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

[Biggus]

I don't want to drag this thread in the direction of what is/is not beautiful football because that, like art is a matter subjective opinion.

But football is not an art- although the creation of beauty and controversy are sometimes a by-product of it thats not it's function, because it has a definite purpose and there is a real outcome that must be achieved and that outcome is not open to opinion- there is a result, Barcelona are better than Stoke for one reason only, they've won more.
So therefore the reason the game is played is to achieve this result a win by scoring more goals than your opponent and the best team in a series of games wins a trophy and everything must be subjugated to this brutal fact.

As I always say if you want entertainment go to a movie, football and competitive sports in general speak to very different primal human needs.

 

[Rain Dance]

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:

Biggus is in the same mind set with George W. Bush

"hmm,... we need bombs, big bombs, the bigger the better, no need for tactics just blast'em all to kingdom come"

 

[Biggus]

Sun Tzu was writing at a time when people thought sitting on a horse was a pretty nifty trick or an art if you like.
Now it would be called a craft or profession.
Theres nothing artistic about killing whether it's done with a rock a sword a gun or an ICBM.

Or indeed a ball.

 

[Zico]

Biggus, football is an art on so many levels. There is a awesome beauty in seeing Vermaelen pick a ball from an attacker, change direction and launch an attack; or Nasri weave through 3 players; or Arshavin change direction on a defender, go around him on the opposite side of the ball to score, reviving memories of the great DB10. This is all artful. Do not forget the glory of the counter attack last week, that saw Eboue score some 15 seconds after Porto took their corner.

This is all art. It is art as much art as the mark of Picasso's brush on a canvas; just as your son's doodles at school are as artless as a desperate Boateng lunge

 

[raidersoftheark]

This is all art. It is art as much art as the mark of Picasso's brush on a canvas; just your son's doodles at school are as artless as a desperate Boateng lunge

Biggus' son = The new Ryan Shawcross

 

[Biggus]

Ah but theres also awesome beauty in nature, a predator stalks its prey etc, it's skill is craft not art, the object of the predator is to feed itself not entertain, but some find it's antics entertaining.
Art is only performed by humans and has no function beyond simply being, if some consider it entertaining- all the better- if some do not, it matters not a whit.
The object of competitive games is to first and foremost win, only when this has been achieved is it entertaining.
As an Arsenal supporter- Like the predator- I only "enjoy" the game when we are 3-0 up with 5 minutes to go and the feast is securely within my grasp.

 

[Rain Dance]

^Almost like glory hunting then :wink:

 

[Zico]

Ah but theres also awesome beauty in nature, a predator stalks its prey etc, it's skill is craft not art, the object of the predator is to feed itself not entertain, but some find it's antics entertaining.
Art is only performed by humans and has no function beyond simply being, if some consider it entertaining- all the better- if some do not, it matters not a whit.
The object of competitive games is to first and foremost win, only when this has been achieved is it entertaining.
As an Arsenal supporter- Like the predator- I only "enjoy" the game when we are 3-0 up with 5 minutes to go and the feast is securely within my grasp.

But Biggus. One would argue that the purpose of eating is to first and foremost suppress our hunger; but a dish served up by David Chang is artful while also fulfilling the purpose of providing sustenance. The ability to bridge function and art, like Chang, is what separates Wenger from the more mundane mnager.

 

[Biggus]

I make no apologies for it, I didn't get up at 4am this morning to watch us lose.
Thats what my profile says: Biggus- Occupation- Glory hunter (since 1971).
Would you call a lion chasing an antelope a glory hunter?
Make no mistake war and competitive sports in general are polite substitutes for blood sport hunting- It's deep in our psyche as humans.
The enemy (opposition) the ball (weapon) the goal (kill).
The artistic impressions come after the hunt is completed through song dance painting or storytelling.

But first the kill.

 

[Biggus]

But Biggus. One would argue that the purpose of eating is to first and foremost suppress our hunger; but a dish served up by David Chang is artful while also fulfilling the purpose of providing sustenance. The ability to bridge function and art, like Chang, is what separates Wenger from the more mundane mnager.

Do you think a starving man appreciates haute cuisine?

Wenger should cook a wholesome satisfying meal first and then worry about the eye candy later.

 

[AnthonyG]

Well, I naturally agree with Biggus.

You play football to win. You construct a team to win in the immediate, the short, the medium, and long terms.

A player enters a game looking to win balls, to win individual battles, to contribute to his team's winning.

It is entertainment only in the loosest sense. Without the prospect of a winner and thus a loser it would be pointless.

Wenger, however, is merely stating that he wants to win a certain way. I personally think he gets a little tongue-tied in that quoted portion above - something might have been lost in the binary translation.

 

[Biggus]

I'm not denying that Wenger is fiercely competitive, he can't be anything else after the success he's achieved in his life.
But to what end?
I think most of us Wenger watchers here whatever our shade of opinion all agree the Wengers "end game is to win it but win it his way.

I'm merely saying that in this hyper competitive field of endeavour this might be too big an ask.

It would be the ultimate irony and a little sad if Wenger retired disillusioned having failed.....Only for a more single minded manager to step in and scoop the cream whilst riding high on the house that Wenger built.

 

[Zico]

If another manager was able to win based on Wenger's work, then that would a small success for Wenger, that he has built a team that can go forward and win under Moyes or Laurent Blanc.

I have become less obsessed about winning the title. I think more than anything, I wanted to see a competitive team. It would be heartbreaking to lose narrowly, but I am satisfied with the progress evident to date this season.

 

[entropy13]

I'm not denying that Wenger is fiercely competitive, he can't be anything else after the success he's achieved in his life.
But to what end?
I think most of us Wenger watchers here whatever our shade of opinion all agree the Wengers "end game is to win it but win it his way.

I'm merely saying that in this hyper competitive field of endeavour this might be too big an ask.

It would be the ultimate irony and a little sad if Wenger retired disillusioned having failed.....Only for a more single minded manager to step in and scoop the cream whilst riding high on the house that Wenger built.

If it's a hyper competitive field of endeavor then how can something be "too big an ask"? Wouldn't being competitive imply that there wouldn't be any one thing that can dominate, and putting it the other way around, there wouldn't be any one thing that would be dominated (or be "too big an ask")?

I still don't get what you're trying to say here. Wenger's going to "win it, but win it his way", but if somebody else won, and he OBVIOUSLY won it "his way", it would be a different thing altogether? "LOLWUT???"

There's a big possibility that there's someone more single-minded than Wenger?

 

[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.

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.

Your absolutely right, it doesn't belong in here. But I must say - you had the courage to have a go at it 6 times: Nietzche would have saluted...
And, from what you said later, you pretty much understood what I said after all.
I apologize for that heaviness - I wanted to write, It was late night, and I didn't have the resources to adapt the text appropriately.
I'll try to find time later, as this is interesting, it involves (at least) two legitimate (somewhat contradictory) stances, and it serves to wash off that dirty feeling of yesterdays game.

 

[Biggus]

Well you see Wenger has this little side project....You may have heard of it. :whistling

 

[alboots101]

"whoosh"

 

[yuvken]

Biggus

Your posts here are thoughtful, and though I think different in some aspects, I in no way think any of this is conclusive.
First and foremost - the idea of an existing, all encompassing agreement as to what constitutes art is too ambitious to begin with. There are many opinions and approaches, and for thousands of years have been (just as small examples - nature and beauty, as you mentioned. goes back to Aristotle at least; though Ant would take us two generations further to the past. But, as he said, we may end up with more questions there ).
How important is originality, and what part has imitation there (for instance - of nature's beauty)? Btw, a major thinker like Kant said some things in characterizing art as essentially "not serving a purpose" that could sit well with what you are saying. I will stop this right here, coz next we'll have to consider stances on free will and such (can we at all do anything but imitate the existing?).
I said earlier that in my mind there are (at least) two basic, somewhat contradicting stances, both legit.

But there is something to be said contra the excluding, "monistic" stance (or definition - for art, football, or what have you):
"proving" what football is through appeal to psychology, pointing at essential subjectivity, or the meaning of beauty, competition, entertainment and such seems to me like very hopeful projects.
Could the music played in a pianist competition not qualify as art? but they surely do want to win it (some of them probably would be "pragmatic" in their style of play, too ).
Do different forms of art through history blossom or sent to oblivion according to their appeal ("rating")?
And see - even with regard to war (I'm totally with you on that one, btw), there's absolutely no agreement (even those who agree with you don't...)
Competition, defining rules and "playing" with the purpose to win does not exclude art: it may merely draw it's boundaries, lay the canvas and say: "that is your play ground". The temptation to answer this with "but here the competition is about beauty by definition" is not as helpful as it may initially sound.

You said: "war and competitive sports in general are polite substitutes for blood sport hunting- It's deep in our psyche as humans.
The enemy (opposition) the ball (weapon) the goal (kill).
The artistic impressions come after the hunt is completed through song dance painting or storytelling. But first the kill."

I'm confused: one thing is that you do seem put it in the same side of war in that.
Another is this: would people really be thinking of football in the same way (or think about it at all, for that matter) when their bellies are empty? your own words (...song and dance after the kill) suggest that there's a divide.
Likening sports to the hunt (sublimation and all that jazz) is all very well - but how does that exclude art forms from following (imitating; getting inspiration from) such patterns?

 

[yuvken]

Btw, I think it would be fair to AW to accept that his "little side project", as well as his main project, are defined by what would be accepted (at least in the long run; it's a bit tricky here) by the Arsenal fans. Yes, money; but the stadium has set the mark of appealing to 60 k people enough to spend money, put it high on their value hierarchy, every week (or more). So he's not entirely "free" to do what he wants in his own terms alone. HE accepted that from the start - he accepted playing by those rules.

 

[True Gooner]

Biggus,

football is an art, like dancing is an art – but only when it's well done does it become an art.

Football isn't an art in the same way ballet is art. I'm not sure where that's come into it. What Wenger seems to suggest is to play football sticking to the principles he sees fit which means being brave enough to play to the best of ones ability. Ultimately, even war is based on certain inherent principles to achieve a goal.