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

Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by True Gooner, Mar 13, 2010.

  1. irishgunnerz

    irishgunnerz Moderator Moderator

    Sport is quite simply a combination of art and war, a collision of the the most basic human instinct to fight and win and an appreciation at an altogether different level of the sublime. One is nothing without the other - would Bolton or Blackburn be any easier to watch if they were successful? Contra to that, if we continue to play as we do, without winning, is that any easier?

    I'm surpised Biggus that in all that time only Bergkamps flick has brought that overwhelming feeling you describe. Henry against Sp**s (where he seemed to dance past every member of the Sp**s defence....twice), Henry against United with his back to goal and Irwin about six inches behind, even Nasri's recent woinder goal...the feeling involved, surpise turning to delight, the growing feeling you have witnessed something special...its not fluff nor is it winning - but it can be beautiful

    I agree fully that noone can analyse rationally a game in progress - but there are moments of sheer beauty which you dont need to rationalize, you dont need to sit and think and 'enjoy'.... because you feel it at an emotional, instinctive level far beyond the confines of rational behaviour.

    How else can you explain moments like when Ronaldinho destroyed Real at the Bernabau he was spontaneously given a standing ovation by the Real crowd. It wasnt rational, thought out, or planned in any form. It was a natural, emotional reaction to the understanding that they have just witnessed a performance of such sheer artistry that active thought was unnecessary

    They are the moments we live for. This is why we play, watch and discuss passionately the game.

    Win or lose, trophies or not, it is football...and its why we love it.
     
  2. Biggus

    Biggus New Member Elite

    Football and crowds in general aren't conductance to the appreciation of high art, as you inhale you can actually feel your IQ dropping.
    The subduing of the personal will in the amorphous mob is well documented, thats how bashings lynchings gang rapes and Nuremberg rallies happen.
    It's interesting that you mention Spain IG because theres one place people have married art to violence in in a very public popular way, la corrida de toros- Bullfighting, and we of course play in the Spanish style. :wink:
    I don't like that style I prefer my killing and football carried out in the most ruthless efficient way possible.
     
  3. Armor for Sleep

    Armor for Sleep New Member Elite

  4. Biggus

    Biggus New Member Elite

    :lol:
    Ahh the old in/out never fails to raise a laugh.
     
  5. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    "...style I prefer my killing and football carried out in the most ruthless efficient way possible."
    Could still sound like your discussing art :wink:

    But seriously, Biggus: if we take "my football preference is as ruthless and efficient as possible" seriously, that would reduce the aesthetic aspect of it to minimum (perhaps nullify it). You want a win machine, even if it's absolutely ugly and without any attempt to please the eye. That is as a result oriented definition as you can come up with. But despite knowing you are result oriented, i think this extreme serves you as "ad absurdum": why would anyone choose football for that? if you answer again with the deep psych killing substitute, i put to you the question again: why football? there's like a zillion better (better="more efficient") ways to do that.

    I think a more sensible way to understand you is to accept a reduced aesthetic part in the mix vs the "result/efficient" one, but not a non-existent one.
    Or I just don't understand you at all :)
    But I like your quotes, any way
     
  6. wellington

    wellington New Member

    Hey yuvken, there is a different way to look at the "aesthetic aspect". What could be more appealing, attractive and elegant than a perfectly tuned machine/system/process? I bet Wenger hopes to create a team that will always score within three passes, but practical limitations constrain him. But he is aiming for the most efficient way of scoring a goal. It may be that right now it takes us an average of (for arguments sake) 15 passes in an attacking move, but that's a failure of our skill, planning, execution etc - not Wenger's desire to be ruthless.
     
  7. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    Not really, Wellington. You must remember the context: "as efficient as can be" - meaning 100% importance for the result, 0 for the way. that by definition leaves not much (...) for the aesthetic preference. but even if you insist, let's take an example: say you have a cannon shooter; a Delap like extreme, that can shoot to goal and avoid all the mess the football game presents us on our way to results. now multiply it for all the team (if needed at all: maybe he can do it all himself; it's like squash or something). if you still have a temptation to say there may be an aesthetic side (or some sort of appeal to it) - that to me is pure stubbornness: it's not football we're discussing anymore. so, in fact, I think you just emphasized what I said :wink:
     
  8. wellington

    wellington New Member

    The art is in coming up with a more efficient way of winning than yur opponents. Because there isn't any "cannon shooter".
    So for me, I'm looking for elegant rather than pretty. Harlem Globetrotters are pretty, but they aren't elegant. They'd be smashed if they played in the NBL.
    I think it's the same for Arsenal. We want the most elegant (efficient) way to score. Given there is no silver bullet, you need to vreate a way to get the ball from here to the goal without letting the opposition stop you. If you can, often the result will be pleasing to watch, but that's an unintended consequence. The better pleasure (in my mind) is admiring the elegance of the construction.
     
  9. Burnwinter

    Burnwinter New Member Elite

  10. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    yes, W, what you say is very sensible, and is within the realm of acceptable debate about what is pleasant on the eye, elegant or whatever. This is football. What you are saying is acceptable, but notice: it is leaning on, or based on already accepting that the "efficient" is NOT 100%. It leaves enough space for other aspects that we can enjoy (otherwise, that "Delapy freak" would represent elegance to you, existing or imaginary).
     
  11. wellington

    wellington New Member

    Actually Burnwinter, you've just given yuvken my quote - he may not be pleased given I was trying to convince him of that point.
    But your point does illustrate the two viewpoints. And I'm sure Wenger is a subscriber to the aesthetic functionalism view, at least in regard to playing football.
    (I take it you googled that - or is this your thing?)
     
  12. wellington

    wellington New Member

    My example would be Rooney's recent goal against us, the fast break. Was it a good goal? Yes, because it was so efficient. From our corner, to their goal in a few seconds. That's art, not luck. They've trained years to get the skills they can execute in a game that will beat their opponent. As I said in a previous post, it's ART as in martial ARTs.
    But it's not "pretty" - no fancy flicks, somersaults or elaboration. Just efficiency.
     
  13. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    No, W. it is not true. Rooney's goal is a great example of something aesthetically pleasing, and is nothing like the "Delap machine", which would take us out of football. as i said before, your ideas are perfectly acceptable, but you don't seem to accept they are already "sitting" on a basis that is, at least partly, consisting of the aesthetic as well as the result. Calling it elegant, and insisting this is essentially different from other types of aesthetic pleasure is just blurring the issue.
     
  14. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    Burnwinter: use my quotes for whatever pleases you, results or otherwise. Even more so when you attribute someone elses :D
     
  15. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    btw, burn's link:
    notice it sends us back to the way we see or think of art (basic definitions). As was mentioned before (by myself and I think some others), it is not clear we can reach agreement on these basics. So aligning with "functionalism"'s views on aesthetics is, in a way, begging the question.
     
  16. wellington

    wellington New Member

    Ah, I see, that's what irks you. I wasn't trying to suggest that there was some essential difference. I guess what I mean is that for me, when I watch sport (and probably war if I was watching that too) the principal pleasure is admiring the efficiency. They way the opponent is broken down, and victory achieved. That is an aesthetic.
    That doesn't mean that I don't like other aesthetics. Painting, theatre, architecture all evoke different pleasures.
    So I can say I want to see Arsenal play beautiful football, and not be asking for backheels, tricks and elaborations. And I think Wenger can too.
     
  17. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    That's cool. I think we were all trying to use some "objective" or more universal terminology, in order to gather around an agreed center of discussion (where it was a hard task from the outset, considering we couldn't even agree on "art", which seemed central to parts of this thread). But despite all of that, I think I understood you. You seem to be thinking more or less in Biggus' lines. Oh, wait a minute... I don't know what Biggus thinks :) .
     
  18. Burnwinter

    Burnwinter New Member Elite

    Fixed. Sorry about that.
    Yeah, just the Goog - I haven't actually even read the paper, just being a smarmy git. :)

    Aesthetic functionalism is an important thingy in architecture, my wife's an architecture student so I was talking about it with her the other day.
     
  19. wellington

    wellington New Member

    Yes, I thought you were asking a bit for us to be reading this stuff, but actually it was right on the money for this discussion. This really has been quite a cerebral topic.
    I guess the difference with architecture (and other disciplines) is there is no objective answer. But in sport there is - winning. So at the end of the day the best team is the one that wins: judgements about everything else are conjecture (and fun!).
     
  20. yuvken

    yuvken New Member Elite

    "there is no objective answer. But in sport there is - winning. "

    If that was all sports was about, this thread would not have happened. Neither would there have been a point to the aesthetic discussion. btw, not even true with regard to architecture. But if this makes you happy - who am I to comment :wink: .
     

Share This Page

Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv