Doping in athletics is politically and morally seen as wrong by the nation, but underneath a sense of intrigue and worry about the laws is brewing. Rebecca Cosby reports.
Pierre De Coubertin had a clear goal. The Olympics were to be a spectacle of triumph, struggles, glory and losses. How though would he feel knowing his vision has become blurred by the ever-growing problem of performance enhancing drugs?
Along the way the Olympic dream has faltered and run it’s last race. Drugs have become an overshadowing feature of many an Olympic Games, dominating the headlines.
Jump higher, run faster, swim for longer and throw further: The typical thoughts of an athlete. With so much mounting pressure bearing down on them is it any wonder that some turn to the haven of drugs for support?
Already athletes are doing all they can to be the best. They have strict eating habits, training regimes, all that can be done is done, and so using performance enhancing drugs can easily be seen as the next step in a long line of ways to progress.
Drugs are a product of 21st century sport, as we know it. Many have fallen into temptation. Dwain Chambers, Troy Landis, Justin Gaitlin have all failed tests. Modern sport is plagued by suspicions of the next doping cheat. The athletics world has been turned upside down by drugs. Whispers and finger pointing has ensued, unsettling any kind of relationship forged between countries and promoted by the Olympics.
Doping has become a forbidden word. Uttered in conjunction with a sports person and it can cause chaos. The media are always pointing fingers at new culprits. The next drugs headline is lurking around every corner. Only recently has swimming sensation Ian Thorpe come under the spotlight for allegations of drug use. He spoke out about the allegations, saying: "I have never cheated and I pride myself on my record. I was physically shaking in my room when I heard the news. It is gut-wrenching."
Paula Radcliffe has openly opposed performance-enhancing drugs, not one to shy away from the issue. Reaching the headlines in 2001 for holding up a home made sign branded "EPO cheats out" before a 5000m race. She says, “It's like the Tour de France. Because no cyclists stood out against the cheats, they all got tarred with the same brush, those who wouldn't touch a drug condemned along with those who are full of the stuff. And I don't want that to happen in my sport."
The hunt for drug cheats is equipped for a Hollywood espionage; sneaking around, tip offs and manipulation. Marlon Devonish, 4x100m Olympic gold medallist, says: My gut feeling is that the athletes that still take illegal substances and the bio-chemists that produce them are still one step ahead and will only be caught if some tip off the testers.”
Paula Radcliffe, Sir Steve Redgrave, and Dame Kelly Holmes, are all athletes who have won the hearts of the British nation. Hard working, tough, resilient, but still human. All have made mistakes, not robots of drugs. How then can athletes want to gain hero status through cheating? An Olympic gold tarnished by deceit.
Drugs have become a new opponent in the race to become the greatest athlete. It is faster, stronger, fitter. They are a source of much debate and moral panic. Yet swelling underneath this blanket of belief that “drugs are bad. Period.” is an underlining issue of intrigue. The lengths athletes would go to win, the amount the body could be pushed, how much stronger the human body could be with the use of drugs.
Today we are always pushing back boundaries, testing new limits. This philosophy has entered the realm of sports. Science and sports have entwined in this aspect. Could drugs create super-humans? But to sell your soul to the devil, there is always a catch, right? Possible side effects of anabolic steroids include high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, liver tumors and jaundice to name a few. A pretty substantial catch.
Astonishing is how far athletes will go. The frightening fact is that this could spiral out of control in years to come; already there are those who think drugs should be allowed to enhance performance. The next step in the evolution of sport as athletes reach the height of achievement accessible through natural means. The sub culture of drug use has been brewing for years; weed, dope and grass have all become everyday expressions. The 21st century is stoned.
It may seem like drug use has only escalated in recent decades, but it’s by no means a new notion. It has been simmering for over 2000 years. Early Olympians were just as sneaky as their modern counterparts. Some contenders utilised extracts of mushrooms and plant seeds as natural stimulants. Evidence shows that gladiators used stimulants to prevent fatigue.
As time advanced so did athletes ways of beating the system. The 19th century saw the rise of cocaine and caffeine, and by the 20th century drugs had advanced to the likes of ephedrine, amphetamine and androgenic anabolic steroids. All of which mean nothing to the non-medic student.
Nowadays athletes are using drugs, and then using even more to conceal the other drugs. William Morgan, writer of Ethics in Sport, compares using performance enhancing drugs to “tripping one’s opponent in a foot race.”
Problems lie in merely claiming drugs are unfair. Competitors from third world countries are disadvantaged as they do not have the facilities and sponsorship available to say that of American athletes. This too is unreasonable. Drugs are not the only problem within athletics and so other factors are putting increasing pressure on it. The fact that these counties are worlds apart in facilities can cause athletes to lean on drugs to bridge the gap.
evidence
Drug use is met with nonchalance from some performers and trainers. Fearful statistics back this up. In a survey, 198 professional athletes were asked if they would take a drug that would allow them to win all competitions for five years, was undetectable, but would kill them five years after taking it, 103 (52%) said they would.
A New York Times poll backs up this disturbing evidence. 41% of those under 30 did not have a problem with the use of performance enhancing drugs by professional athletes. Unsettling to say the least.
To correct a problem a certain solution is needed. A formulated plan. But that is what is lacking. There is a gaping hole where the governing bodies need to step in. At the moment contradictions lie in what is and what is not certified. It is hard to draw the line between using drugs to cure disease or injury and using drugs as an intrusive instrument of gain
Athletes can train on high mountains to increase their red blood cells due to the low oxygen levels. But cannot use EPO, which has the same effect. Likewise an archer or a golfer (Tiger Woods) is allowed to have laser eye surgery, which no doubt improves performance, but a runner is not permitted to use performance-enhancing drugs to improve their leg muscles.
In bench pressing, a shirt has been invented which stops the lifter’s joints from coming apart. Is this not cheating also? All of these use means to improve performance that are not natural. So is the problem that drugs are harmful, or that they give an unfair advantage. If it’s the latter then this causes problems.
As science expands as do drugs. If there was a drug introduced to increase concentration levels for students taking exams would that be cheating? Would it be cheating if a musician was able to take a drug to improve their vocal cords and get a number one. The boundaries of drug use are enigmatic, the rules are constantly changing and ethics and morals are too.
There is no level playing field in sport. In 1999/2000 only £200,000 of the £1.6 billion budget granted to the UK anti doping programme was destined for athletes. Yet at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, over £2 million was budgeted for testing. Surely each country and competition must fairly administer drug testing. “The World Governing Body should take responsibility and set out a strict code of conduct which every national body should sign up to. For too many years I have seen athletes from certain powerful nations being let off the hook with some far fetched excuse.” Marlon affirms
By prohibiting drug use, problems inevitably arise: it becomes more tempting to some. Underage drinking levels are extortionate as teenagers get a rush from drinking illegally. Being a rebel is seen in society as “cool”. With danger comes those who do not fear it but relish it. A sub culture has been born. Some will use any means necessary to reach their goal, and that is the downfall of many a sport.
Cheating permeates threateningly around us. It is not confined. Drug use crosses the borders of athletics; it is evident in football and rugby to name a few. Corruption of the sporting world is becoming devastatingly clear. Match fixing being one of the mounting problems. Juventus fell foul last year for their involvement. And recently Bob Woolmer, Pakistan cricket coach died, amid suspicions he had been murdered because he had written a book, set to reveal the match fixing which takes place. Sport has become a menacing world.
Stricter action is being called for. Marlon adds, “A life ban might just be the shock tactic that could ensure the sport is cleaned up, however tests do get contaminated, people could purposefully contaminate a competitors sample and if an athlete is found guilty under false pretences surely that’s not fair.” Smear campaigns are not unheard of.
Yet The World Anti-Doping Agency have lowered the standards for assessing a doping offence from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “comfortable satisfaction.” No innocent until proven guilty for athletes.
The remedy to not get caught up in drug scandals, Marlon believes lies with the athlete. “As international athletes we have to ask questions of every single medical treatment we are given and seek assurances from the governing body that they are clean to stop us falling foul of the testers
The athletics world has hit testing times. Eventually it seems drugs will be undetectable, and then the face of athletics, and indeed sport will be changed beyond recognition. Drugs have a strangle hold of the athletics world. Gone is DeCoubertin’s purity. Always a stigma on sport, overshadowing its every move. Surely an intervention is needed.
The 2012 games lie ahead as a distance pillar of truth. By then can the athletics world have cleaned up its act. Washed away the drugs and gone to Narcotics anonymous.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Book Review: Memories Of A Summer
MEMORIES OF A SUMMER:When Baseball Was an Art, and Writing about It a Game
By Roger Kahn
279 pages
A young Roger Kahn dreamed of playing in the Major Leagues like any other boys before and after him. To put on a Brooklyn Dodgers outfit and play in Ebbetts Field would make most supporters hairs stand on end. “I knew other sports existed- football, tennis, basketball, swimming- but…no sport but baseball held my bonding heart.”
‘Memories of Summer’ reveals what growing up on the streets of Brooklyn was like; Kahn breathed baseball. The Dodgers were integral to his being. A shared interest, “I wanted to be like my father. I wanted to enter the world of men. Baseball became my magic portal.” And a lifelong friendship with a club, that would grant him access, and eventually friendship to the likes of Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. Not a small feat.
Kahn gives the reader insights into his relationships with many players, detailing conversations with them during and after their careers. Such candid interviews produce a portal into the past.
He describes the first time he saw Jackie Robinson play, “When you looked at the young black man...white cloth embracing the dark skin, you suddenly realised that every Major Leaguer you had ever seen in all your life had been a white man.”
The book is a web of autobiography, memoir, match reports, interviews and baseball encyclopaedia. It could be likened to Nick Hornby’s ‘Fever Pitch’, written in similar styles and perfect for the sport fanatics, detailing every feeling with vigour. The two show just how universal sport is in differing arenas.
Having been in the business for most of his life, Kahn’s writing on baseball is still fresh. The book is not only accessible to baseball fanatics, but offers much for those who are intrigued by how the media world functions and those unenthused by sport.
'Memories of Summer' follows the previous success of Kahn’s ‘The Boys Of Summer’ (1972). Kahn has succeeded in producing another gloriously open look into baseball, he’s not one to shy away from tough issues prevalent throughout his life such as war, bigotry, censorship of news writing and racism.
Kahn details times when the likes of Willie Mays and Jackie Robinson were subjected to racism, contextualising the book. He does not make the mistake of inserting a moral superiority on the subject though.
Baseball becomes a parallel to American life. The way black people were treated on the field mirrors that off. Talking of the Dodger’s team as opposed to the all white Yankee team, he says, “They were a vision of an integrated nation, an America still waiting to be born.”
Kahn seamlessly narrates his life. He dances between describing iconic games to his life in journalism, a journey that is at times hilarious and inspiring. He meticulously describes his life writing and his experiences with other renowned sports writers and players who have graced the fields.
Kahn’s flawless writing has been refined over the years, writing for such publications as the Herald Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek and being involved in the establishment of Sports Illustrated. Kahn portrays the inception of Sport Illustrated, subtly hinting through wit and humour to the reader his distaste for the way it worked.
Kahn reminds the reader of how sports grow and change, how it was and how it is. “Today’s ballplayers exist no farther from us than a bedroom television screen between our toes…. soon, like nose hairs, their mortality begins to show, more vividly than one would wish.”
Kahn’s mother is a more subtle influence throughout the book than his father. Her influence of poetry and the arts is always on the surface of Kahn’s writing as he looks to the likes of Keats, Lardner and Wolfe. She plays the opposing force to baseball. ”Your mother feels there are many things more important than the World Series.” She becomes the voice of reason. Kahn mentions her at the beginning and end, in a moment, which creates beautiful circular structure.
The book is by no means a difficult read. Kahn does not use complex words when simple ones suffice. But Kahn’s ability to make the reader feel they are watching the many games he describes becomes a negative at times as he must tear the reader away from the scene, not quite giving enough of a taste of the action.
Kahn looks at the past like it was yesterday. He vividly depicts legends of the sport, not only drawing a clear picture of their game but also their different characters. A skill needed when he first started out as a journalist before TV and when sportswriters were expected to bring the game to life from the immobile page. The drama of the 1952 World Series and his first 3000 word front page article is especially thrilling.
You cannot smell the grass, hear the cheers or witness the home runs, but Kahn’s foray is as close as it gets. The sports fan is sure to leave the book with many snippets of information to drop into conversation.
By Roger Kahn
279 pages
A young Roger Kahn dreamed of playing in the Major Leagues like any other boys before and after him. To put on a Brooklyn Dodgers outfit and play in Ebbetts Field would make most supporters hairs stand on end. “I knew other sports existed- football, tennis, basketball, swimming- but…no sport but baseball held my bonding heart.”
‘Memories of Summer’ reveals what growing up on the streets of Brooklyn was like; Kahn breathed baseball. The Dodgers were integral to his being. A shared interest, “I wanted to be like my father. I wanted to enter the world of men. Baseball became my magic portal.” And a lifelong friendship with a club, that would grant him access, and eventually friendship to the likes of Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. Not a small feat.
Kahn gives the reader insights into his relationships with many players, detailing conversations with them during and after their careers. Such candid interviews produce a portal into the past.
He describes the first time he saw Jackie Robinson play, “When you looked at the young black man...white cloth embracing the dark skin, you suddenly realised that every Major Leaguer you had ever seen in all your life had been a white man.”
The book is a web of autobiography, memoir, match reports, interviews and baseball encyclopaedia. It could be likened to Nick Hornby’s ‘Fever Pitch’, written in similar styles and perfect for the sport fanatics, detailing every feeling with vigour. The two show just how universal sport is in differing arenas.
Having been in the business for most of his life, Kahn’s writing on baseball is still fresh. The book is not only accessible to baseball fanatics, but offers much for those who are intrigued by how the media world functions and those unenthused by sport.
'Memories of Summer' follows the previous success of Kahn’s ‘The Boys Of Summer’ (1972). Kahn has succeeded in producing another gloriously open look into baseball, he’s not one to shy away from tough issues prevalent throughout his life such as war, bigotry, censorship of news writing and racism.
Kahn details times when the likes of Willie Mays and Jackie Robinson were subjected to racism, contextualising the book. He does not make the mistake of inserting a moral superiority on the subject though.
Baseball becomes a parallel to American life. The way black people were treated on the field mirrors that off. Talking of the Dodger’s team as opposed to the all white Yankee team, he says, “They were a vision of an integrated nation, an America still waiting to be born.”
Kahn seamlessly narrates his life. He dances between describing iconic games to his life in journalism, a journey that is at times hilarious and inspiring. He meticulously describes his life writing and his experiences with other renowned sports writers and players who have graced the fields.
Kahn’s flawless writing has been refined over the years, writing for such publications as the Herald Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek and being involved in the establishment of Sports Illustrated. Kahn portrays the inception of Sport Illustrated, subtly hinting through wit and humour to the reader his distaste for the way it worked.
Kahn reminds the reader of how sports grow and change, how it was and how it is. “Today’s ballplayers exist no farther from us than a bedroom television screen between our toes…. soon, like nose hairs, their mortality begins to show, more vividly than one would wish.”
Kahn’s mother is a more subtle influence throughout the book than his father. Her influence of poetry and the arts is always on the surface of Kahn’s writing as he looks to the likes of Keats, Lardner and Wolfe. She plays the opposing force to baseball. ”Your mother feels there are many things more important than the World Series.” She becomes the voice of reason. Kahn mentions her at the beginning and end, in a moment, which creates beautiful circular structure.
The book is by no means a difficult read. Kahn does not use complex words when simple ones suffice. But Kahn’s ability to make the reader feel they are watching the many games he describes becomes a negative at times as he must tear the reader away from the scene, not quite giving enough of a taste of the action.
Kahn looks at the past like it was yesterday. He vividly depicts legends of the sport, not only drawing a clear picture of their game but also their different characters. A skill needed when he first started out as a journalist before TV and when sportswriters were expected to bring the game to life from the immobile page. The drama of the 1952 World Series and his first 3000 word front page article is especially thrilling.
You cannot smell the grass, hear the cheers or witness the home runs, but Kahn’s foray is as close as it gets. The sports fan is sure to leave the book with many snippets of information to drop into conversation.
Feature: What do we learn from International Friendlies?
A friendly with Brazil or Argentina is being scheduled for the long awaited opening of Wembley. An event to bring together a nation. Or so it should be. How often though does the promised product not live up to its expectations? The last thing the England team needs in the wake of so many unsettling performances is for the game to become another lacklustre affair. For a friendly match much hangs in the balance. Will England be worthy enough to have such an expensive home?
Freindlies are used as a way to test players, the team and the manager. Teams can test new players, new tactics, new formations with nothing at stake but pride.
Friendly by definition means to be ‘amicable’, ‘neighbourly’, ‘intimate’ or even ‘chummy’. Yet the nature of football is far from this. So how then have they survived this far?
Friendlies are dotted throughout the season, posing a chance for a youngster to shine and break through into the squad. Owen, Beckham, Lampard, have all gone through the process. 90 minutes to change a career. Yet these 90 minutes can have a far crueller idea. It can bring to the public’s attention teams weaknesses, put doubt into the minds of players looking to play a qualifier weeks later. Not so “friendly” after all.
There are no such things as ‘chums’ in football. Living in a capitalist environment games cannot be seen as a mere way to test a team. Games are inevitably played to bring in money and raise its profile in a potential foreign market.
From the look of England’s last friendlies the fans are going to be demanding their money back. Safer to spend the cash on a take away and watch England falter from the comfort of your home. Save yourself the trouble of a cold wintry night. With ticket prices averaging at £30, an international friendly can bring in over £4 million. The crowds may well be witnessing a mediocre match, with few superstars but still the corporates cash in.
Friendlies have also come under fire from clubs. Alex Ferguson loves a long rant about international duties. A congested season, reaching breaking point for the exhausted players is made larger due to friendlies. Many of the England players play for clubs fighting for the title or towing the relegation line. A friendly against a romote country on a below par pitch is not at all appealing to the celebrity life todays footballers lead.
A battle rages between club and country. Next season friendlies are being cut down form 20 to 18. The premiership bullies Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and Jose Mouriniho are sitting pretty, sniggering, while Steve McClaren whimpers in the corner about needing more time.
Would it be unfair to claim friendlies are just clogging up a season though? International football cannot function without friendlies. To the manager it is vital. Only given a handful of games a year to prove himself unlike club managers who play week in week out. Teams cannot be expected to jump into competitions without the team being given valuable time to be meshed together to create a match winning team.
Former England left-back Stuart Pearce says: "People say friendlies don't matter but they do, I've got a host of caps at home and probably fifty per cent of them are from friendly matches and they counted for me. I fully expect that they should count for the rest of the England players as well."
Following a disappointing performance against Australia in 2003 the FA’s executive director, David Davies said: "it is not sufficient to only think about England in May and June, and somehow believe magically we can win major tournaments in that way.
Friendlies are supposed to give a sweet taste of what’s to come; a World Cup winning team perhaps brewing. A way to create morale within the team, and get the nation excited. Yet when many of the players are missing the lesson becomes questionable, a flawed experiment. Like making cakes without the flour the end product is going to be not quite right; actually pretty bland.
Friendlies can unite the nation, either in disbelief at the poor quality of their country’s performance (no reference to England intended) or in awe of the players’ determination. With England it’s like Russian roulette.
Many an England friendly has become a tedious foray. Supporters so used to a draw and a below par performance. Big name players conspicuously missing, multiple substitutions cutting down the playing time, and a tired display of players constantly having to contend with new formations and the player next to them being substituted. Surely this is the work of great con artistry. The nation pays extortionate prices to be foiled and then palmed off with excuses.
England’s last friendly against Spain ended miserably with the team being booed by their supporters. The appetite is still strong for England friendlies though, the game attracted a 60,000 crowd and 8 million watched on TV. Yet the boos poured upon the team at the end of the game are now echoing around despondently. England manager, McClaren says: "I want the flexibility to be able to control when we have friendlies. The key thing for me is getting more time with the players.
With such disappointing displays in friendlies of late England have come under heavy criticism. The nation has become disheartened by the players’ lack of form and firendlies have only highlighted this fact. Could it be that they will become their downfall?
Arsene Wenger said recently: “National football is boring, you have to accept that. Club football has moved forward and national football has gone backwards.” It seems international football has a battle on its hands.
Freindlies are used as a way to test players, the team and the manager. Teams can test new players, new tactics, new formations with nothing at stake but pride.
Friendly by definition means to be ‘amicable’, ‘neighbourly’, ‘intimate’ or even ‘chummy’. Yet the nature of football is far from this. So how then have they survived this far?
Friendlies are dotted throughout the season, posing a chance for a youngster to shine and break through into the squad. Owen, Beckham, Lampard, have all gone through the process. 90 minutes to change a career. Yet these 90 minutes can have a far crueller idea. It can bring to the public’s attention teams weaknesses, put doubt into the minds of players looking to play a qualifier weeks later. Not so “friendly” after all.
There are no such things as ‘chums’ in football. Living in a capitalist environment games cannot be seen as a mere way to test a team. Games are inevitably played to bring in money and raise its profile in a potential foreign market.
From the look of England’s last friendlies the fans are going to be demanding their money back. Safer to spend the cash on a take away and watch England falter from the comfort of your home. Save yourself the trouble of a cold wintry night. With ticket prices averaging at £30, an international friendly can bring in over £4 million. The crowds may well be witnessing a mediocre match, with few superstars but still the corporates cash in.
Friendlies have also come under fire from clubs. Alex Ferguson loves a long rant about international duties. A congested season, reaching breaking point for the exhausted players is made larger due to friendlies. Many of the England players play for clubs fighting for the title or towing the relegation line. A friendly against a romote country on a below par pitch is not at all appealing to the celebrity life todays footballers lead.
A battle rages between club and country. Next season friendlies are being cut down form 20 to 18. The premiership bullies Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and Jose Mouriniho are sitting pretty, sniggering, while Steve McClaren whimpers in the corner about needing more time.
Would it be unfair to claim friendlies are just clogging up a season though? International football cannot function without friendlies. To the manager it is vital. Only given a handful of games a year to prove himself unlike club managers who play week in week out. Teams cannot be expected to jump into competitions without the team being given valuable time to be meshed together to create a match winning team.
Former England left-back Stuart Pearce says: "People say friendlies don't matter but they do, I've got a host of caps at home and probably fifty per cent of them are from friendly matches and they counted for me. I fully expect that they should count for the rest of the England players as well."
Following a disappointing performance against Australia in 2003 the FA’s executive director, David Davies said: "it is not sufficient to only think about England in May and June, and somehow believe magically we can win major tournaments in that way.
Friendlies are supposed to give a sweet taste of what’s to come; a World Cup winning team perhaps brewing. A way to create morale within the team, and get the nation excited. Yet when many of the players are missing the lesson becomes questionable, a flawed experiment. Like making cakes without the flour the end product is going to be not quite right; actually pretty bland.
Friendlies can unite the nation, either in disbelief at the poor quality of their country’s performance (no reference to England intended) or in awe of the players’ determination. With England it’s like Russian roulette.
Many an England friendly has become a tedious foray. Supporters so used to a draw and a below par performance. Big name players conspicuously missing, multiple substitutions cutting down the playing time, and a tired display of players constantly having to contend with new formations and the player next to them being substituted. Surely this is the work of great con artistry. The nation pays extortionate prices to be foiled and then palmed off with excuses.
England’s last friendly against Spain ended miserably with the team being booed by their supporters. The appetite is still strong for England friendlies though, the game attracted a 60,000 crowd and 8 million watched on TV. Yet the boos poured upon the team at the end of the game are now echoing around despondently. England manager, McClaren says: "I want the flexibility to be able to control when we have friendlies. The key thing for me is getting more time with the players.
With such disappointing displays in friendlies of late England have come under heavy criticism. The nation has become disheartened by the players’ lack of form and firendlies have only highlighted this fact. Could it be that they will become their downfall?
Arsene Wenger said recently: “National football is boring, you have to accept that. Club football has moved forward and national football has gone backwards.” It seems international football has a battle on its hands.
Match Report: Manchester United vs Villareal (2005)
Manchester United-0
Villarreal-0Tuesday 22nd November 2005
In the wake of Roy Keane's departure the rebuilding of an already vulnerable empire had to begin immediately yesterday to dispatch any post Keane nerves.
It seemed Ferguson’s prayers would be answered as United opened at a blistering pace, in the 3rd minute Rooney tamed a Ronaldo cross and wrong-footed Rodriguez but his effort landed in the arms of Barbosa. Rooney had several more chances in the first ten minutes and Ronaldo came close as his header from a corner crazed the bar but still they failed to break Villarreal, who stood ready to fight or rather defend as their only threat to the United end came when the usually calm Van Der Sar nearly had a miss-kick intercepted 18 yards out in a Barthez-esque moment.
The absence of Villarreal’s Riquelme should have acted as a blessing to United, however instead it acted as a disadvantage as Manuel Pellegrini’s team barricaded United in with a conservative approach.
The tempo of the game subsided considerably in the second half. Glimmers of the old United could be seen with Ronaldo weaving in and out of the defence however they lacked the final touch and as the chances went by and Villarreal still stood unscathed tempers began to rise causing a windfall of yellow cards and a fracas in the 61st minute.
United lacked a holding player in midfield, while Scholes showed signs of his old devilry and Smith is hungry for such a role both failed to deliver. For all United’s dominance their chances were intermittent resulting in Ferguson bringing on Park Ji Sung, despite an early chance in the box even his contribution seemed minimal.
United did show signs of sparking a revival but were mostly demoted to futile chasing while Sorin caused problems, resulting in a 79th minute free-kick which Senna sent dipping over the United wall causing a smart save from Van Der Sar.
Enthusiasm was fleetingly on the rise when Gary Neville appeared, but even that diminished quickly as Villarreal proved insurmountable. In the closing seconds United were awarded a free kick just outside the box, in their glory days this would have promoted hope, however Van Nistelrooy’s attempt barely left the ground before hitting the wall.
United now sway dangerously close to an early exit and must now beat Benfica. Yet Ferguson stayed optimistic — “We’ve done it before in these situations,” however it is now questionable whether these words can act to deploy lingering feelings of fear around old Trafford.
Villarreal-0Tuesday 22nd November 2005
In the wake of Roy Keane's departure the rebuilding of an already vulnerable empire had to begin immediately yesterday to dispatch any post Keane nerves.
It seemed Ferguson’s prayers would be answered as United opened at a blistering pace, in the 3rd minute Rooney tamed a Ronaldo cross and wrong-footed Rodriguez but his effort landed in the arms of Barbosa. Rooney had several more chances in the first ten minutes and Ronaldo came close as his header from a corner crazed the bar but still they failed to break Villarreal, who stood ready to fight or rather defend as their only threat to the United end came when the usually calm Van Der Sar nearly had a miss-kick intercepted 18 yards out in a Barthez-esque moment.
The absence of Villarreal’s Riquelme should have acted as a blessing to United, however instead it acted as a disadvantage as Manuel Pellegrini’s team barricaded United in with a conservative approach.
The tempo of the game subsided considerably in the second half. Glimmers of the old United could be seen with Ronaldo weaving in and out of the defence however they lacked the final touch and as the chances went by and Villarreal still stood unscathed tempers began to rise causing a windfall of yellow cards and a fracas in the 61st minute.
United lacked a holding player in midfield, while Scholes showed signs of his old devilry and Smith is hungry for such a role both failed to deliver. For all United’s dominance their chances were intermittent resulting in Ferguson bringing on Park Ji Sung, despite an early chance in the box even his contribution seemed minimal.
United did show signs of sparking a revival but were mostly demoted to futile chasing while Sorin caused problems, resulting in a 79th minute free-kick which Senna sent dipping over the United wall causing a smart save from Van Der Sar.
Enthusiasm was fleetingly on the rise when Gary Neville appeared, but even that diminished quickly as Villarreal proved insurmountable. In the closing seconds United were awarded a free kick just outside the box, in their glory days this would have promoted hope, however Van Nistelrooy’s attempt barely left the ground before hitting the wall.
United now sway dangerously close to an early exit and must now beat Benfica. Yet Ferguson stayed optimistic — “We’ve done it before in these situations,” however it is now questionable whether these words can act to deploy lingering feelings of fear around old Trafford.
Feature: Surfing
EVERYBODY’S GONE SURFIN’, surfin’ UK? The Beach Boys classic doesn’t have quite the same effect when the home of surfing, the USA is replaced with the UK. When you picture surfing Britain doesn’t exactly spring to mind; no golden coastlines, no glistening ocean and certainly no hot weather. In its place are beaches lined with fish and chip shops, deck chairs and more often than not a cloudy day.
Football, rugby and cricket make up the backbone of British sports. All traditional, public boy creations that have evolved over time and become part of British cultural life. Surfing does not come into contention. Yet, perhaps this is the fundamental reason for its appeal. It is not traditional, not popular, not a team game, instead it is alternative, individualistic, counter-cultural and anti-institutionalised. You do not surf on the safety of the ground. Instead you are bound to the water and its undeterminable forces.
Surfing is not packaged to suit a wide audience. Unlike traditional sports, surfing is not dominated by rules, it is non-aggressive, does not involve bodily contact, emphasises participation not spectating and it does not suffer from an overruling ‘win at all costs’ ethic. In its place there lies a sense of community, you are either a surfer or not. Its appeal lies in what its not and how it transgresses from the norm.
Most surfers do not want their lifestyle to be commercialised and sold to the world, its niche demographic suits them, and hence the whole “locals only” philosophy assumes a deeper meaning. These boundaries whether good or bad help to create a mystique around the sport. A sense of identity can be found if you are in the “gang” and exclusion if you are not.
In the world of surfing words such as “gnarly”, “sick” and “stoked” replace tired Standard English. You are likely to be found out as a pretender though if you say, “hang two” instead of “hang ten” (for those totally alien to surfing, a hang ten is riding on a long board with both feet on the nose of the board.)
While surfing is a niche in the sporting market there has been an increase in interest in extreme sports of late. The vans warped tour; a festival of extreme sports, music and marketing is an example of this. Matt Pruett argues that “All the money in the world isn't going to ever change the fundamental essence of surfing: board---rider---wave. Everything else is obsolete.”
In an age of increasing individualism society seems to be drawn by the informality of such sports as surfing, skateboarding and mountain biking. Eldon Griffiths, Sports Minister in 1970-1974, says: “There’s been a shift from collective to individual sports because our society has become wealthier.” There are no barriers, no costs and no commitment. This suits people’s lifestyles, such sports can be participated in whenever one likes. You are not ruled by outside influences. Instead you are the ruler of your leisure time.
Surfing combines sport, fashion, music and language, and while surfing itself has failed or perhaps refused to hit the mainstream, but surf fashion certainly has not. People are consumers by nature, ask any woman on a shopping trip. Therefore it is natural to buy into an image that is getting attention. When summer hits Britain the flip-flops, board shorts and shell necklaces come out. However where are the surfboards? Matt Pruett, writer of Wavescape: Portraits of the Planet's Best Surf Spots says: “If a non-surfer buying a Rip Curl T-shirt somewhere down the line gives that company more money to turn a 3-star-rated Pipeline contest into a 4-star, and hook up three more budding professionals from South Africa, all the better for everyone.” He adds: “very few of us actually want more people in the water. The more the merrier? Not when you're dealing with limited resources like waves. “
Roxy and Quiksilver, the two major distributors in extreme sports gear have hit all time highs, yet surfing has not. Living in an image conscious society, sports, particularly surfing became integrated with fashion and music. Companies have caught onto this culture using it to their advantage to sell a lifestyle through a clothing style. So much so that Quiksilver has almost become synonymous with surfing.
But is surfing a sport. It negates from mainstream sports values and it refuses to be categorised or codified. Some refer to it as a ‘lifestyle’ some see it as ‘art’, Matt Pruett emphasises this, saying: “it still blurs the lines between sport and art like no other physical activity in the world. It's colour, dance, meditation, camaraderie, exercise, religion, meteorology, geography, fear, adrenaline and hydro physics.” The Council of Europe defines sport as: ‘Sport embraces much more than traditional team games and competition. Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being.’
Football, rugby and cricket make up the backbone of British sports. All traditional, public boy creations that have evolved over time and become part of British cultural life. Surfing does not come into contention. Yet, perhaps this is the fundamental reason for its appeal. It is not traditional, not popular, not a team game, instead it is alternative, individualistic, counter-cultural and anti-institutionalised. You do not surf on the safety of the ground. Instead you are bound to the water and its undeterminable forces.
Surfing is not packaged to suit a wide audience. Unlike traditional sports, surfing is not dominated by rules, it is non-aggressive, does not involve bodily contact, emphasises participation not spectating and it does not suffer from an overruling ‘win at all costs’ ethic. In its place there lies a sense of community, you are either a surfer or not. Its appeal lies in what its not and how it transgresses from the norm.
Most surfers do not want their lifestyle to be commercialised and sold to the world, its niche demographic suits them, and hence the whole “locals only” philosophy assumes a deeper meaning. These boundaries whether good or bad help to create a mystique around the sport. A sense of identity can be found if you are in the “gang” and exclusion if you are not.
In the world of surfing words such as “gnarly”, “sick” and “stoked” replace tired Standard English. You are likely to be found out as a pretender though if you say, “hang two” instead of “hang ten” (for those totally alien to surfing, a hang ten is riding on a long board with both feet on the nose of the board.)
While surfing is a niche in the sporting market there has been an increase in interest in extreme sports of late. The vans warped tour; a festival of extreme sports, music and marketing is an example of this. Matt Pruett argues that “All the money in the world isn't going to ever change the fundamental essence of surfing: board---rider---wave. Everything else is obsolete.”
In an age of increasing individualism society seems to be drawn by the informality of such sports as surfing, skateboarding and mountain biking. Eldon Griffiths, Sports Minister in 1970-1974, says: “There’s been a shift from collective to individual sports because our society has become wealthier.” There are no barriers, no costs and no commitment. This suits people’s lifestyles, such sports can be participated in whenever one likes. You are not ruled by outside influences. Instead you are the ruler of your leisure time.
Surfing combines sport, fashion, music and language, and while surfing itself has failed or perhaps refused to hit the mainstream, but surf fashion certainly has not. People are consumers by nature, ask any woman on a shopping trip. Therefore it is natural to buy into an image that is getting attention. When summer hits Britain the flip-flops, board shorts and shell necklaces come out. However where are the surfboards? Matt Pruett, writer of Wavescape: Portraits of the Planet's Best Surf Spots says: “If a non-surfer buying a Rip Curl T-shirt somewhere down the line gives that company more money to turn a 3-star-rated Pipeline contest into a 4-star, and hook up three more budding professionals from South Africa, all the better for everyone.” He adds: “very few of us actually want more people in the water. The more the merrier? Not when you're dealing with limited resources like waves. “
Roxy and Quiksilver, the two major distributors in extreme sports gear have hit all time highs, yet surfing has not. Living in an image conscious society, sports, particularly surfing became integrated with fashion and music. Companies have caught onto this culture using it to their advantage to sell a lifestyle through a clothing style. So much so that Quiksilver has almost become synonymous with surfing.
But is surfing a sport. It negates from mainstream sports values and it refuses to be categorised or codified. Some refer to it as a ‘lifestyle’ some see it as ‘art’, Matt Pruett emphasises this, saying: “it still blurs the lines between sport and art like no other physical activity in the world. It's colour, dance, meditation, camaraderie, exercise, religion, meteorology, geography, fear, adrenaline and hydro physics.” The Council of Europe defines sport as: ‘Sport embraces much more than traditional team games and competition. Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being.’
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Feature: Are Golfers Paid Too Much For Losing
Colin Montgomery once said "to be truthful, I think golfers are overpaid. It's unreal, and I have trouble dealing with the guilt sometimes."1
The issue of money has come to pervade many sporting discussions. Are sports people paid too extravagantly? Do they merit all that money? Living in a society so consumed by wealth it seems inevitable that such issues would enter the sphere of sports. This is certainly true of Golf. Tiger Woods has already made over $40 million in prize money since turning professional in 1996. However what about the golfers who fail to reach the heights of his success?
Questions are constantly being raised over the excessive amounts plugged into golf. Essentially a game, golfers’ performances do not effect society; they do not serve society in the same way as doctors, teachers or politicians. However income seldom corresponds to the level of public service. In 2004 the Masters Tournament paid out $6.5 million in prize money. With the winner getting $1,170,000 of this money. However players as far back as 44th place got paid $22,750. This is an extortionate amount to be paid for not coming in a winning position.
There has consequently been much debate over whether golfers should in fact be paid so much when they lose a tournament. One hopes their desire to win is not stunted by the fact that they are still rewarded for losing. There can be a thin line between playing for enjoyment and playing for money. Perhaps they come hand in hand, inextricable. For the good of the game one hopes that enjoyment still outweighs the commercial benefits. However one cannot disagree that in recent years the commercial market has distracted from the true spirit of sports.
We live in a capitalist environment and sport has now become a lucrative market. Golf has always had a clean-cut image and so corporations tend to align themselves with this image, thus pumping more money into the game. Robert Green of Golf International reinforces this viewpoint stating “essentially people pay golfers because they think they are value for money.” Excuse the cliché but ‘money makes the world go round’ and this philosophy for better or for worst has come to determine many sports, golf included.
Golf, like most top class sports only hosts a few greats. Most people are not skilled enough to become professionals. Therefore one could argue that those participating in top competitions are in a way already winners, therefore do they not deserve a reward? Some would argue either way. We as fans demand a high quality of performance in tournaments. Yet if losers were not paid for their efforts they would have to have day jobs and then reduce the amount of time they spend practising. Inevitably their performance level would decrease and we would lose out on witnessing world-class golfers like Tiger Woods.
Furthermore high paid performers have a responsibility to entertain as well as to play to win, their aim is two-fold and in return for being constantly in the spot-light and continuously subjected to criticism and media hype they are paid huge sums. Sportspeople are glorified by supporters and turned into celebrities, which in turn earns them more money. There seems to be a vicious cycle. Sports stars are put on a pedestal and inherit fortunes from playing because of the huge fan base but subsequently they are subjected to criticism from the exact people who have enabled them to amass so much wealth.
In addition to this, few complain over the amounts agents, managers and corporations make. This is due to them being away from the public eye. Many feed off the success of athletes and gain the benefits without being subjected to the same public criticisms. It seems that we have come to focus on the labourer and not the owner.
One must also remember that unlike football and many American sports, golfers are not granted a basic salary. Robert Green adds that “you can earn an awful lot of money in golf, however they are paid essentially on what they deliver. It can all be taken away tomorrow.” Therefore the competitions and endorsements are golfers main income. If David Beckham broke his leg he would be covered through his contract, however a golfer is not granted such luxuries.
There are also benefits involved with such huge amounts pumped into the sport as it attracts younger players and has revitalised golf from a traditional game for the rich and privileged into a game open to all ages, abilities and class. It has gained appeal and produced sporting greats in the process.
The world is riddled with disagreements and complexities. A day doesn’t go by without finances being thought about. Therefore it is unfair to stereotype and only question golf. Living in a society, which is dictated by wealth, it is difficult not to become consumed by what can be obtained through money.
In the last decade the Premiership has been dominated by Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea, yet the rest of the teams in the league are being paid salaries when they fail to win the championship year in year out. Is this not the same situation as in golf? This problem does not merely pervade sport. If you exit the realm of games it can be witnessed everywhere. Music artists who fail to reach number one or teachers in failing schools, film stars who can call on £20 million a movie and fail to reach number one in the box office. They are all being paid even though they are essentially not winning, but losing. Life is full of failures and losses, but it is also full of winning, conquering and success. Nobody likes losing but inevitably those things happen, in every race there must be participants.
John Wooden once said, "Never believe you're better than anyone else, but remember that you're just as good as everyone else."2 It is unfair to judge who is better as each tournament poses a new test and sometimes produces a new winner. All players are striving to become better and should be given a chance to have a fair race, if this means providing players with money in tier order of how they faired in a tournament then it seems a fair price.
The issue of money has come to pervade many sporting discussions. Are sports people paid too extravagantly? Do they merit all that money? Living in a society so consumed by wealth it seems inevitable that such issues would enter the sphere of sports. This is certainly true of Golf. Tiger Woods has already made over $40 million in prize money since turning professional in 1996. However what about the golfers who fail to reach the heights of his success?
Questions are constantly being raised over the excessive amounts plugged into golf. Essentially a game, golfers’ performances do not effect society; they do not serve society in the same way as doctors, teachers or politicians. However income seldom corresponds to the level of public service. In 2004 the Masters Tournament paid out $6.5 million in prize money. With the winner getting $1,170,000 of this money. However players as far back as 44th place got paid $22,750. This is an extortionate amount to be paid for not coming in a winning position.
There has consequently been much debate over whether golfers should in fact be paid so much when they lose a tournament. One hopes their desire to win is not stunted by the fact that they are still rewarded for losing. There can be a thin line between playing for enjoyment and playing for money. Perhaps they come hand in hand, inextricable. For the good of the game one hopes that enjoyment still outweighs the commercial benefits. However one cannot disagree that in recent years the commercial market has distracted from the true spirit of sports.
We live in a capitalist environment and sport has now become a lucrative market. Golf has always had a clean-cut image and so corporations tend to align themselves with this image, thus pumping more money into the game. Robert Green of Golf International reinforces this viewpoint stating “essentially people pay golfers because they think they are value for money.” Excuse the cliché but ‘money makes the world go round’ and this philosophy for better or for worst has come to determine many sports, golf included.
Golf, like most top class sports only hosts a few greats. Most people are not skilled enough to become professionals. Therefore one could argue that those participating in top competitions are in a way already winners, therefore do they not deserve a reward? Some would argue either way. We as fans demand a high quality of performance in tournaments. Yet if losers were not paid for their efforts they would have to have day jobs and then reduce the amount of time they spend practising. Inevitably their performance level would decrease and we would lose out on witnessing world-class golfers like Tiger Woods.
Furthermore high paid performers have a responsibility to entertain as well as to play to win, their aim is two-fold and in return for being constantly in the spot-light and continuously subjected to criticism and media hype they are paid huge sums. Sportspeople are glorified by supporters and turned into celebrities, which in turn earns them more money. There seems to be a vicious cycle. Sports stars are put on a pedestal and inherit fortunes from playing because of the huge fan base but subsequently they are subjected to criticism from the exact people who have enabled them to amass so much wealth.
In addition to this, few complain over the amounts agents, managers and corporations make. This is due to them being away from the public eye. Many feed off the success of athletes and gain the benefits without being subjected to the same public criticisms. It seems that we have come to focus on the labourer and not the owner.
One must also remember that unlike football and many American sports, golfers are not granted a basic salary. Robert Green adds that “you can earn an awful lot of money in golf, however they are paid essentially on what they deliver. It can all be taken away tomorrow.” Therefore the competitions and endorsements are golfers main income. If David Beckham broke his leg he would be covered through his contract, however a golfer is not granted such luxuries.
There are also benefits involved with such huge amounts pumped into the sport as it attracts younger players and has revitalised golf from a traditional game for the rich and privileged into a game open to all ages, abilities and class. It has gained appeal and produced sporting greats in the process.
The world is riddled with disagreements and complexities. A day doesn’t go by without finances being thought about. Therefore it is unfair to stereotype and only question golf. Living in a society, which is dictated by wealth, it is difficult not to become consumed by what can be obtained through money.
In the last decade the Premiership has been dominated by Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea, yet the rest of the teams in the league are being paid salaries when they fail to win the championship year in year out. Is this not the same situation as in golf? This problem does not merely pervade sport. If you exit the realm of games it can be witnessed everywhere. Music artists who fail to reach number one or teachers in failing schools, film stars who can call on £20 million a movie and fail to reach number one in the box office. They are all being paid even though they are essentially not winning, but losing. Life is full of failures and losses, but it is also full of winning, conquering and success. Nobody likes losing but inevitably those things happen, in every race there must be participants.
John Wooden once said, "Never believe you're better than anyone else, but remember that you're just as good as everyone else."2 It is unfair to judge who is better as each tournament poses a new test and sometimes produces a new winner. All players are striving to become better and should be given a chance to have a fair race, if this means providing players with money in tier order of how they faired in a tournament then it seems a fair price.
Book Review: Fever Pitch
Nick Hornby states that Fever Pitch "is a product of a time when I didn't know what I was doing with my life. Football became a security blanket. When I look back I think the book was conceived as an explanation for that sort of obsession and maleness." 1
The autobiography chronicles a fans obsession with Arsenal Football Club. Sometimes nostalgic and passionate and sometimes frustrated and candid Nick Hornby looks back at the highs and lows of a teams disintegration and evolution throughout their history. Written in an atypical style, Hornby structures his book though match reports falling into three time frames; childhood, adolescence and finally manhood.
Filled with themes of love, politics, family, adolescence and belonging. Hornby does not just convey the momentous occasions but the humiliations, disappoints and failings. His life is interwoven with the clubs misfortunes, predestined and at times uncontrollable. “I have measured out my life in Arsenal problems”.2
Where this memoir succeeds is in Hornby’s awareness of his reader, he does not alienate other supporters, he does not rant about his annoyance or hatred of other teams. Readers can almost see a glimpse of themselves within his writing. Damian Cannon reinforces this notion, “his writing mirrors the experience of a million kids”3
Fever Pitch has been branded the first of its kind. It gave birth to a new genre, which exploded onto the scene in the 1990’s. Dubbed the ‘new sports writing’, the genre negotiates the familiar in an innovative and refreshing manner by tapping into the sports culture and producing vivid portrayals. Fever Pitch was released in a time when sport was facing a renovation of sorts. The 1990’s saw the evolution of ‘the new man’, one which was communicative, and of course the growth of sports supplements and fanzines including ‘When Saturday Comes’ which was established in 1986 offering a refreshing perspective.
Like the fanzines Fever Pitch showed “that ‘fanatical’ devotion to a soccer team was not synonymous with illiteracy, racism, and hooliganism”.4 Instead this ‘new’ outlook was able to restructure sports writing. The fans viewpoint is seen as more reliable and accessible to the reader as it is unlike many “stale sensational tabloid reportage and ‘ghosted’ autobiographies that had been the stock in-trade accompaniment of the game for many years.”(Hill, 2002)5 Instead a sense of passion combined with a pioneering style was formed. This led to a genre, which could allow for great discussions and allowed for a broad array of similar formats including hooligan confessional stories like John King’s ‘The Football Factory’. It has become apparent through the release of such books that the face of sports writing is in a transition; we are experiencing a golden age of sorts.
Football is embedded in history; emphatic wins, the disappointment of losing, FA Cup wins, European Cup wins, and World Cups. ‘The wonderful game’ has fashioned itself into a global phenomenon, supporters put great emotional investment into their team, which through time has enabled the game to evolve into a common language, breaking down barriers of age, race, class, nationality and gender. Sport shapes and is shaped by society and identity. It is now invading areas of life when previously it had no presence; it now refuses to be departmentalised.
It is inevitable that the book will appeal most prominently to football fans, as like all books Fever Pitch has a target audience. However the memoir succeeds in transcending the bounds of football and does not isolate its reader by only appealing to male football fanatics but instead it is able to adapt to various demographics. This is in part due to its ‘everyman’ approach.
Everyone has preoccupations, which control their lives, Hornby’s is football. Its adaptability seems to stem from Hornby's ability to inextricably link football with real life; he somehow makes them one and the same, if one fails, as does the other.
“I fell in love with football as I was later to fall in love with women: suddenly, inexplicably, uncritically, giving no thought to the pain or disruption it would bring with it.” 6
While Hornby succeeds in many aspects to broaden his readership, at times the obscure references may alienate a less informed reader. Nevertheless football has become so all-pervasive in our culture that it is unlikely to marginalize a reader to a large degree. The book works, as Roger Ebert iterates “we know these people we dated these people. We are these people.”7
Steve Redhead states that “this is a rapidly shrinking, mediatised globe”8 which involves the idea that the world has shrunk and so has led to a world audience. Therefore universal themes are vital for the success of books. Fever Pitch succeeds in adhereing to this as it conveys with great clarity the trials and tribulations of life in a football setting. The books global appeal is evident through its transition into a film starring Colin Firth in 1997. Not only does it appeal then to the English public but also it has worldwide appeal. In 2005 the book was reworked into another movie production concerning baseball, thus being more appealing for an American audience.
“Sport is not a metaphor for the rest of life, it is indivisible from the rest of life. That’s its magic. It is not a description of something; it is, simply, what it is, in the same way that sex, food and washing-up are what they are. It exists to be experienced- its pleasures, its pains, its ironies, its tragedies and its comedies.”(Coleman and Hornby, 1996)9 That is the essence of new sports writing and that is the essence of Fever Pitch. It conveys a modernisation of writing; confessional, revealing and passionate. Fever Pitch merely presents a life consumed by football.
Hornby does not criticise or pass judgement thus isolating the readership. He does not shy away from politics and events which changed the face of football like Heysel and Hillsborough, he merely describes situations from his viewpoint. Hornby has shown that literature and sport are not exclusive; they can blend and produce an insightful product. Hornby’s writing is not restricted, but humorous, uplifting and genuine.
1 http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/9482/fpitch/articles/age2.html
2 Extract taken from Fever Pitch
3 http://www.film.u-net.com/Movies/Reviews/Fever_Pitch.html
4 http://www.elt.britcoun.org.pl/s_lang.htm
5 Hill, J (2002) Sport, Leisure and Culture in Twentieth Century Britain- State and Politics in Sport and Leisure. Palgrave.
6 Extract taken from Fever Pitch
7 http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050407/REVIEWS/50323004
8 Steve Redhead, Hit and Tell Essay on the Soccer Hooligan Memoir
9 Coleman, N, Hornby, N. (1996) The Picador Book of Sports Writing- Introduction. Macmillan Publishers ltd.
The autobiography chronicles a fans obsession with Arsenal Football Club. Sometimes nostalgic and passionate and sometimes frustrated and candid Nick Hornby looks back at the highs and lows of a teams disintegration and evolution throughout their history. Written in an atypical style, Hornby structures his book though match reports falling into three time frames; childhood, adolescence and finally manhood.
Filled with themes of love, politics, family, adolescence and belonging. Hornby does not just convey the momentous occasions but the humiliations, disappoints and failings. His life is interwoven with the clubs misfortunes, predestined and at times uncontrollable. “I have measured out my life in Arsenal problems”.2
Where this memoir succeeds is in Hornby’s awareness of his reader, he does not alienate other supporters, he does not rant about his annoyance or hatred of other teams. Readers can almost see a glimpse of themselves within his writing. Damian Cannon reinforces this notion, “his writing mirrors the experience of a million kids”3
Fever Pitch has been branded the first of its kind. It gave birth to a new genre, which exploded onto the scene in the 1990’s. Dubbed the ‘new sports writing’, the genre negotiates the familiar in an innovative and refreshing manner by tapping into the sports culture and producing vivid portrayals. Fever Pitch was released in a time when sport was facing a renovation of sorts. The 1990’s saw the evolution of ‘the new man’, one which was communicative, and of course the growth of sports supplements and fanzines including ‘When Saturday Comes’ which was established in 1986 offering a refreshing perspective.
Like the fanzines Fever Pitch showed “that ‘fanatical’ devotion to a soccer team was not synonymous with illiteracy, racism, and hooliganism”.4 Instead this ‘new’ outlook was able to restructure sports writing. The fans viewpoint is seen as more reliable and accessible to the reader as it is unlike many “stale sensational tabloid reportage and ‘ghosted’ autobiographies that had been the stock in-trade accompaniment of the game for many years.”(Hill, 2002)5 Instead a sense of passion combined with a pioneering style was formed. This led to a genre, which could allow for great discussions and allowed for a broad array of similar formats including hooligan confessional stories like John King’s ‘The Football Factory’. It has become apparent through the release of such books that the face of sports writing is in a transition; we are experiencing a golden age of sorts.
Football is embedded in history; emphatic wins, the disappointment of losing, FA Cup wins, European Cup wins, and World Cups. ‘The wonderful game’ has fashioned itself into a global phenomenon, supporters put great emotional investment into their team, which through time has enabled the game to evolve into a common language, breaking down barriers of age, race, class, nationality and gender. Sport shapes and is shaped by society and identity. It is now invading areas of life when previously it had no presence; it now refuses to be departmentalised.
It is inevitable that the book will appeal most prominently to football fans, as like all books Fever Pitch has a target audience. However the memoir succeeds in transcending the bounds of football and does not isolate its reader by only appealing to male football fanatics but instead it is able to adapt to various demographics. This is in part due to its ‘everyman’ approach.
Everyone has preoccupations, which control their lives, Hornby’s is football. Its adaptability seems to stem from Hornby's ability to inextricably link football with real life; he somehow makes them one and the same, if one fails, as does the other.
“I fell in love with football as I was later to fall in love with women: suddenly, inexplicably, uncritically, giving no thought to the pain or disruption it would bring with it.” 6
While Hornby succeeds in many aspects to broaden his readership, at times the obscure references may alienate a less informed reader. Nevertheless football has become so all-pervasive in our culture that it is unlikely to marginalize a reader to a large degree. The book works, as Roger Ebert iterates “we know these people we dated these people. We are these people.”7
Steve Redhead states that “this is a rapidly shrinking, mediatised globe”8 which involves the idea that the world has shrunk and so has led to a world audience. Therefore universal themes are vital for the success of books. Fever Pitch succeeds in adhereing to this as it conveys with great clarity the trials and tribulations of life in a football setting. The books global appeal is evident through its transition into a film starring Colin Firth in 1997. Not only does it appeal then to the English public but also it has worldwide appeal. In 2005 the book was reworked into another movie production concerning baseball, thus being more appealing for an American audience.
“Sport is not a metaphor for the rest of life, it is indivisible from the rest of life. That’s its magic. It is not a description of something; it is, simply, what it is, in the same way that sex, food and washing-up are what they are. It exists to be experienced- its pleasures, its pains, its ironies, its tragedies and its comedies.”(Coleman and Hornby, 1996)9 That is the essence of new sports writing and that is the essence of Fever Pitch. It conveys a modernisation of writing; confessional, revealing and passionate. Fever Pitch merely presents a life consumed by football.
Hornby does not criticise or pass judgement thus isolating the readership. He does not shy away from politics and events which changed the face of football like Heysel and Hillsborough, he merely describes situations from his viewpoint. Hornby has shown that literature and sport are not exclusive; they can blend and produce an insightful product. Hornby’s writing is not restricted, but humorous, uplifting and genuine.
1 http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/9482/fpitch/articles/age2.html
2 Extract taken from Fever Pitch
3 http://www.film.u-net.com/Movies/Reviews/Fever_Pitch.html
4 http://www.elt.britcoun.org.pl/s_lang.htm
5 Hill, J (2002) Sport, Leisure and Culture in Twentieth Century Britain- State and Politics in Sport and Leisure. Palgrave.
6 Extract taken from Fever Pitch
7 http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050407/REVIEWS/50323004
8 Steve Redhead, Hit and Tell Essay on the Soccer Hooligan Memoir
9 Coleman, N, Hornby, N. (1996) The Picador Book of Sports Writing- Introduction. Macmillan Publishers ltd.
Film Review: The Football Factory
Nick Love’s ‘The Football Factory’ conveys an explicit exploration of a sub culture, which so heavily surrounds English football. Hooliganism. Shot in a documentary style the film contains a sense of gritty realism, which adds to the authenticity of the film and subsequently subject matter. It is a typical British made film, evident through the voice-over, close ups, trendy
Britpop soundtrack and of course a blatant defiance of social conformity.
Recently there has been a plethora of British films tackling social issues; Football Factory holds great likeness to Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting. Football Factory was criticised for its portrayal of violence while Trainspotting was criticised for its promotion of heroin use by critics.
However both the films success was crucial to the rejuvenation of the beleaguered British film industry. Unlike the glossy films produced by America, Football Factory and Trainspotting alike, are gritty, depressing and realistic portrayals of social realism.
However both the films success was crucial to the rejuvenation of the beleaguered British film industry. Unlike the glossy films produced by America, Football Factory and Trainspotting alike, are gritty, depressing and realistic portrayals of social realism.
Football Factory is an example of the ‘new wave’, which conveys innovative and refreshing portrayals of social issues. The film captures its audience through its explicit subject matter, humorous plot line and neo-expressionist aesthetic. It acts to re-work expectations, conveying a fresh look at a sub-culture which has surrounded football for an extensive period and become entwined in deep social issues concerning drug and drink cultures rife in society today.
Coined the ‘English disease’ hooliganism has caused mass moral panic thus leading to a shake up of the game; new legislations have been put in place, rival supporters are now segregated and intense safety measures have been generated. Ian Taylor saw hooliganism as “a reaction by supporters who wanted to reclaim their game in the face of the increased commercialisation of soccer.”1
The issue, which generated in the 1960s, came under heavy fire in the 1980s and caused much debate and criticism, with some arguing that, “understanding was less the aim than condemnation.”2 Therefore Football Factory was released in the mist of this discussion giving voice to the culprits and not only dramatises the topic but personalises it by giving the audience an insight into the mind frame of the men whom find a rush from hooliganism.
The film dramatises the 1996 complex and cult novel by John King, who was interested in how men affirm their masculinity through football, it raises “issues of class, race, tribal allegiance and the masculine capacity for violence.” 3 The Director, Nick Love, utilises the context of football as a base for these issues to unravel, while addressing them he does not openly condemn them. Instead Football Factory is merely a representation of hooliganism, which leaves the audience to make their own conclusion over the morality of the characters. The story centres on that of Tommy, and is told through his eyes; therefore no ethical judgements are made.
The issue, which generated in the 1960s, came under heavy fire in the 1980s and caused much debate and criticism, with some arguing that, “understanding was less the aim than condemnation.”2 Therefore Football Factory was released in the mist of this discussion giving voice to the culprits and not only dramatises the topic but personalises it by giving the audience an insight into the mind frame of the men whom find a rush from hooliganism.
The film dramatises the 1996 complex and cult novel by John King, who was interested in how men affirm their masculinity through football, it raises “issues of class, race, tribal allegiance and the masculine capacity for violence.” 3 The Director, Nick Love, utilises the context of football as a base for these issues to unravel, while addressing them he does not openly condemn them. Instead Football Factory is merely a representation of hooliganism, which leaves the audience to make their own conclusion over the morality of the characters. The story centres on that of Tommy, and is told through his eyes; therefore no ethical judgements are made.
Through Love not making any clear moral judgements within Football Factory the film has been greeted by ambivalent responses. Released ahead of Euro 96, many branded the film as irresponsible and slated it as bringing attention to such a controversial issue at the wrong time, with Wendy Ide of The Times declaring “this would have been a far less provocative film if Love had taken a moral stance, he does come dangerously close to making it all look like fun.”4 It seems the film has divided audiences, with Neil Smith of the BBC feeling no compassion for the anti-hero Tommy, as he states, “[Tommy is] a young hoodlum who has dedicated his life to "thieving, fucking and fighting". And that just about sums up Nick Love's forceful but ultimately self-defeating wallow in the worst excesses of male working-class culture.”5
These criticisms were deepened through Love’s decision to use ‘real’ football hooligans in an effort to add authenticity. However the fight scenes have thus gained a visceral quality. This element can be lacking in hyper-real American productions, as they force audiences to suspend their beliefs due to their fantastical elements. Nevertheless it seems that due to the films provocative subject it was unlikely that it would not be hit by negative comments.
In contrast to these critical views Neil Daniels declares “The Football Factory tries to dismantle the football hooligan's mentality and formulate reasons why supporters take their interests to extremes, being more than mere fans but obsessive idolisers who form violent brethrens in support of their favourite strips.”6 In addition to this it is arguable that the brutal cinematography subconsciously contributes to the audiences’ impression and thus conveys a bleak depiction of the disenfranchised sub-culture without having to openly question it.
Furthermore throughout the film Tommy is overtaken by vivid nightmares and so begins to reconsider his path in life highlighting the dangers of such a lifestyle. Also Tommy’s grandfather acts as a moral balance who voices the views of morality in retrospect to Billy Bright who is full of bitterness and thuggery. While the older generation in the film view war negatively the younger ones glorify it experiencing a rush, through this clash of views Love perhaps implicitly highlights the negativity of such acts of violence. This is heightened in the funeral scene, in which the two generations share their only scene.
Football Factory was released during a time of social unrest and political upheaval that was rife in the 1990s and indeed today. Football was in a transition of its own with a move towards a more middle class support. Its appeal lies in its ability to address an array of issues through linking them with football, it does not merely act as a football film but a social and cultural look at British and predominantly male culture, creating a picture of working class lives through the mis-en-scene and cinematography. Love successfully presents the audience with an important issue within contemporary life; depicting its victims as sometimes tragic, often hilarious, 3- dimensional people who perhaps don't form typical characters that might elicit sympathy from the viewer but are instead realistic and believable. Its bleak subject matter is littered with humour making it more accessible.
Within the DVD extras Love encourages the audience to embrace the film as a take on male bonding, within the ‘making of’ segment he states, “I’m obsessed with male friendship.” The film gains accessibility through its global messages within and the worldwide popularity of football. It is a common language, which can in theory be used to break down barriers and merge different nationalities and ages.
“What else you gonna do on a Saturday?”
Within the DVD extras Love encourages the audience to embrace the film as a take on male bonding, within the ‘making of’ segment he states, “I’m obsessed with male friendship.” The film gains accessibility through its global messages within and the worldwide popularity of football. It is a common language, which can in theory be used to break down barriers and merge different nationalities and ages.
“What else you gonna do on a Saturday?”
1/ 2 Hill, J (2002) Sport, Leisure and Culture in Twentieth Century Britain- State and Politics in Sport and Leisure. Palgrave.
3 http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=200
4 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7943-1107558,00.html
5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/05/10/football_factory_2004_review.shtml
6 http://www.musicomh.com/films2/football-factory.htm
Column: It's All A Sinister Leftie Plot
We've all heard of racism, sexism, fascism and all that, but what about left-handism? With around 10% of the British population being left-handed they are undeniably scarce, a minority who must contend with smudging their work when writing, not being able to use scissors and having to struggle in a world created for the right-handed majority.
However, while left-handers could moan about the traumas of life and their difficulties in a right-handed world, there is one area that they may just have an advantage. Sport. Indeed, there is a serious debate at issue here: who are the more spectacular and successful performers: right-handers or left-handers?
Left-handers have, of course, been marginalised throughout history. In Latin, the word for "left" is sinister and the word originates from the Old English “left”, which meant “weak”. The left side is commonly associated with the devil and the right with God. Only the ancient Greeks appreciated left-handers; their word for left was "aristera" - "the best". in other words.
While right-handers seem to dominate the world, they do not carry their superiority into sport. Perversely, left-handers have come to rule many record books. Illustrious left-handers range from John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova in tennis, Babe Ruth in baseball, Garry Sobers in cricket and Mark Williams in snooker. Those who prefer their left foot in football include Roberto Carlos, Johan Cruyff, Bobby Charlton and Diego Maradona.
While it is thought that left-handers are more likely to be schizophrenic, alcoholic, dyslexic, get into accidents and die young, they have an advantage in many sports due to the surprise element. Right-handed athletes are used to competing against other right-handed athletes; when faced with a left-hander they are unprepared. Within many sports, handedness plays a key role. Being of the left-handed minority myself I can vividly remember playing rounders at school; the opposing field would yell “lefty” when I came to bat, all scuffling their positions to best adapt to the direction I would be most likely to hit it. The reverberations of “lefty” were ringing in my ears as I swung at the incoming ball.
Tests conducted at St Lawrence University in New York found there were more left-handers with IQs over 140 than right-handers. It is thought that left-handers are more creative, emotional and spatially aware, whereas a right-hander is more logical and mathematical. Some of the world’s most influential individuals have been southpaws. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo were left-handers, as were Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Mozart and of course Ned Flanders from the Simpsons. Let's ignore Jack the Ripper and Bill Clinton, shall we?
Handedness is a matter that is at times ignored in everyday life. Everything from door handles to hand shakes to gear sticks are in favour of right-handers. This is not true of sport, though. Left-handed and left-footed performers are sought after, especially in team sports such as football and cricket. One cannot merely be distinguished as left or right-handed but instead should be viewed as having tendencies towards one side. Not all left-handers are left-footed and not all right-handers are right-footed. When I play football, often I will be put on the left-hand side; little do the team know that I am in fact right-footed. Many would brand me as “not a real leftie”, yet this fact uncovers the adaptability of a left-hander. Growing up, many left-handers will use their right hand or foot and adapt to prevent certain challenges. David Gower, the former England batsman and the most graceful of cricketers, was persuaded to bat left-handed as a boy, even though he is a righty in just about every other respect.
Research has shown that left-handers can see under water more efficiently than right-handers, and though this may not be the case for the many successful left-handed swimmers, it is an advantage all the same. Mark Spitz, winner of seven gold medals in the 1972 Olympics, was a southpaw. Advantages for left-handed swimmers seems to lie in their ability to be more ambidextrous than their counterparts, as they have been forced to adapt to a right-sided world and thus tend to favour both arms.
Three of the greatest baseball players of all time are of the leftie persuasion: Ruth, Barry Bonds and Mickey Mantle. Ruth is often cited as the best player baseball has ever witnessed. His career mark of 714 home runs stood as the all-time record for 39 years before Hank Aaron usurped him. Bonds, Ruth's only rival as baseball's finest, equalled the Babe's mark in May 2006. Fittingly, albeit extraordinarily, the vital home run came off a left-handed pitcher Brad Halsey, and was caught by a left-handed fan. Mantle, meanwhile, still holds the record for most World Series home runs more than four decades since he struck his last.
Mantle was famed for his flexibility. Throughout his career he utilised switch-hitting, thus enabling him to offer the New York Yankees immense flexibility: he could bat from either side of the plate. He was naturally gifted, and developed his switch-hitting at a young age, "My dad taught me to switch-hit. He and my grandfather, who was left-handed, pitched to me every day after school in the back yard. I batted lefty against my dad and righty against my granddad." Left-handers are prized in baseball for a reason. Left-handed hitters swing at the ball in such a way that their momentum will carry their body in the direction of first base, saving precious time. Also, lefty pitchers can keep an eye on the runner at first base.
Baseball pitchers and cricket bowlers alike can deliver balls, which are awkward for right-handed batters, who are not used to contending with such awkward angled balls. Their style may look ungainly to the eye but they are effective all the same. Many left-handers writing style is far from elegant, yet this does not hinder their writing; the same applies to bowling.
The Premiership boasts numerous left-footers, including Ryan Giggs, John Arne Riise, Ashley Cole, Harry Kewell and Damien Duff. They bring variety, fill the gaps in a team which need filling and pose new challenges to their opponents.
Lefties are actually over-represented in confrontational sports. This is particularly significant in boxing. Left-handers jab along the same line as their opposition, creating problems for the right-hander. In addition to this, their stance would be a mirror image of their opponent instead of the opposite, creating a problem of stepping on each other’s feet.The advantages do not stop here.
Left-handed tennis players are known for being difficult to receive serves from as they can produce awkward angles. Furthermore, a right-hander’s game is hindered as hitting the ball across the court to their opponents backhand becomes ineffective since it would be on a lefty’s stronger forehand. The left-handed tendency in tennis is also represented by the likes of Jimmy Connors, Monica Seles and, probably the greatest athlete ever to bestride a court, Rod Laver, the only player, man or woman, to have won two Grand Slams. Indeed, between 1974 and 1984 all 11 winners of the US Open men's singles were left-handed. Between 1955 and 2004, 41 of the 200 major men’s tournaments were won by a lefty.
Left-handers are still marginalised in polo and hockey, as all players are made to play right-handed. There is no left-hander's stick or mallet. While this is outright discrimination it could also be seen as an advantage for lefties, due to the fact that their left hand would be placed at the top of the stick and thus control much of the movement. Besides, left-handers are hardly alone in being marginalised from polo.
The winners are the ambidextrous. Many sportsmen and women are urged to train both their left and right side, with pitchers, bowlers, footballers, boxers and the like all being trained to strengthen their weaker side, to dispel any disadvantages.
However, while left-handers could moan about the traumas of life and their difficulties in a right-handed world, there is one area that they may just have an advantage. Sport. Indeed, there is a serious debate at issue here: who are the more spectacular and successful performers: right-handers or left-handers?
Left-handers have, of course, been marginalised throughout history. In Latin, the word for "left" is sinister and the word originates from the Old English “left”, which meant “weak”. The left side is commonly associated with the devil and the right with God. Only the ancient Greeks appreciated left-handers; their word for left was "aristera" - "the best". in other words.
While right-handers seem to dominate the world, they do not carry their superiority into sport. Perversely, left-handers have come to rule many record books. Illustrious left-handers range from John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova in tennis, Babe Ruth in baseball, Garry Sobers in cricket and Mark Williams in snooker. Those who prefer their left foot in football include Roberto Carlos, Johan Cruyff, Bobby Charlton and Diego Maradona.
While it is thought that left-handers are more likely to be schizophrenic, alcoholic, dyslexic, get into accidents and die young, they have an advantage in many sports due to the surprise element. Right-handed athletes are used to competing against other right-handed athletes; when faced with a left-hander they are unprepared. Within many sports, handedness plays a key role. Being of the left-handed minority myself I can vividly remember playing rounders at school; the opposing field would yell “lefty” when I came to bat, all scuffling their positions to best adapt to the direction I would be most likely to hit it. The reverberations of “lefty” were ringing in my ears as I swung at the incoming ball.
Tests conducted at St Lawrence University in New York found there were more left-handers with IQs over 140 than right-handers. It is thought that left-handers are more creative, emotional and spatially aware, whereas a right-hander is more logical and mathematical. Some of the world’s most influential individuals have been southpaws. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo were left-handers, as were Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Mozart and of course Ned Flanders from the Simpsons. Let's ignore Jack the Ripper and Bill Clinton, shall we?
Handedness is a matter that is at times ignored in everyday life. Everything from door handles to hand shakes to gear sticks are in favour of right-handers. This is not true of sport, though. Left-handed and left-footed performers are sought after, especially in team sports such as football and cricket. One cannot merely be distinguished as left or right-handed but instead should be viewed as having tendencies towards one side. Not all left-handers are left-footed and not all right-handers are right-footed. When I play football, often I will be put on the left-hand side; little do the team know that I am in fact right-footed. Many would brand me as “not a real leftie”, yet this fact uncovers the adaptability of a left-hander. Growing up, many left-handers will use their right hand or foot and adapt to prevent certain challenges. David Gower, the former England batsman and the most graceful of cricketers, was persuaded to bat left-handed as a boy, even though he is a righty in just about every other respect.
Research has shown that left-handers can see under water more efficiently than right-handers, and though this may not be the case for the many successful left-handed swimmers, it is an advantage all the same. Mark Spitz, winner of seven gold medals in the 1972 Olympics, was a southpaw. Advantages for left-handed swimmers seems to lie in their ability to be more ambidextrous than their counterparts, as they have been forced to adapt to a right-sided world and thus tend to favour both arms.
Three of the greatest baseball players of all time are of the leftie persuasion: Ruth, Barry Bonds and Mickey Mantle. Ruth is often cited as the best player baseball has ever witnessed. His career mark of 714 home runs stood as the all-time record for 39 years before Hank Aaron usurped him. Bonds, Ruth's only rival as baseball's finest, equalled the Babe's mark in May 2006. Fittingly, albeit extraordinarily, the vital home run came off a left-handed pitcher Brad Halsey, and was caught by a left-handed fan. Mantle, meanwhile, still holds the record for most World Series home runs more than four decades since he struck his last.
Mantle was famed for his flexibility. Throughout his career he utilised switch-hitting, thus enabling him to offer the New York Yankees immense flexibility: he could bat from either side of the plate. He was naturally gifted, and developed his switch-hitting at a young age, "My dad taught me to switch-hit. He and my grandfather, who was left-handed, pitched to me every day after school in the back yard. I batted lefty against my dad and righty against my granddad." Left-handers are prized in baseball for a reason. Left-handed hitters swing at the ball in such a way that their momentum will carry their body in the direction of first base, saving precious time. Also, lefty pitchers can keep an eye on the runner at first base.
Baseball pitchers and cricket bowlers alike can deliver balls, which are awkward for right-handed batters, who are not used to contending with such awkward angled balls. Their style may look ungainly to the eye but they are effective all the same. Many left-handers writing style is far from elegant, yet this does not hinder their writing; the same applies to bowling.
The Premiership boasts numerous left-footers, including Ryan Giggs, John Arne Riise, Ashley Cole, Harry Kewell and Damien Duff. They bring variety, fill the gaps in a team which need filling and pose new challenges to their opponents.
Lefties are actually over-represented in confrontational sports. This is particularly significant in boxing. Left-handers jab along the same line as their opposition, creating problems for the right-hander. In addition to this, their stance would be a mirror image of their opponent instead of the opposite, creating a problem of stepping on each other’s feet.The advantages do not stop here.
Left-handed tennis players are known for being difficult to receive serves from as they can produce awkward angles. Furthermore, a right-hander’s game is hindered as hitting the ball across the court to their opponents backhand becomes ineffective since it would be on a lefty’s stronger forehand. The left-handed tendency in tennis is also represented by the likes of Jimmy Connors, Monica Seles and, probably the greatest athlete ever to bestride a court, Rod Laver, the only player, man or woman, to have won two Grand Slams. Indeed, between 1974 and 1984 all 11 winners of the US Open men's singles were left-handed. Between 1955 and 2004, 41 of the 200 major men’s tournaments were won by a lefty.
Left-handers are still marginalised in polo and hockey, as all players are made to play right-handed. There is no left-hander's stick or mallet. While this is outright discrimination it could also be seen as an advantage for lefties, due to the fact that their left hand would be placed at the top of the stick and thus control much of the movement. Besides, left-handers are hardly alone in being marginalised from polo.
The winners are the ambidextrous. Many sportsmen and women are urged to train both their left and right side, with pitchers, bowlers, footballers, boxers and the like all being trained to strengthen their weaker side, to dispel any disadvantages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)