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

there is nothing ironic or sad about it IMO, it's just how the world works

someone built an foundation, others built a palace on it

It WOULD be ironic if his successor cannot build upon his foundation and destroy it all

 

Musashi might demur Biggsy. I think the trouble with making everything outcomes-based is that you can end up fixing the horizon in place.

Yeah, of course I didn't mean [that you meant] that.

Well, I can't argue with such heavily qualified statements. There's certainly the idea of a final objective standard or we wouldn't be discussing it. There is, no doubt, a consensus view on what people are supposed to think of as "the beautiful game". But a lot of people stake out their territory in terms of difference to the consensus view.

To illustrate the relative nature of football aesthetics, consider one stock phrase of football punditry: the "agricultural tackle". The term might've been, and probably was applied to Shawcross' reckless lunge on Ramsey the other week. But there are plenty of football appreciators who elevate the manoeuvre and the type of player that implements it aesthetically.

As "agricultural", perhaps it might be simple, rustic, close to the land. Being close to the land, it must be local, patriotic - the opposite of exotic or mannered. There's an evocation of the tackler "ploughing" into the turf. There's class associations going back to the feudal era.

On the other hand, as "agricultural" perhaps it's dull-witted, destructive, uncouth and unskilled.

That sort of tackle appeals to some viewers and appals others. The term used to describe it is redolent of football's nature as a social spectacle in a social context. The relative appeal of the the term reflects the relative appeal of what it signifies.

That's a fair point No analogy is perfect, that's just what popped into my head.

Although, the "deconstructive" bit - the part where actions are undertaken specifically because they're at odds with the perceived method of the mainstream, actually does apply to Arsenal, I think.

I suspect the economic efficiency of Wenger's approach to transfers relies partly* on the fact that the style he coaches is in relatively sharp contrast to the prevailing "English" style.

I think if every Premier League side was trying to field an attacking 4-3-3 with a large complement of physically diminutive, technical players, then Wenger would be searching out the cheap brutes and pace merchants at the other end of the spectrum of available players.

* The biggest element is his choice to bring on players in a different, and earlier, developmental phase

 

@ Yuvken the psychological links between hunting war and sports have been well documented, have you ever thrown a ball for a dog?

As usual the devil is in the detail, 'well done', I would call "well done" as in job well done ie winning the game.

Well thats why sport is not art because it is outcomes-based, and the horizon is fixed and the same as it ever was.


Always keep this in mind, the rest is just fluff and nonsense.

 

"the horizon is fixed and the same as it ever was."

Pretty sure the reason why Wenger manages the way he does is because for him, the horizon isn't fixed at the end of the season. After all there's plenty of long view (probably too much long view) in his method.

 

Wow, those 2 pages are a heavy read.
When Wenger says ART, he doesn't mean beauty or creative or that sort of stuff. I think he means mastery. Think about the martial ARTs. He wants our footballers to perform in the way that a martial arts master performs a kick or punch. With understanding built from practice, controlled, knowing intimately everything about the punch/kick.
That's why he's drawing the comparison between him painting and his wife - I'm guessing she is very skillful and practiced. It's not some random, left to chance event.
You can see that philosophy in everything he does, including transfers etc.

 

I think the main difference betwen humans and animals is that humans are creatures for whom their own existence is an issue. An animal tries to sustain its existence by trying to stay alive, but animals do not have an explicit relation to their world as such.

Art arises in the interaction between us and our world, in the ontological realization that we have a world which constitutes our being, that our Being is 'being-in-the-world'. We often don't think about our relation to the world, but there are times when we are feeling particularly transcendent, and this relation becomes so apparent that we are driven to express it, to capture it. That, to me, is what art is.

I think sport, usually for only the briefest of moments can, at times, represent a "picture" of that state of awareness we can achieve when the majesty of our world becomes explicit to us.

 

Tim, that's one hell of a post for a guy with a League player avatar.

 

I think Joey was a sportsman capable of tue artistry. Dont you?

 

Isn't he still in disgrace? But yes, the man was a master, no doubt of that.
A sad indictment of Aust "soccer" that you've had to choose him though ...

 

Sounds reminiscent of Heidegger Tim. This thread just gets better

 

Yes, I like Heideggar. I think he dealt a lot with existential authenticity, and I think it's highly relatable to sport. We are unique among all life because we can choose whether or not to be true to ourselves. A dog can't help but be a dog; it can't help but be what it is. However, humans must face themselves, understand themselves to be true to themsleves. Most of us spend the majority of our time sleep walking through life. Usually, this is due to laziness, or complacency, but sometimes it is due to fear and an inability to face our lives and make our choices as they really are. I honestly think that it's during sport we make the most 'concious', authentic decisions of our lives.

Plato said that "you can learn more about a man in an hour of play than you can in a life time of conversation".

 

@ Biggus - "the psychological links between hunting war and sports have been well documented, have you ever thrown a ball for a dog?" - never denied that (or implied that). The point is that art is not limited in it's reference, and therefore not excluded from areas you seem to imply are by definition "not art". But as I said already, these boundaries are debatable, and I'm not suggesting that your interpretation is essentially flawed.

 

Yeah, I'm a fan of Heidegger as well. Great thinker, not that I'm a philosophy expert but he's one of a few into whose writings I've delved a bit deeper.

I'm not sure I agree that "authentic" (as I understand the term to mean for existentialists) decisions are exactly what happens during sport. But when you play sport you definitely engage in a very pure, unmediated way with your immediate circumstances.

 

Funny, Tim - it seems to come out that the "sleep walking through life" are indeed those who live more authentically... a cow can't help being a cow; and a human?
But beyond the smiles, I don't think questions of authenticity are light weight, and I agree sometimes the lack of complexity, or indeed - the lack of choice (which puts us equal with the cow again, err) bring about some aspect of authenticity (again an indication that "authentic" is by no means a simple concept to analyze).

As for Heideggar, Don't want to impose a view, but I think it is worthy mentioning (with regard to authenticity, our place in existence, being reflective and, perhaps, having a choice about who we are) that maybe suspending the laurels from a guy who, til his death bed (late 1970's!), didn't distance himself from the Nazis? just a thought.

 

One thing about being a follower of a major sports league (rather than about playing sport) is that you're aware that millions of other thinking beings are invested in the same few moments you're witnessing. Considering there are only six billion or so of us in total, when you go to a match or watch a live telecast you really are at an epicentre of human experience, where tiny, otherwise absurd events (a foot, an inflated bladder, a net) are imbued with huge importance.

There's something about that palpable sharing of intense observation that's quite interesting.

Anyway, way off topic now. Re your second paragraph yuvken, I don't know what it means (or whether it's important to his writing) that Heidegger had an extended association with Nazism. As I understand it exactly how he felt about the ideology of Nazism is rather unclear.

 

It is way off, and I didn't want to impose, so these are my last words on it: you're letting him off the hook way too easy, imo.

 

yuvken: given this is really way off-topic (and Godwin'd ) I've sent you a PM. Which, for the benefit of anyone else still reading, does not contain any exhortations to become a Nazi and forgive Heidegger.

 

Cheers. Check yours.

 

You haven't met my ex-cat, what thought it was a dog. Started chasing ice-cream carts and cyclists and stuff.

 

I totally agree with this bit Tim, art imitates and is the interpretation of life.

This is where we disagree, we can draw pictures make dance and music that celebrates our skill in the hunt, but the hunt itself is not a celebration, it is performed for different reasons, either to satisfy hunger or blood lust (or it's modern substitute).
During a game we don't rationally analyse and "enjoy" (I don't anyway) we winch, grimace, stab the air, point our finger, flop in exasperation, or whoop for joy.
This is very different to how I react to an emotional piece of work.

But I take your point, the only time in my life (I've been watching football since 1971) that I can say an incident made me feel transcendent was that Bergkamp flick and that was because words didn't exist to describe it because nobody had seen anything like that done before.....The goal itself seemed almost superfluous.

Everything else is just business as usual.