Fair enough then, I will try not to be rude or condescending. If it comes across that way, I apologise in advance. My only aim is that my post is at least clearer for you, even if you still disagree with it.
First of all the whole thing is a commentary that should be taken as a whole, not necessarily broken up into individual parts. That can work with some arguments but by breaking it up the individual parts can be taken out of context more easily. I will return to this point later.
Is there a correlation between the way you would like the team to play, with the final league position?
For example:
If we won the league, how many would not give a horse's Ars*nal how we won it? (at least in year 1)
I would rather we won the league over how we play any time. Granted we all would like Spurs to play brilliant football. But not at the expense of losing out on trophies and a European position. We’ve waited too long. Good football is synonymous with Spurs, but nothing to show for it. While Chelsea, City, Ars*nal and United go marching on and filling their trophy cabinet.
Here you have just basically said in 67 words what I said in 22. But I guess there is nothing wrong agreeing in your own way.
However, I would rather we played attractive football and ended up fourth than played boring football and scraped 3rd. But the further out from this position the less clear it becomes.
I agree that there is a thin line between boring football and good football and 4th; but in reality it doesn’t work that way. If we can get into the top 4 we can go higher. This must supersede good football (but if we can have both than that would be great).
So for you, you would be willing to trade good football with a rise of one position in the league? Whereas, I would not between 3rd and 4th, but would between 2nd and 1st, obviously. In reality it does actually work that way. Except that it usually plays out that the team that plays the best football, also ends up in a higher position in the league. You will always be able to pick a few exceptions and the point about finishing 4th but playing good football is in reference to one of those exceptions.
Does success then cloud our judgement? Are we too susceptible to the dreams of glory, willing to forego our love of the sport in order to be able to win?
Isn’t that what sport/ football is all about? Winning. Nobody remembers the runners up/ losers. No, it doesn’t cloud our judgement, what does is our past history; which has stopped us progressing forward. We talk too much about past glories and not think about future glories.
Ok this one really made me wonder if you are actually reading what was said. You have tried to make an argument about what was said ‘Does success then cloud our judgement? Are we too susceptible to the dreams of glory, willing to forego our love of the sport in order to be able to win?’ but the very next thing I state, quite clearly is – ‘I believe we all are...and rightly so as well’
Which makes what you said seem irrelevant and I am afraid to say, like you are one of those people who are too busy wanting to say what is in their head, rather than actually listening to others. I.E. The reason for the first statement is to clarify the next point, the questions are rhetorical.
No, it doesn’t cloud our judgement, what does is our past history; which has stopped us progressing forward. We talk too much about past glories and not think about future glories.
And just to highlight how what you have said is complete nonsense let us look in more detail at this point here.
Now I said 'Does success then cloud our judgement?' (which I go on to say that it does, 'I believe we all are') However, you try to say that it does not. BUT YOU THEN SAY - 'it is our past history' 'talk too much about past glories' which is about success!!!!! You do not even agree with yourself!!! I would suggest that before entering the world of argumentative debate with anyone who is able to reasonably challenge your views that you are very clear in two specific areas.
1. Know the difference between fact and opinion. (not relevant here, but an area that is often misunderstood.
2. Ask yourself- Do you think, what you think you think? (title of a good book by the way)
I believe we all are...and rightly so as well. Otherwise, what would be the point of sport. Without competition, you lose the edge and everything becomes too wishywashy. Anyone who panders to the ' it's the taking part that counts' has no place making comments about competitive sporting activities, they have clearly missed the point.
You miss the point if you have your head stuck too much into the past and nothing to show for the present; that is what has held us back. I would rather we were called boring Spurs and winning trophies than stylish Spurs and continuously getting mid-table places or below.
It is clearly you that have missed the point, and by a country mile! See above point for wanting to make statements about your own perspective and viewpoint, irrespective of what has actually been said to you.
Where, please tell me where I have made any mention of the past in the quote? This section is clearly about how having a winning mentality, is the crucial aspect of competitive sport. (With a dig at non-competitive people that feel they can comment on it) That is all, no more and no less.
For others though they go too far the other way, where winning is the only thing that matters and at all costs. I would imagine that when this tips too far, the fans become willing to cause violence on others and for the sportsmen themselves, they decide to enhance their chances with a little 'help'.
I disagree. Violence is perpetuated by the primitive and ignorant, not positions or how we play. Look at Millwall and other such teams. Their failures didn’t stop their hooliganism. We can also name successful teams where there was no violence. I also must say that saying what you said is giving the violent ones an excuse for their behaviour; and justifying it. There should never be an excuse for violence and shouldn’t be in the equation of football or any sport.
I can see why you have taken that view. My comment was very sweeping and not as clear as it could have been. However, I stand by it. I agree that there are many causes of violent behaviour. Mostly to do with: upbringing, society, culture, biology, ignorance and mental health. However, in the confines of the football culture, the desire to win, as we have previously agreed, is crucial, but to varying degrees.
Football, is a competitive sport. It is about being better than your opponent. Add in the primitive aspects of tribal and territorial boundaries and you have a situation where conflict will occur. For most that conflict occurs on the pitch. Everyone wanting to be better than the other side. When violence occurs it is this same desire to be better and stronger than your opponent. To win, at all costs!
In no way, does it excuse it, or even allow others to hide behind it. I agree it is absolutely wrong and a sad reflection on our society that it occurs at all. But please, do not try to make a link between what I have said to providing an excuse or justifying it. It does not. In my opinion the only cause for violence is in self defence, which if everyone stuck to, there would not be any violence. We could get into a separate debate about human behaviour, society and culture, but I do not think this is the place.
So to finish up, my whole post was reflecting on the nature of winning verses the values of the quality of the sport. Making it clear, the desire to win will always edge it and thinking about the consequences if it goes too far.
84 Replies
26320 Views