to football.

Who's ever suggested that there is just one method?

 

[Burnwinter]

Well, what you appear to be saying is that all non-pod people prefer beautiful football to boring football. I thought you were implying said non-pod people would identify the same traits in football as beautiful (and further, that you as a presumed non-pod person were therefore authoritative on the subject).

But, you apparently weren't, so fair play.

The aesthetic aspects are inescapable (even football played "without regard to aesthetics" has its own aesthetic), subjective, and situated in a rich context, knowledge of which modulates the appreciation of the "pure" mechanics of players and ball moving on the pitch.

That context includes aspects like whether the way we're playing is winning us the league.

watch?v=FhGGCb1CkuQ

Take it out of context, is Thomas' goal less beautiful?

Even if you want intrinsic beauty, a fan isn't a fan without the associative part of the aesthetic. And trophies create associations.

 

[Klaus Daimler]

I certainly didn't mean boring as in "defensive" and beautiful as in "attacking" if that's what you mean. You'll find me to be a huge supporter of Italy (and just good defending in general), for example. There is skill and there's lack of skill, just as there is thought and lack of thought, no matter attacking or defending football. Good skills are only boring to people not paying attention. Of course there's a subjective element, hence why we as fans appreciate a goal like the one Bendtner scored today more than any outside viewer. It doesn't mean that the concept of beautiful aesthetics is impossible to grasp. There are still certain standards that are fairly objective, que Kant's distinction in Critique of Judgment between "aesthetics" and "taste" and his coining of the oxymoron "subjective universal". Que why everyone, or almost everyone, in the world would agree that Barcelona plays better football than Stoke City, or that Paolo Maldini is a better defender than Martin Taylor. There exists a form of finality, or at least the thought of it.

Football is also limited by it's competitive form, and that's why the music analogy is a bit off. You can listen to music for a lot of reasons. But the deconstructive aspect of, say, Sex Pistols doesn't really apply to a competitive sport, does it? To excel in sucking on the field is hardly going to win you any argument over football aesthetics.