Two contrasting thoughts.
Before them though I have to admit that I thought from watching the group games that the final was likely to be Brazil v Argentina. Shows what I know. (Not that I was alone in such a belief - come in, The Telegraph.)
Someone at church today said that after the Portugal game she saw the newsreader on TV throw his England flag in the bin. She thought that was wrong, and I agree with her. If we have allegiance to someone or some group or some concept or whatever then we do not abandon him/her/it/them just because they are not a "winner". For that is not the Gospel and it is not even pragmatic secular. It encourages the wrong attitude ("win at all costs") and it fails to give support where needed. The great thing about the English support this World Cup is that even though the team has not played well, the fans continued to turn up and sing their hearts out in support. They were loyal. Loyalty should not be blind but is also not easily disposable.
On the other hand:
England have in truth not looked like they were capable of or deserving of winning the World Cup in any of their five games. Talk about unfulfilled promise. So a 1-0 win is a win and you are allowed some - but sooner or later you have to play well. So maybe with all the (metaphorical and literal) flag-waving in the press and the substantial hype about their chances, they felt under too great a pressure to achieve that they could not perform - they looked like frozen rabbits at times - and that stopped them. Or maybe the pressure to justify their salaries (I wouldn't mind that sort of pressure for a bit) , or ... Sometimes they look like they are just waiting for an excuse to lose. Player sent off, jinx coach opposite, can't win penalty shootouts ... (and we must counter here the argument that "the law of averages says they must win one" - it says no such thing). How many excuses are sufficient?
So you ask: why did they not perform? Portugal were beatable. If England had been two up, and probably if one up, when Rooney was sent off they would still have won - but for those 62 minutes he was on the field they barely looked like scoring. An organisation with such stage-fright has to be questioned as to its belief, effort and tactics. And whether the ability is as great as stated. Do any other organisations seem to achieve less success than they might be expected to? Do they look like they are using convenient excuses for lack of success?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Not that I watch football a lot , I must admit I only watch when I care who wins such as all the England games, however even to someone like me it did seem as though their game lifted after Rooney was sent off, each player really trying. Was this because the team were relying on Rooney to score, or because so much empasis was on him that the others felt there was no use them trying, because Rooney was portrayed as a team on his own, if only they had played as well before the sending off, then perhps things would have been different, perhaps a reminder that everyone in a team is important we can't possibly wait for someone else to take the lead, and do all the scoring, we all have to be involved, because we are all equally important
I agree with you, Brenda. Rooney was so much portrayed as England's secret weapon (well not so secret) that it would be understandable if the team thought "Give it to Wayne and he'll win it for us" and so that's what they did.
Going back to the 1986 World Cup (before your time, I know) our star player then was Bryan Robson - but he was injured. When he was finally taken off, never to return, the team was lifted so much at not having to cover for him that they went on to play magnificently (eventually to lose controversially to Argentina) when it had looked like they wouldn't even qualify fronm the group.
Contrast England in 2006 with Italy last night who worked their socks off running for each other and were rewarded in possibly the best game of the tournament so far.
So the theological question is: who do we rely on too much to do all the work?
Post a Comment