Skip to main content

"..but how you played the game"

As a Scotland supporter, I know the pain of defeat better than most.

The defeat of English footballers in Russia was not pleasant (Even for me- Russia is one of the few countries where I would happily cheer on England).

The likely defeat of the Red Rose in Rugby inevitably followed- and of course, naturally the players were disappointed to fall at the last rung of the ladder they had climbed.

The reaction of some England supporters was not pleasant- and that of the press even worse. At the end of the day, the virtues of sport are not always in the winning.

Likewise the failure of Lewis Hamilton to win the Grand Prix World drivers championship in his rookie year has been greeted with screeds of maudlin drivel from the press.

So instead of a quiet pride in the achievements of the underdog English Rugby team, and the Rookie driver, there is a palpable sense of anger and frustration in England this morning- this is not what sport should be about at all: it is ugly and wrong.

Must all the Corinthian virtues of Rugby Union be sacrificed on the alter of greed, commercialism and the idea that winning in sport is everything and losing is nothing. What happened to the sense of respect and fair play that motivated the founders of the sport?

It is not a healthy society where couch potato supporters feel defeat more keenly than the committed, disciplined players, who really understand the virtues of their sport.

PS ...and don't get me started on the petulant way that several French players refused to play in the bronze medal match: As the Pumas delivered another convincing victory I did at least raise a cheer for their Corinthian spirit...

Comments

Anonymous said…
"The reaction of England supporters was not pleasant" - I think this would read better with the addition of the word "some", Cicero.
Cicero said…
I thought I had written that- now corrected

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...