The ups and downs of following football

Michael C- I was talking about people who follow the sports but not either team. Is that intracode? I get those two confused. "Anyway - that’s the domain of the fan - - not the neutral" etc. Fair enough. Sport isn't designed with neutrals in mind (except for penalty shootouts, which are only enjoyable if you're a neutral). The shame about the whole "first impression" thing is that some people don't realise that, sometimes, it can just be a bad day for all concerned. All sports are capable of producing extreme dullness (soccer's 1990 World Cup, for example).

MC - while respecting what you have posted above I hope you can acknowledge that other 0-0 draws can be magnificent games, in fact some of the tensest ones because one single moment of brilliance, or one single error, can tip the game literally right to the final second. I'm just making sure because my feeling is that for many Aussie fans, only 'scoring events' can be exciting and so they have this stereotype of a nil-all football result as being always boring when 90% of the time it is anything but. Also about 'moments'... at a strategic level, a game without moments is a feature in itself, and indicative of a tense tactical battle between stifling effective defenses.

Billo + Michael C - do i need to repeat myself endlessly before any of this makes sense to you. I will repeat this again. If you look at my contributions you will not find me bagging any code. I might have fun at someone else’s expense and use cultural and historical reference to give some colour, but I will not tell them them that the game they love is boring, violent, negative, unskillful and other tiresome descriptions. This is something that you are both guilty of. Why don't you contribute something positive about this topic rather than rubbish like this example from Billo on Football - "It’s also a game that you can play to a relatively high standard if you’re a little guy who is relatively unathletic, and it’s even a game that you can play to a high standard if you’re permanently pissed, like George Best or Paul Gascoigne." Rather than stooping to Billo's level and bag the game he loves. I would rather make fun of his asinine contributions. That is not a dismal tactic Billo. You present a easy target with your silly comments. Finally , one of my best emotional sporting moments this year was Essendon's come from behind win against Collingwood. It shows that all codes are capable of creating great emotional rides. So why don't we hear more of what rocks your boat when watching sport rather than this endless negativity.

MVDave - ah - exactly. Likewise it's a shame that someone on here I think last year spoke of seeing the Swans host Port Power at the SCG in a pretty dull affair...........ah the shame they weren't at Etihad last Friday night to see Essendon play REAL footy to upset the reigning premier...... time and place!! It's not about eyes being closed - - sometimes, it might be more about only having one chance at giving 'first impressions'. That relates across just about everything. It then can take some time to be able to try again. Captain Random - ah yeah - - but, like most sports, if the team winning is doing so because they A. warrant it, B. are playing attractive and superior play, and hopefully a bit of C. that they might even have been the underdog and so the neutral loves seeing the other team getting smashed.......but, on neutral - - that can depend if were talking intracode neutral vs intercode neutral. Similarly, if I were a dedicated follower of MVFC or SFC, then I'd have been bighting my nails and getting frustrated with the lack of flair but willing to let them warrant my attendance by turning up the next match where I'd expect a better showing... ....but then, again, I've had that this year with North Melb, they have been so crap until Sat night that I was on the verge of staying away until they learned to play any brand of footy that might have half a chance of winning....luckily enough, I WAS there for a ripper match, we won by 5 points, the kids loved it, we kiced 20 goals, they kicked 18, we cheered and the kids lapped it up and we sang the song and we went home super happy.............sad only 14,000 odd attended when we've got 30K members - - obviously a few people had exhausted their patience for the time being. Anyway - that's the domain of the fan - - not the neutral - - to somehow put up with the crap, the boredom and celebrate the good days - - and now and then you have a good year with a 60% of greater win ratio........ah the memories. (btw - we kicked 15 goals to win rnd 1 over last years wooden spooner Melbourne, since then, in 5 rounds we'd failed to kick more than 11 goals - - on Saturday night we had 12 goals by half time..........a much, much better style of footy to watch)

"That’s my answer to those who reckon every 2nd game of AFL is an 80 pt margin - - - but, hey, if you can’t imagine the satisfaction you get in seeing your team romp to an 80 point win and everything just ‘working’ on the day…..then, “You just don’t get it”. Do you get it??)" I think they are referring to blow-outs from the point of view of the neutral. I'm sure everyone likes to see their team win by a huge margin.

MC Its a shame (for you) the only HAL game you've seen finished 0-0 MV vs SFC. It's a pity you couldnt have been at Olympic Park in 2006 when the ground was bursting at the seems with a sell out 18,000 plus to see MV def SFC 5-0 with Archie getting a wonder goal, or the first clash between the 2 at TD when 40,000 were there and MV held off a 10 man SFC to win 3-2 in a thriller, or the last game in 2008 at SFC when a record crowd of over 33,000 saw MV draw 2-2 to stop SFC winning the title or the game last season when MV were 2-0 down after 5 minutes and came back over a 70 minute period to score 3 goals and win a thriller...yeah but l guess when you're eyes are closed you aint going to see much!

Art Sapphire - art.....the ability of two different people looking at the same people and interpreting it in their own and different ways.......(sounds like umpires/referees). At any rate, sports is art so long as one teams fans call "MAAAN" and the other group call "BAAALLL" (or whatever from whatever code). btw - the 'soccer' is 'beautiful' brigade - - good luck to you, but that's a boring cliche that doesn't resonate with those who - - in your words "don't get it". Realise though, that some of us DO get it and it's just not right for us. I don't want to attend a game unsure of whether I'll see a goal at all, or a goal for my side - - the most underwhelming sports experience I've had is a 50K crowd watching a dull 0-0 draw. Nothing - - absolutely nothing. (not even a 'save' to write home about). Perhaps I've been attuned via years of watching footy (VFL/AFL) that I can cope with more than about 5 key happenings in a match (i.e. soccer folk seem to come out of most games and focus on events A in the 15th min, B, in the 33rd min, C in the 60th min, and D and E in the 80th and 84th minutes......seesh, in that SFC vs MVFC game there wasn't even 1 single 'moment' to discuss. No winner, no loser, no score, no team song, .....no point. But, for you, the good days justify the bad. That's my answer to those who reckon every 2nd game of AFL is an 80 pt margin - - - but, hey, if you can't imagine the satisfaction you get in seeing your team romp to an 80 point win and everything just 'working' on the day.....then, "You just don't get it". Do you get it??)

Art, The article was about the highs and lows of following football in comparison to other sports. Your sour response suggests you can't counter an argument, so you try to abuse posters who disagree with you. It's a dismal tactic.

I gotta say my interest in soccer is largely to do with the variation on skillset that players bring some are quick, some are technical, some are rugged, some are strong, some are tall, some are persistent, some have mental toughness. Now all these virtues are present in other sports too, but within individual positions you are generally looking for an archetype. While tis true that you generally want your centrebacks to be tallish, anywhere else on the park you can make use of an individual skillset rather then a predefinition. That is what really gives me a boner for this game. It's also why i find it rarely boring, because it isnt just guys of similiar shapes and skillsets going up against each other. Most of the gerat players today are common only in their success, not their skillset. Thats why there are endless debates about who is greater, x or y. Some can run, some can pass, some can shoot. Some never give up, some are untackalable, some never miss. You can be any height, size, temperment in soccer and get a run on the field.

I think this argument is silly. At the end of the day all codes are highly stylised contests comprising of moving a ball from point A to point B within a set of rules, while an opposing team tries to do the opposite. Fundamentally, if you take a step back, they are ALL boring. But whether one gets into them or not and breaks through that somewhat meaningless abstraction is just a matter of taste, and also of the 'accessibility' of the code (eg some of the factors mentioned above about the ability to play the respective codes on the street with simple gear etc). But fundamentally one code is not better than another. What this leaves me in order to make comparisons is the structure of each code and whether this support or detracts from quality - whether there is more than one credible league in the 'world' of the code and whether inter-league competition can be used to create benchmarks, what the player pool is of the game and therefore how elite the top rank of players really has to be, whether leagues are sustained by socialist levelling devices (such as salary caps, drafts, etc) to artificially create competition, etc etc. And of course I have strong views on each of these aspects. But they do not translate to my belief that one game is fundamentally better than another. Indeed (hypothetically) for all that I love football, if it were not a vastly played global game with a relatively open unmanipulated structure I would probably love it far less and question it far more in the way I do some of the small codes. The only point on fundamentals that I do feel is that there is more room for beauty and creativity in simplicity. So all things being equal (which of course in practise I can accept they aren't) I have a preference for simpler games and rules over more complex ones, and a corresponding belief that it is within those simpler endeavours that one will see the best utilisation of elite talent (both physical/athletic and that intangible thing called 'vision').

That is correct Billo - this is a debating forum. The article , however, was about the high and lows of following football. As a rugby man you could have contributed something worthwhile like Larkham's drop goal or losing to the poms in the WC as a was of articulating the high and lows of folllowing another code. But no, you were unable to do that - this was your lame response. "The real question that should trouble the NRL and the ARU is why it is fashionable for some people to like soccer but not the rugby codes. Soccer in Australia seems to be going through a period in which it is fashionable to be a fan, which is a relatively new experience for the code. A few years ago it was fashionable in Sydney to be an AFL fan. I remember reading a book about one fan’s conversion from being a North Sydney fan to becoming a Swans fan. For what it’s worth, I think soccer is the most boring of the four major codes, despite the fact that I see a lot of EPL games. Soccer has an unhealthy tribalism, at least in England, whereas the tribalism that attaches to the rugby codes is much healthier, in the sense that it isn’t infused with the hatred that all too often characterises soccer crowds. Can the rugby codes become fashionable again? It’s easier for rugby union, with its particular supporter base, with its fashion-conscious demographic, but it should be easy for league too, if only the NRL weren’t run so badly." Q. What has this piece of writing has in connection with the article A. Nothing - its just a ridiculous response from a rugby follower suffering from misplaced jealousy who wishes to make Rugby the new Black.

Art, Your comments really are rather patronising. For example, "Finally, what I find annoying are supporters of one code who can’t help making negatives comments about the way another code is played. But you and Billo have been guilty of this on this thread. Its utterly irrelevant." Let me remind you that this is a debating forum that contains many postive and negative comments about a range of subjects. My comments about soccer are by no means exclusively negative - I probably watch a live game once every three or four weeks - but I do believe the game has some seriously negative characteristics which I have outlined. You seem unable to argue against those points, so you merely try to dismiss them by making silly generalisations, like the one I've referred to above. In citing some writing by Marcela Mora Y Araujo you tend to demonstrate my earlier point about soccer being fashionable. That piece of writing would qualify for the 'Pseuds Corner' column in the English magazine Private Eye. As far as the video was concerned, the goal by Leo Messi was of course a beauty, and showed soccer at its best. It was very reminiscent of a rugby or league player scoring an individual try when beating most of the defenders. On the other hand, if you want to see the ugly side of the game, look at Didier Drogba after this week's game against Barcelona. The fact is that all sports can have moments of beauty that could almost be described as poetic, and they all have their ugly moments. Neither soccer, the rugby codes nor AFL are unique in that respect. But a combination of history, culture and fashion, rather than any inherent qualities of the football codes, explain their command of particular markets.

Dan - again thanks for the response. Ofcourse, the world is not black and white. There is always a danger on these blogs to generalise. Everyone is guilty of it, even myself. I am completely aware of Rugby's working class following in Wales, South Africa, New Zealand and its great suitability for the physiognomies and culture of Maori and Pacific Islanders. But you would have to agree with me that in the vast majority of countries the game is played by the priviliged ranks of society. Don't forget your code was an amateur pursuit until recently and the majority of the working class of England and Australia defected to Rugby League. This is why I find all this teeth gnashing and hand wringing of Rugby followers to be so curious. Why can't the Rugby people understand that the people who ran your game over 100 years ago through their delusional elitist ideas destroyed any hope for the game to be bigger and more popular than what it is today. In one foul stroke they disenfranchised the working class of Northern England and split the code irrevocably. Rugby has been fighting a losing battle against football ever since. This is not a criticism of the game itself. Its just an observation based on historical record. Finally, what I find annoying are supporters of one code who can't help making negatives comments about the way another code is played. But you and Billo have been guilty of this on this thread. Its utterly irrelevant. If you look at my contributions you will not find me bagging any code. I might have fun at someone else's expense and use cultural and historical reference to give some colour, but I will not tell them them that the game they love is boring, violent, negative, unskillful and other tiresome descriptions. "Different strokes for different folks as you said"

Just to make sure I don't give the wrong impression, I understand soccer has managed to spring roots in all kinds of social settings, and I'm not disputing that, but the argument that rugby is some how a game only for the "elite" is both outdated and unfounded. Different strokes for different folks as they say.

Art, You claim that "I don't get it", but all I hear from you are tired cliches. You're the kind of soccer fan I see a lot of, one who believes his game represents true egalitarianism and that sports like rugby are for the wealthy and sheltered. The world is not so black and white unfortunately. I myself have very much working class roots, my father being a meat worker and later a union representative, but my public high school played rugby union and it's the game I grew to love. You'll find no silver spoon here - so save your simplistic judgements for someone else. What I find ironic is that you charge me for not being able to account for the popularity of soccer in "developed" nations, yet I never made such claims in the first place. I expec this is mere you projecting your own bias. In any case, your own argument basically undermines you when you look at it from a rugby perspective, because your divisions of "the elite" and "the masses" simply don't translate when you look at where rugby is most popular. I'll give you a tip: it's not England, nor even NZ or SA - it's the pacific Islands like Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Small states to be sure, but hardly elite or heavily developed. Yet these people have such passion for the game that the percentage of people who play it is as high as 1 in 10 people in some areas (both male and female and all ages). How does your theory of the egalitarian world game account for that? It can't. The simple fact is rugby suited these people better in the same way that Rugby League suits the people of Papua New Guinea. The class divisions you obsess over just don't exist in the context of rugby and soccer in these places. I once asked a Fijian mate of mine why he felt rugby was so big there and he said that it was because of the games intense physical demands and how the varied roles and leadership required gave the game a truly tribal feel to it.

Dan - thanks for the response. I do hope you watched the video. The crowds response to Messi's goal was like a singer receiving an ovation at the finest opera house. A recognition of a great work of art. Unforunately, you still don't get it. Soccer's popularity in the developing nations is not due to it accessibility, it is due to the enjoyment people derive from playing and watching the game. Its not a difficult concept to understand. Lastly, ofcourse I was referring to the "inmates" when I spoke about the masses running the asylum. Dan - you represent the "capable" who are always supposed to be in charge of the asylum and your game is rugby. Your game is the game played only by the elites in developing countries. It does not trickle down to the masses. It is rejected by them. I represent the majority, the "incapable". They embraced football willingly. What I don't understand is why you never mention developed countries like Germany and Spain. Those countries had every chance to adopt rugby as a popular pastime. Yet, it is only a niche sport played by the elites in those countries. Strange that. Well, at least they run the asylum :)

Art, I appreciate your passion for your chosen game but it just isn't my thing... I usually follow the progress of world cups, but sport is very much an individual thing and I find that I derive a certain amount of vicarious satisfaction from the physicality and aggression exhibited in the Rugby codes and it is possibly because of this that I just can't get into soccer. It just becomes an incredibly frustrating with the lack of contact and often very low scores/draws and is then further compounded when I see players constantly feigning injury and then whining at referees like petulant little children (seriously, rugby players show respect to referees, so it's hard to swallow how spoilt soccer players often seem). Further, I certainly have no issues with soccer being the most popular game either. Indeed, I have often thought that while it represents a great strength, it is also one of the sports greatest drawbacks - as the rules are destined to never evolve or improve in the way a more localised game like American Football or Australian Football can. As someone else said, soccer is made for the developing world and is by far the most accessible football code and thus will always reign supreme in numbers. but it's not unlike religion - atheists will always be outnumbered by the religious, but that doesn't mean actually anyone's going to heaven when they die ;) . Lastly, it’s when "the inmates run the asylum", and it refers to the incapable attempting to take on the roles of the capable - an event destined for disaster.

Art imitates life, life imitates Art. The vicissitudes of football. If you can't be positive about life and see the beauty of things and not just the ugliness then you aren't really living at all.

Dan + Billo - I am still relatively new to the Roar and I have not had much to do yet with the Rugby folk on this site. But if you 2 are any indication, *sigh*, I am worried. First of all let me highlight these 2 statements. Billo - "Soccer has an unhealthy tribalism, at least in England, whereas the tribalism that attaches to the rugby codes is much healthier, in the sense that it isn’t infused with the hatred that all too often characterises soccer crowds." Dan - "Perhaps this is where the extreme emotion you speak of comes and perhaps it’s also why the fans of soccer are the most violent in the world?" These are two very negative viewpoints of football. Let me introduce a positive viewpoint. This wonderful piece of writing is from Marcela Mora Y Araujo Its a great companion piece to what jaymz has written. She wrote in April 2007. "I would argue however, that football is an art form in and of itself. It has all the ingredients of the narrative of any good novel, play or film. It provides the same mesmerising sense of wonder of ballet, dance, or music. It has the rhythm of poetry. When other art forms attempt to do something about football, it tends not to work, because football is the thing itself. Tolstoy said "that the activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it". By far the most spirit lifting, life-enhancing artistic expression I've seen in a long time arrived this week courtesy of a 19-year-old currently playing for Barcelona. Leo Messi's goal, ladies and gentleman: art at its finest." This is what she is refering to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIep5g_GeSQ An excellent description, don't you agree? Let me finish by saying this. It is outdated post-colonial attitudes from Rugby people that I find troubling. Its as if they can't accept that their code is so unloved by the great unwashed. Get over it. The people have made their choice. Do you see what happens when you let the masses run the asylum.

Jimbo, at its best, you're right. But the sad thing is that, at its worst, football is like a very ugly woman. Scowling, screaming, smelly, fat, overbearing and greedy. And you just can't live with her. It's a true Jekyll and Hyde sport.