Obviously for GAA fans, this time of the year represents the climax of the sporting summer. However in non-world cup years, the end of Wimbledon symbolises the end of the sporting season for those only interested in “foreign” games. English county cricket and even the golfing majors are a poor substitute for the weekly excitement of the rugby and soccer terms.
This author was somewhat depressed to find himself without any sport to watch. However hope shines eternal. Peter, the gaffer of the blog, had written a wonderful piece on the Tour de France. His article deciphered the lexicon of the sport, so I decided to give it a go. Tuesday was the tenth stage of the tour: Aurillac to Carmaux, a 160 kilometre race.
The event was every bit as exhilarating as described. Mavericks racing ahead - only to be gobbled up by the waiting pack (the peloton), riders who dropped from the peloton fell into metaphorical black holes never to trouble the leaders again. The sport seems to require mental brawn to match the riders’ physical strength.
The tactics and nous of the teams and their sprinters in the final 250 metres created a finish worthy of deciding any sporting event. Mark Cavendish was beaten by less than a metre by German, Andre Greipel. Considering that the race lasted 160 kilometres, the winning distance was almost insignificant. However in cycling, as in all sport, first and second place are an ocean apart.
I was all set to write a cycling edition of the blog. First stop – the Guardian online service, to learn more. Once I clicked on the sporting homepage, an article jumped out at me: Clive Woodward setting fifteen minimum standards for British athletes at the London games. Woodward, despite being at the helm for England’s only rugby world cup success, was always viewed as something of an oddity.
Dropping Johnny Wilkinson for the rugby world cup 1999 quarter final against South Africa, based upon a dream he had of England losing, with Wilkinson at 10. Instead he began with Simon Grayson, but England lost nonetheless. He also appointed Tony Blair’s “spin-doctor,” Alastair Campbell, as head of public relations, for the Lions tour of 2005.
According to a prominent Irish sports writer, Campbell had an article changed to state that a player had gone for a walk - the player had actually informed the journalist that he went for a beer. From there on in, players spoke of going for a couple of walks or of having had a walk too many the night before.
Campbell’s appearance within the touring party seemed to anger New Zealanders and often he became the focus of the touring party. Supporters and ex-players alike spoke of their ire in seeing a non-core member of the team decked out in official touring party apparel. This disgust, however, did not extend to Prince William, who also donned the Lions tracksuit. Perhaps because despite being royalty - he seemed to know his place.
However Woodward has won the ultimate competition for a national rugby coach and my prior article stated the importance of such major achievements in sporting legacies, hence this article was worth a look.
Expecting to read fifteen aspirational sentences about: honour, pride and perhaps dignity, I was taken aback by the clarity of Sir Clive’s code of conduct. Some examples are included in this piece, but for the full list go to:
On the modern day phenomenon of social media, Woodward writes: “we will use social media responsibly at all times and ensure nobody is embarrassed by any actions taken through the use of social media”. Athletes are therefore not permitted to use these forums for personal rants against organisers, fellow competitors etc. This leaves the team in no doubt as to what is acceptable, because the adjective “responsibly” is used. If any competitor is in doubt, one would imagine he can contact the team’s media liaison or indeed Sir Clive, to ensure no offence is caused.
Woodward also permits and even implores athlete participation in the running of the team, when he states that: “if you can see anything that will improve the team or you think is wrong then as a team member you should bring that through to us." Athletes, like normal people, obviously feel more involved in something, when their voice is heard and their contributions are taken on-board. Under the code, no competitor could feel aggrieved at the way in which the team was run, unless they argued their point during the games.
The set of rules however, should not distract an athlete from his core duty as: “performance must come first. The performance of any individual athlete must come before any other individual responsibilities." Translation – no excuses.
It is implored that athletes wear the team kit, in the Olympic village, even when not competing and that they support all other GB competitors. They are also asked to “take real leadership in welcoming other athletes to the games”. Finally, one of the rules says “role models” after which he simply writes: “that one speaks for itself”. All sports people are obviously idols, whether they like it or not, but this goes beyond that and asks all competitors to actually be a positive one.
To be honest if sports people of all disciplines observed these simple, yet unforgiving laws, their respective games would be in much better places. Soccer players especially seem to view being a role model as restrictive on their life outside of the game and some high profile cases, to whom I won’t give the oxygen of publicity, seem to completely disregard moral norms.
Like Seamus, I agree that a single man should have as much fun as possible, but given that society does not condemn “loose men”, why don’t these players just remain single and get up to their antics outside of training and playing?
Rugby has always viewed itself as having a higher moral code to other sports: players do not give the ref abuse, Trevor Brennan banned for five years – Eric Cantona nine months, for the same transgression. Woodward is obviously trying to impose this moral fortitude upon the Olympic athletes.
Whether it is true or not, that rugby is more “moral” than its neighbour, soccer, the perception that it is, has, in my opinion, changed the sporting landscape of this country.
Some feel that rugby players have more “normal” lifestyles and are healthy idols for children. Giving out the referee is often viewed as “cool” in soccer, however translated into rugby it is “cry-babyish” and effeminate. Diving is seen as another scourge of the game, once again simply not tolerated in rugby.
Parents may, despite the dangers, prefer that their children play with an egg-shaped ball and given that no one really respects diving, a lot of fans feel that rugby players are more relatable to the “average bloke,” whomever he is. Rugby has gone from being an extreme minority sport, which it still is in playing terms (note Ross’ article comparing Irish rugby to its celtic neighbour, Scotland) to become a massively supported one, on this island. The Leinster – Munster Heineken Cup semi-final of 2009, was the highest attendance for a club fixture worldwide (attendance 82,209). If the perceived “higher morality” had anything to do with that, then the Olympics and other sports should give Clive’s code a chance. It also makes it a pity that Sir Clive never thrived in his role with Southampton F.C.
Thus concludes the article, despite being inspired by Peter, I think I got off the point, acting akin to the title of Ross’ Tuesday entry.
Hope you made it to the end,
M.C.
Also Clive Woodward is strictly speaking not a Lord, however it is a given if Team GB perform well at the games, or if the games itself are a success.
No comments:
Post a Comment