SPORTING EXUBERANCE: THE LAST STAND OF THE FRENCH

Mickael Barzalona standing up with five metres to go in the Derby at Epsom has gotten much play in this forum and in the media. The debate centres around whether it was brilliant showmanship or an act of lunacy. Luckily for the jockey this debate is merely academic. Had he fallen off his horse or lost momentum and come second, the debate would be far more intense.
Rewind to Carnoustie 1999, Jean Van de Velde prepares to take his second shot on the par four 18th, needing only a six to win the title, the smart shot is to lay up and go for the green in three. This would have been relatively low-risk and had it worked would have given him three putts to win his first major.
Van de Velde was having none of it. He decided to go straight at the green, the ball hit the grandstand, he then put his next shot into the water and eventulally scrambled a seven. This put him into a three way playoff, which he lost. Van de Velde has been labelled a choker and his actions idiotic ever since.

Unfair I decry: firstly he did not choke, he played a nice bunker shot and one-putted to achieve his seven. Secondly he did something that the vast majority of us would not have the courage to do: risk losing a major championship to preserve a legacy of flamboyance.

The French running the ball from behind their try line against Wales in the Five Nations' Championship of 1999. The French lost, but the game is richer because they tried. The same mentality won them the famous World Cup semi-final game against New Zealand. Down by 14 points at 24-10, they kicked two drop goals. Christophe Lamaison then chipped the ball into the New Zealand goal area for Richard Dourthe to score and put France ahead. They eventually ran out comfortable winners.
Frederic Michalak’s slick passing was the catalyst for their victory over the same opposition in the last Rugby World Cup. Hence while the French rugby team will always be seen as flaky or inconsistent, their "je ne sais quoi" is what I will remember them for.
Standing in a packed bar near Murrayfield, watching Ireland destroy England in the Six Nations of 2007, I was receiving pats on the back from members of my Spanish rugby team, who I had travelled over with to watch the game as well as Scottish fans, who were as enthuasiastic about England getting beaten as any Irish fan.
However I felt less than content. Ireland were never going to take this exciting, free-flowing game to the World Cup, in France.
And so it proved. Ireland did not just play awfully, they abandoned their flair game, when it really mattered. They were unwilling to risk losing through expansive play, on the big stage.
Then why bother experimenting? If you don’t have the courage to do something exciting when it really matters, why do it at all?

It is worth mentioning that the French do not hold the patent on unpredictabiltiy. The Welsh Grand Slam-winning side of 2005 tapped every penalty in their own half. This strategy has long since been abandoned because it does not pay off in the long run, but it showed that the erratic can not only entertain, but can also provide shock short-term victories.
The article is part of a larger point. Victory and defeat sadly define sport. However if it really is the theatre of the masses, it should never fail to arouse its spectators.
Therefore do not condemn Barzalona et van de Velde for their efforts to create lasting sporting moments. It is often bemoaned that athletes have become robotic in their pursuit of excellence. These sporting entities have shown that there is still room for the unique - the absurd - the extraordinary in sport.
Mickael Barzalona and Jean van de Velde acted in a way that did not improve their chances of victory. They did however entertain. I'll take entertainment over substance everytime.
Signing off,
M.C.