For the purposes of the international audience (yes, it exists), I should try to standardize some terminology that I use on this blog. I am generally going to use the word soccer to describe the world's favourite sport, so as to differentiate between the sport and the American version of football. I will, however, most likely refer to soccer players as footballers, simply because I like the term, and may occasionally use the term football in a context such as: "they played some of the most dreadful football I've ever seen in that 0:3 loss to Norwich City over the weekend."
I just wanted to clarify this from the beginning, so as to avoid as much confusion as possible. I will, of course, fail miserably at keeping to this style, beginning with the title of this post. Just roll with it. You'll figure out what I mean.
And yes, I mentioned Norwich City in that last sentence because the Canaries and my club of choice, having been indoctrinated into the Yellow Army during my time as a student in Great Britain. It would figure that I'm a fan of a club that's never really won much of anything in their history. On The Ball City! It's time to show those Magpies from Newcastle United who's at the top of the pecking order.
As I mentioned a few days ago in my praising of bad American football, the game of soccer possesses some unique and interesting nuances when it comes to losing. I love the game and always have. It doesn't have the same hold on the sport psyche of Americans that it does in many other countries, but soccer culture has always existed in this country, albeit in less obvious and apparent forms. The game does, however, have some basic premises which seem at odds with Americana.
For one thing, if you're going to understand soccer, you have to understand that the draw is generally considered an acceptable result. We hate draws in the U.S. All American games now have some semblance of an overtime involved. There must be a winner, even if it takes 18 innings and you've got leftfielders coming into pitch and pitchers with .100 lifetime batting averages hitting cleanup and playing 1st base by the end of the game, the two baseball teams having exhausted their benches and all good ideas in the process. (Indeed, the most memorable games of any marathon baseball season are usually the extra-inning games I just described, which turn surreal and comical after awhile as all logic and baseball orthodoxy fails to produce a winner.)
But in soccer, of course, draws are so common that teams often accrue nearly as many draws as they do wins and losses. It's part of the game and you have to accept as much. The solution for breaking ties in knockout situations – the dreaded penalty shootout – is a wretched and revolting construct done out of necessity but not really fitting with the aims of the game. In a knockout competition, there has to be a winner, and yet soccer is fundamentally a game in which there is often no winner at all. Much like life, in fact. I have always believed that our games are symbolic of our societal mentalities. Whereas American sports emphasize the necessity of winning, the game of soccer emphasizes the fact that winning isn't always possible, and that sometimes it's all you can do to get by and settle for a draw.
And the victories on the pitch, ultimately, are cause for jubilation as much out of exhaustion and a sense of relief as anything. This is because the game of soccer is SO DAMN FRUSTRATING! A simpleton complaint about soccer is that there is a lack of action, because no one ever scores. A simpleton counterargument is that you have to watch the buildup of the play, get a feel for how it develops. But neither argument really speaks to the essence of what's going on out on the pitch.
My first British footballing experience took place at the City Grounds in Nottingham, as my hosts thought some of us Americans should take in a unique European experience. The home side Forest were one of the top clubs in England at this time, and their opponents were a woful Charlton Athletic side known for a pulling a Houdini act every year and avoiding being relegated somehow but doing little of anything else.
So we are in the terrace, the standing room area behind the goal where all right-minded supporters should be, and my host Mark, questioning my knowledge of 'real football,' makes a suggestion along the lines of 'watch the development of the play.' Having only watched high level soccer on TV before this, it occurs to me immediately that there are two things the high TV camera angles distort: speed and space. Everyone is moving a lot faster than it appears on TV, and there is a whole lot less room to maneuver.
But I do what Mark suggests, and pay attention to the buildup, which goes something like this: the right back playing a little 1-touch with a midfielder, slipping into open space to get the return pass and playing it into space down the right side to a streaking winger, who engages the Charlton defender in a brief little game of cat-and-mouse, deking and juking before laying the ball off to an arriving midfielder in support. Forest have some of England's best players and their quick movement of the ball causes Charlton's defence to lose its shape. With the continued buildup comes enthusiasm that builds, rises, an excitement gathering among the 30,000 or so in the stands at the City Grounds. The midfielder looks for a target in the box but the defender sloughs off, giving him space and a clear shot on the target and … no goal. And the crowd lets out a collective groan at the missed opportunity, declaring the midfielder to be rubbish and recommending that they send that duffer of a winger back to Mansfield Town or some other Div. 3 club – only to be engaged again as the next buildup commences, soon to be let down by the failure of the attack.
Now take that sequence I just described and run it about 10-11 times and you've got your typical soccer match.
There is always buildup, development, genesis of ideas, and yet the goal never comes. The cross if off target, the keeper makes the save, the offsides flag goes up, the official randomly calls a foul on no one in particular on the attacking side which makes no sense at all. The goal never comes. I always find it curious when the astute and erudite British commentators say "a bit of a surprise, really, that a player of such quality could squander such a chance," because I've been watching the game for 30+ years and that is what always happens. The goal never comes. The fans are collectively, constantly disappointed as one failed opportunity follows another, and are collectively and constantly angsty/nervous/agitated/terrified when the opponents have the ball that this next opposition attack will be that one time that their defence collapses – which never happens either, because the goal never comes.
It's a promethean sort of endeavour, soccer. A constant effort to do the impossible. The game is fundamentally frustrating and somewhat fatalistic, even, a quixotic attempt at the impossible which is rarely rewarded. Very often, one team will dominate possession of the ball and have a huge advantage in shots, and yet the game ends in a 0:0 draw. Or, worse, a 1:0 defeat. A defeat that seems wholly undeserved, given that the team which had such control ends up taking the loss. But "that's football," as players/coaches/fans are quick to say in such a circumstance, usually with a shrug. The game, like life, isn't fair.
But when the goal does come, well …
After several failed attacks on the Charlton goal in this particular game at the City Grounds, Forest's enterprising right back decides to take matters into his own hands, bringing the ball forward into open space and blasting a worm-killer of a shot that skids along the grass, finds its way between the defenders and eludes the surprised Charlton keeper. A perfect strike into the bottom right corner of the net which sends the fans into a WAVE OF EXULTATION, the joy and delirium flowing as freely as the beer at the pub before the match. It's an ecstatic, electric moment expressing delight, relief – and surprise, really, because someone actually scored a damn goal!
Given that it's so damn hard to score, given that picking up points in the standings is paramount, and given that the draw is a legitimate result in soccer, what then happens quite a bit, of course, is teams make little or no effort at all to win the game. Just hang back, try to ride the wave for 90 minutes, get the draw and pick up a point in the standings. The notion of playing for a draw drives Americans crazy. On arguably the greatest stage American soccer has ever seen – a round of 16 match with Brazil in the 1994 World Cup, played at Stanford on the 4th of July, no less – the Americans played for a 0:0 draw throughout, with hopes of ultimately forcing the lottery that is a penalty shootout, rarely making any real motions to attack even after the Brazilians were reduced to 10 men. It was a befuddling spectacle that seemed somewhat to defy the American spirit: how could you not try to win? Coach Bora would've argued, of course, that standing toe-to-toe and trying to attack the Brazilians would've resulted in a humbling defeat, as the American couldn't match the Brazilians skill. And indeed, the 10-man Brazilians ultimately unlocked the rigid American defense and scored for a 1:0 victory, so even the defensive strategy failed to pay off. But it seemed almost like the WRONG way to lose. Wouldn't if have been better to go down in a blaze of glory?
Of course it wouldn't. Because what difference does it make how you lose? Losing is losing. Losing pretty and losing ugly yield the same result – you go home unhappy. And winning ugly or forcing a 0:0 draw is, ultimately, a better result than losing pretty.
The act of goal scoring in soccer is often spectacular, given how it often takes a spectacular play to produce such results. Savvy soccer sides the world over, of course, long ago figured out their best chance to win involved creating the freest opportunities to score – penalties first and foremost, and also set pieces – and the best way to do that is influence the haggard, overworked referee, who is attempting to single-handedly police 22 guys on a field the size of an acre, and who simply cannot see everything. Hence the culture of diving, of flopping, of constantly politicking and arguing with the officials. Guys get dispossessed of the ball and collapse in a heap as if they've been struck by sniper fire, flop around like fish strewn atop a dock. Always arguing, baiting, courting favour from the official. It is gamesmanship, it is unsporting – and it works. It works often enough that everyone's started doing it. And why not? Some stout defending combined with a timely free kick – or, even better, a penalty earned with a flop in the box – can translate into a 1:0 win. And winning is all that matters, after all.
And like I say, soccer is chalk full of games where what would clearly be construed as the "better" team doesn't ultimately prevail. The flow of play often does not translate into logical results. Life on the pitch is not always as it seems. But it happens to every team, eventually. You just hope it doesn't happen in a particularly important game. "That's football" and that's how it goes. There are very few instances in American games where a similar situation arises. Often times, teams in American football dominate the stat sheet but come up short on the scoreboard, but a lot of the time it's due to self-inflicted wounds – penalties, turnovers, a sloppy play on special teams. There is a much greater sense of cause and effect in America.
Or so it would seem.
We are a society that has always stressed the notion of competition in our economics and commerce, but it's always been abundantly clear to me that businesses HATE competing, because it implies a possibility of failure. People, and businesses and government institutions, ultimately love winning. The idea of "playing fair" is just as much rubbish as that midfielder who couldn't hit the target with his shot. A lot of people conclude that the best way to beat the system is to game it. As long as there have been competitions of any sort – games, sports, contests, you name it – there have been people trying to cheat. The cause and effect, therefore, isn't always so clear cut. There are plenty of ways to go about gaining a competitive advantage that blur the lines between legal and illegal, if not just completely ignoring them altogether.
So, really, is diving on the football pitch any different? If anything, in that light, it seems somewhat resourceful and clever, as much as it may seem to run counter to the 'spirit' of the game. (That, and it's unsightly. C'mon guys, take some acting lessons.)
Losing is still losing, no matter the nation or the arena. In America, you're taught to believe that you can through self-improvement and the cutting down on mistakes. But in soccer, sometimes that doesn't matter. Sometimes you simply cannot win, no matter what you do, so you're best settling for a 0:0 draw, as unpleasant as it may turn out to be. You have to redefine success, and also redefine failure. The 1:1 draw where you gamely hold on with 10-men can feel like triumph, and sometimes the 0:0 draw where your offense couldn't hit the side of a barn feels like the most painful of losses.
No diving or dubious tactics on the part of Notts Forest was necessary at my first English soccer match – they added a second goal while Charlton's meek attacks were easily parried, resulting in a relatively easy 2:0 win for the home side. And while I appreciated seeing that outstanding Forest side (which I think finished 3rd that year in the English Div. 1), my love and appreciation for the game was elevated – and my loyalty forever cemented – with repeated visits to Carrow Road, the home ground of the Canaries of Norwich City F.C. I knew then I would be destined to love the Yellows forever.
And it was at Carrow Road that I not only rid myself of the American loathing of the draw, I actually came to appreciate its occasional benefit to society. I went to a game between the Canaries and Liverpool that year. Liverpool were the biggest, baddest dudes on the block, the best team in England. But our side had talent (3-4 guys wound up on World Cup rosters), tenacity (a trademark of Norwich football over the years), and also didn't take any shit from anyone (witness a 21-player brawl v. Arsenal earlier in the year). It was promising to be a combative and electrifying match. Liverpool brought a healthy number of supporters with them, and their fans had a rather dubious reputation at the time (not entirely deserved, I might add, but that's another story for another time). It was an intense atmosphere, electric and combative. There were extra police in case of any trouble, and a feisty spirit in the air at Carrow Road. The fans of both sides, at first glance, seemed ready for a fight.
And it ended 0:0. Nothing happened. And everyone went home. The only people happy were the local authorities, who didn't need to quell any riots, as any potential combatants had essentially been neutered by boredom. I recall overhearing a pair of red-clad fans talking as I was leaving the grounds, and one of them said, "well, gee, that was a dreadfully dull affair, now wasn't it?"
“... everything is complicated by the presence of the opposing team.” – Jean-Paul Sartre
Friday, January 11, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Walking Wounded
I took great pleasure in watching the Seahawks triumph on Sunday afternoon, of course, as they felled the Redskins at FedEx Field in Washington. Although calling that bog painted green a "field" is disingenuous. Seriously, Mr. Snyder, spend some money. You own one of the most valuable franchises in all of professional sports. The least you can do is give your team a quality playing surface.
It's unclear whether the horrid field conditions contributed to the terrible (re)injury of Redskins wünderkind QB Robert Griffin III at the end of the game, but watching that play – where his right knee hyperextended and he crumpled into the mud – left me aghast. It was disastrous for him, for his team, for the sport at which he excels and is expected to carry on his shoulders for the next decade. He possesses a stunning skillset and a dynamic personality to match his dynamic game. Even as a rookie, it is clear that RG3 is one of the league's brightest stars. His descent from the heavens back into the world of mere mortals was shocking and humbling to see. It's hard enough to watch that as a passive spectator, seeing an athlete as superior as him collapse like that. But for someone like myself, who had my love of playing a sport and competing essentially ended in a split second, images like that have a tendency to give me flashbacks. You can call it an athlete's version of PTSD.
RG3 was playing hurt, of course, and there were questions after the game hurled towards Redskins coach Mike Shanahan as to why he left RG3 in the game, when it was clear his mobility was limited and that his already troublesome right knee was only getting worse. The answer to this question, of course, is nuanced and coloured in shades of grey. The only black and white, in the end, is the result on the scoreboard which showed Seattle 24, Washington 14.
It can be debated whether or not Shanahan should've left him out there – personally, I thought he shouldn't – as the game progressed and it became clear that a) RG3 couldn't play to his usual level, and b) The Seahawks knew this and were taking over the game because of it. He made the same mistake that a lot of coaches do in this instance – he asked RG3, and RG3 insisted he could keep playing. And that, of course, is what a competitor is ALWAYS going to say. (Well, OK, maybe not always – Jay Cutler pulled himself out of a playoff game for the Chicago Bears and was labeled things like a coward and a quitter, even though it was later revealed he had a knee injury more serious than first thought.) But that's what a competitor's instincts are going to lead them to say. The objective is to win the game, after all. That's all that matters in the moment. You can go on being hurt after the game is over. You'll have time between this game and the next to heal up.
I know that my first thought, after my ankle gave way, was "I'll just walk it off."
I had started off the game by grabbing the opening tip, driving to the basket and dunking it, and our hapless opponents' ensuing possession resulted in a turnover. Our center sprung me on the fast break with a perfect outlet pass and I was driving to the basket for yet another dunk when I planted my right foot and my ankle twisted to the right. I jumped straight up anyway, and landed on a trailing defender's foot, and my compromised right ankle then twisted to the left. It was a split second in time, the whole motion, after which I collapsed onto the court much as RG3 collapsed into the mud.
I got helped to the bench but I refused to sit down, attempting to put weight on my right foot, figuring that it was just a sprain and that I would be back in the game in a matter of minutes. I would be OK. It hurt, but I could walk it off. There were far more important issues at hand, like winning a basketball game.
This was nonsense thinking, of course. After being persuaded to sit down, one of the guys ran to the locker room and returned with a trashcan filled with ice water. I wanted no part in icing my foot, and it was only when I pried the shoe off that reality started to sink in – with the rapid swelling in my ankle engulfing my whole foot, it looked less like a foot and more like an American football.
This happened in November 1989. I was 20 years old, and on a study abroad program in Great Britain. In that split second of time, I broke my right ankle in a basketball game. And saying I "broke" my ankle is sort of a simple way of putting it – I broke bones, tore ligaments, and also cracked the tendon that operates the joint. It was a complex injury which a variety of factors, an injury that surpassed the ability of the G.P.'s at the local hospital to diagnose and treat it. They were not incompetent, mind you. They did their best with the information that was available to them. But they didn't have the sort of technology available to them, like an MRI, to make such a diagnosis. They could see a bone break on an X-ray so they put a cast on my foot and I limped around Europe with a cane and a below-knee walker during my Christmas vacation. It was only when, a couple months later, I went to an appointment with an astute and savvy physical therapist, who jiggled my newly uncased ankle about for a few moments and listened to various crackles and pops and said "Oh dear. This is not good at all."
I'm paraphrasing a bit here, since I don't really understand medical stuff all that well, but essentially what had happened is that while treating the broken bone through immobilizing the ankle was a good idea, the real problem was the damn tendon, which had cracked and then calcified over. This meant it was extremely weak and susceptible to reinjury. (My right ankle is now also visibly wider than my left if you look at them.) The physio said to me at the time, "you will heal up reasonably well in the short-term. In time, of course – 15-20 years from now – you may start to have some larger problems …"
And 20+ years later, I can't run.
My right ankle is so weak that I've reinjured it stepping off a curb. The last time I tried to stand up when my foot fell asleep, I stepped on the castor of a chair and wound up in the emergency room, very legitimately afraid that i had rebroken it. My balance is completely shot because my ankle cannot function properly – if I attempt to ice skate or rollerblade, I almost immediately fall over. And over time, of course, I changed my gait, so now I have a variety of problems with my right foot and right knee. And my ankle aches anytime I overdo it – today "overdoing" it meant walking 4-5 miles. It's a constant reminder of one moment in time more than 20 years ago which has done more to realter the course of my life than any other particular moment.
And playing basketball again after that was pretty much out of the question. I was a late bloomer, had developed a love of the game and had gotten suddenly, surprisingly, insanely good at it after years of frustration, but I no longer had the sort of power and agility. Before the injury, I had a monstrous vertical leap. Afterwards, I could barely jump over the phone book. I mean, I could've carried on and goofed around on the court every now and then, but once I realized that I couldn't do the sorts of things I had been able to do before, it didn't seem worth it to continue.
Well, I could've had a gigantic, after-the-fact surgical procedure that was nasty and costly and would've meant months of rehab, and it didn't seem worth it to me to go through all of that. In retrospect, maybe I should've done so. But any time a surgeon starts off by saying "first we have to rebreak …" it's never a good sign.
All of this came up for me again in an instant, watching the end of the Seahawks-Redskins game. I hate seeing serious injuries. They elicit a visceral reaction, a cringe after which many of the details from the moment I broke my ankle return to my conscience and become crystal clear to me once again. And while I think Shanahan should've taken RG3 out much earlier in the game, when his knee clearly began to hamper his play, I know that I wouldn't have wanted out. I would've wanted to play, to try to win. Because that's what athletes do. That's what competing is all about. You give all that you can to achieve the goal.
Injuries are a part of sports, of course, and something anyone who participates in athletics ultimately loses at is having a healthy and fully-functioning body. Almost every competitor gives it up, eventually, when being hurt all the time takes away their ability to participate at the level they want to attain or achieve, and it's likely they'll feel the effects of it for the rest of their lives. (And it's not just competitive athletes, mind you – I've known professional dancers who've had more knee surgeries than offensive linemen.) Nasty, nasty injuries. But at the time, you don't actually THINK it will happen to you. If you did, then why would you ever play in the first place?
And I don't regret playing basketball and getting hurt and not being able to run 20+ years later. I regret that I got hurt and was no longer able to play, because I loved to play. And since I'd come late to really enjoying the game of basketball, and had just begun to truly embrace it as my own at the time, it was as if it had been stolen from me. I've really missed it.
Then again, if I hadn't broken my ankle, then, well, who knows? I probably would've just broken a wrist or dislocated an elbow or something. Oh, wait, I did dislocate my elbow. Never mind …
It's unclear whether the horrid field conditions contributed to the terrible (re)injury of Redskins wünderkind QB Robert Griffin III at the end of the game, but watching that play – where his right knee hyperextended and he crumpled into the mud – left me aghast. It was disastrous for him, for his team, for the sport at which he excels and is expected to carry on his shoulders for the next decade. He possesses a stunning skillset and a dynamic personality to match his dynamic game. Even as a rookie, it is clear that RG3 is one of the league's brightest stars. His descent from the heavens back into the world of mere mortals was shocking and humbling to see. It's hard enough to watch that as a passive spectator, seeing an athlete as superior as him collapse like that. But for someone like myself, who had my love of playing a sport and competing essentially ended in a split second, images like that have a tendency to give me flashbacks. You can call it an athlete's version of PTSD.
RG3 was playing hurt, of course, and there were questions after the game hurled towards Redskins coach Mike Shanahan as to why he left RG3 in the game, when it was clear his mobility was limited and that his already troublesome right knee was only getting worse. The answer to this question, of course, is nuanced and coloured in shades of grey. The only black and white, in the end, is the result on the scoreboard which showed Seattle 24, Washington 14.
It can be debated whether or not Shanahan should've left him out there – personally, I thought he shouldn't – as the game progressed and it became clear that a) RG3 couldn't play to his usual level, and b) The Seahawks knew this and were taking over the game because of it. He made the same mistake that a lot of coaches do in this instance – he asked RG3, and RG3 insisted he could keep playing. And that, of course, is what a competitor is ALWAYS going to say. (Well, OK, maybe not always – Jay Cutler pulled himself out of a playoff game for the Chicago Bears and was labeled things like a coward and a quitter, even though it was later revealed he had a knee injury more serious than first thought.) But that's what a competitor's instincts are going to lead them to say. The objective is to win the game, after all. That's all that matters in the moment. You can go on being hurt after the game is over. You'll have time between this game and the next to heal up.
I know that my first thought, after my ankle gave way, was "I'll just walk it off."
I had started off the game by grabbing the opening tip, driving to the basket and dunking it, and our hapless opponents' ensuing possession resulted in a turnover. Our center sprung me on the fast break with a perfect outlet pass and I was driving to the basket for yet another dunk when I planted my right foot and my ankle twisted to the right. I jumped straight up anyway, and landed on a trailing defender's foot, and my compromised right ankle then twisted to the left. It was a split second in time, the whole motion, after which I collapsed onto the court much as RG3 collapsed into the mud.
I got helped to the bench but I refused to sit down, attempting to put weight on my right foot, figuring that it was just a sprain and that I would be back in the game in a matter of minutes. I would be OK. It hurt, but I could walk it off. There were far more important issues at hand, like winning a basketball game.
This was nonsense thinking, of course. After being persuaded to sit down, one of the guys ran to the locker room and returned with a trashcan filled with ice water. I wanted no part in icing my foot, and it was only when I pried the shoe off that reality started to sink in – with the rapid swelling in my ankle engulfing my whole foot, it looked less like a foot and more like an American football.
This happened in November 1989. I was 20 years old, and on a study abroad program in Great Britain. In that split second of time, I broke my right ankle in a basketball game. And saying I "broke" my ankle is sort of a simple way of putting it – I broke bones, tore ligaments, and also cracked the tendon that operates the joint. It was a complex injury which a variety of factors, an injury that surpassed the ability of the G.P.'s at the local hospital to diagnose and treat it. They were not incompetent, mind you. They did their best with the information that was available to them. But they didn't have the sort of technology available to them, like an MRI, to make such a diagnosis. They could see a bone break on an X-ray so they put a cast on my foot and I limped around Europe with a cane and a below-knee walker during my Christmas vacation. It was only when, a couple months later, I went to an appointment with an astute and savvy physical therapist, who jiggled my newly uncased ankle about for a few moments and listened to various crackles and pops and said "Oh dear. This is not good at all."
I'm paraphrasing a bit here, since I don't really understand medical stuff all that well, but essentially what had happened is that while treating the broken bone through immobilizing the ankle was a good idea, the real problem was the damn tendon, which had cracked and then calcified over. This meant it was extremely weak and susceptible to reinjury. (My right ankle is now also visibly wider than my left if you look at them.) The physio said to me at the time, "you will heal up reasonably well in the short-term. In time, of course – 15-20 years from now – you may start to have some larger problems …"
And 20+ years later, I can't run.
My right ankle is so weak that I've reinjured it stepping off a curb. The last time I tried to stand up when my foot fell asleep, I stepped on the castor of a chair and wound up in the emergency room, very legitimately afraid that i had rebroken it. My balance is completely shot because my ankle cannot function properly – if I attempt to ice skate or rollerblade, I almost immediately fall over. And over time, of course, I changed my gait, so now I have a variety of problems with my right foot and right knee. And my ankle aches anytime I overdo it – today "overdoing" it meant walking 4-5 miles. It's a constant reminder of one moment in time more than 20 years ago which has done more to realter the course of my life than any other particular moment.
And playing basketball again after that was pretty much out of the question. I was a late bloomer, had developed a love of the game and had gotten suddenly, surprisingly, insanely good at it after years of frustration, but I no longer had the sort of power and agility. Before the injury, I had a monstrous vertical leap. Afterwards, I could barely jump over the phone book. I mean, I could've carried on and goofed around on the court every now and then, but once I realized that I couldn't do the sorts of things I had been able to do before, it didn't seem worth it to continue.
Well, I could've had a gigantic, after-the-fact surgical procedure that was nasty and costly and would've meant months of rehab, and it didn't seem worth it to me to go through all of that. In retrospect, maybe I should've done so. But any time a surgeon starts off by saying "first we have to rebreak …" it's never a good sign.
All of this came up for me again in an instant, watching the end of the Seahawks-Redskins game. I hate seeing serious injuries. They elicit a visceral reaction, a cringe after which many of the details from the moment I broke my ankle return to my conscience and become crystal clear to me once again. And while I think Shanahan should've taken RG3 out much earlier in the game, when his knee clearly began to hamper his play, I know that I wouldn't have wanted out. I would've wanted to play, to try to win. Because that's what athletes do. That's what competing is all about. You give all that you can to achieve the goal.
Injuries are a part of sports, of course, and something anyone who participates in athletics ultimately loses at is having a healthy and fully-functioning body. Almost every competitor gives it up, eventually, when being hurt all the time takes away their ability to participate at the level they want to attain or achieve, and it's likely they'll feel the effects of it for the rest of their lives. (And it's not just competitive athletes, mind you – I've known professional dancers who've had more knee surgeries than offensive linemen.) Nasty, nasty injuries. But at the time, you don't actually THINK it will happen to you. If you did, then why would you ever play in the first place?
And I don't regret playing basketball and getting hurt and not being able to run 20+ years later. I regret that I got hurt and was no longer able to play, because I loved to play. And since I'd come late to really enjoying the game of basketball, and had just begun to truly embrace it as my own at the time, it was as if it had been stolen from me. I've really missed it.
Then again, if I hadn't broken my ankle, then, well, who knows? I probably would've just broken a wrist or dislocated an elbow or something. Oh, wait, I did dislocate my elbow. Never mind …
Friday, January 4, 2013
In Praise of Bad Football
I have a penchant and fondness for absurdity. It is no wonder I feel so at home in Belgium, given that their two national coping mechanisms – absurdist humour and strong beer – jibe quite with my personal ethos. I find reveling in the ridiculous is necessary in part to blunt the sting of failure. Quite honestly, if it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly.
Having grown up in the Pacific Northwest, where losing has become something of an art form over the past 50 years or so, I’ve endured an insufferably large number of completely awful sporting events over the years both in person and on TV, and I’ve come to develop a curious sort of fondness for sports done badly – a fondness which is usually accompanied by strong beer, of course.
Sports done badly wildly vary, however, in terms of entertainment value. Take baseball, for example. Bad baseball teams usually have a propensity for doing one or both of a couple of things: a) their pitchers issue a lot of walks; and b) their batters strike out a lot. The walk and the strikeout are two of the most fundamentally boring aspects of the game. Consequently, bad baseball tends to be boring as sin. The exception to this, of course, is that high comedy can be found on the defensive end. Witness my post from two days ago. But for the most part, it is boring.
Bad basketball is also boring because basketball teams universally share one fundamental deficiency: THEY CAN’T SHOOT! Watching a bunch of bricklayers chuck enough bricks to build a new fieldhouse gets old really fast.
Bad hockey is sort of like Public Skate Night at the Eagles Ice Arena on a Tuesday night. It’s a bunch of guys skating around in circles who don’t seem to know where they are going.
Bad soccer is ... well, soccer is a whole different animal that we’ll get to at some other point in time. That’s an entirely different cultural phenomenon. Still, the occasional own goal or a striker missing an open net from 2 yards away is mighty entertaining.
Bad golf and tennis can be interesting, just because the guys and gals doing it who are otherwise juggernauts and drone suddenly seem shockingly mortal. "Oh look! He hit his tee shot into the trees! I do that!" But those games don't interest me in general, for a variety of reasons I will surely get into at some point. And god help us, we NEVER wants to watch bad auto racing, for the safety of everyone involved.
For my money, only one sport done badly truly stands out, and that's football. This is because football is really an incredible team effort – it takes 11 guys carrying out their assignments and working in unison on every play for the course of 120 plays or more during a game to be successful. For all of the brute strength and physicality involved, what makes the game so challenging is that it's also all about attention to detail – and there are LOTS of details, which means there are also LOTS of ways to screw up.
Football done badly is an endless series of mistakes. Jumping offside, lining up incorrectly, missed blocks and missed tackles and missed assignments and missed field goals. Fumbles, interceptions, dropped passes and blocked punts. Penalties of all sorts, the best being 12 men on the field. 12 men on the field! For heaven’s sake, people, learn how to count!
For someone who appreciates all that is done badly, it can get no better than bad football – a showing of brute force and strength often undone by a complete lack of IQ or competence. And this is after a week's worth of preparation, mind you. Guys spend all week drilling and then promptly jump offsides on the first play of the game. What are you doing? What the hell is wrong with you?
Here is a summation of what was the most amazing game I’ve watched in the NFL in quite some time, a game that occurred on Nov. 18 in Dallas between the Cleveland Browns and the Dallas Cowboys. The first 3½ quarters were rather unremarkable, a run-of-the-mill failure of a game full of miscues and mistakes. The Browns can’t stop committing defensive penalties which sustain Dallas drives, and the Cowboys then return the favor by allowing Tony Romo to be sacked repeatedly. Dallas is leading 17-13 with, I think, around 5:30 to play when this amazing series of events commences:
• Browns QB Brandon Weeden fumbles the ball away deep in Cleveland territory, thus giving Dallas the chance to close the game out once and for all.
• Tony Romo then fumbles the ball back to the Browns. He is not blameless in this, of course, because you just can’t fumble in this situation. And were the Cowboys to lose, he would most likely be skewered among the frenzied Dallas media, who like to blame Tony Romo for everything from global warming to the national debt. But to be fair, the poor guy has spent the whole game running for his life, as the Cowboy offensive line more resembles a group of toreadors twirling their capes and sidestepping bull-rushing defensive lineman. He’s been sacked something like 8 times, and it’s amazing he’s still standing upright at this point in the game. Nevertheless, not a good time for Turnover Tony to cough one up.
• Given new life, the Browns promptly march down the field, aided by the fact that the Dallas pass defense scheme apparently involves leaving vast acreage of space open for the Cleveland receivers to run through freely.
• The Browns get to 1st and goal and run three unimaginative plays. It’s 4th down at the Dallas 1 yard line and they decide to run the fade pattern in the end zone. Dallas, of course, is looking for the fade pattern, which is pretty much what every NFL defense is looking for down at the goal line, and the Browns’ passing formation more of less telegraphs that this play is coming. The fade pattern only works when you have some superstar receiver on your team like Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson who is big and who can just go up high and catch the ball in spite of whatever coverage is being offered. The Browns possess no such no such receivers, nor do they possess a QB with the sort of precision and accuracy necessary to throw such a pass. So this is truly a terrible play call all-around by the Browns offensive coordinator.
• Weeden throws the ball about 4 yards out of bounds, anyway, giving his receiver no chance whatsoever to make a play. Turnover on downs. Egads.
• There are little more than 2:00 left at this point but the Browns have all their timeouts left and can stop the clock, while Dallas is pinned at their own 1 yard line. The Cowboys run the ball thrice and net about 1½ yards and then have to punt. They need a good punt to get out of this mess. A good high kick that’s unreturnable, or something angled close to the sideline.
• And you can hear a stream of profanity on the TV coming from the Cowboys punter, who more of less flubs the kick in almost every way imaginable. It’s a low wobbler that’s right to Josh Cribbs, one of the game’s best return specialists and pretty much the only guy on the Browns who ever seems to know what he’s doing. Cribbs jukes and cuts across the field and returns the punt well into Cowboys territory, finally being tackled around the Dallas 30.
• The Cowboys are then assessed a 15-yard penalty, a personal foul for a horse collar tackle. It turns out this is a bad call, since the Cowboys tackler didn’t grab the back of Cribbs’ jersey but instead grabbed Cribbs’ hair, which flows freely out the back of his helmet. You cannot tackle by the back collar of the jersey (and understandably so, because it is a dangerous play) and yet hair pulling is somehow legal in the NFL. So on top of the general incompetence being exhibited by both clubs and their respective coaching staffs, you now have the officials screwing up as well.
• With 15 yards tacked onto the end of the play, Cleveland now starts really deep inside Dallas territory. They start from about the Dallas 15 and there is about 1:30 left on the clock and, in an ideal world, the Browns would somehow eat up that time and score with scant seconds remaining, giving the Cowboys no chance to respond. But it takes Cleveland all of one play to score, as Weeden finds a wide open receiver running free again in vast acreage of open space.
• Like I say, in an ideal world you wouldn’t want to score so quickly if you’re the Browns, but given the fact that Dallas defense has ONLY 9 MEN ON THE FIELD, how could they not score? Somehow, amid the heated debate between the Cowboys coaches and referees over hair pulling which ensued after the punt, they had forgotten to count to 11. So at the very moment they are being called upon to save the game and possibly the season – Dallas has underachieved all year and desperately needs this win over the hapless Browns to stay in the playoff race – the Cowboys defense is, instead, completely disorganized.
• So now it’s not looking so good for the home team, who start deep in their own territory down 3 points to the Browns without much time left. But during the ensuing hurry-up drive, the Browns defense commites 50 YARDS IN PENALTIES, thus greatly aiding the Cowboys’ driving the length of the field in short order and kicking the game-tying field goal to send the game to overtime, where they would eventually prevail.
Now, occasionally there are swaths of time in a game where one team totally goes on the fritz and forgets how to play – witness the Jacksonville Jaguars recently giving up 28 points in 6 minutes vs. Tennessee without the Titans ever running an offensive play. But this particular comedy of errors involving Cleveland and Dallas was notable because both teams were doing seemingly everything possible to try and give the game to the other team while simultaneously refusing the gifts. It was the most incompetent 5½ minutes of professional football I have ever seen. It was absolutely spectacular to watch, simply because I had NO IDEA after a while how they would fuck up on the following play.
And it was no sure thing the game would go to OT, of course. My buddy Chris Cree down in Dallas was watching this game and theorizing how the Cowboys would mess it up – his favourite theory being that, with :06 left on the clock as they lined up for the tying field goal, the Cowboys would jump offsides. (A penalty by the trailing team in the last 2:00 is considered to be a deliberate attempt to stop the clock, and a :10 runoff is required.) Or, the Cowboys could lose their minds and let Tony Romo hold for the field goal again:
"There is nothing automatic in football."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm a Seahawks fan. That was one of the best moments in franchise history.
The point is this: bad football can be spectacular entertainment if you allow it to be. It's a wonderful release, a celebration of idiocy and mayhem. Bad football is beautiful in the most absurd sort of way. It's far better to laugh off the foibles of your favourite team than it is to get all bent out of shape because you lost. Guess what! Lots of people lose! In play lose, remember? The difference being that they fail on national TV, of course, whereas most of us just fail on a small, local level.
But we can feel a kinship to those who flounder. It's hard to truly feel connected to the winners – hell, those people do things with their bodies we cannot even imagine. But when the gladiators fumble or drop passes or the kicker misses WIDE RIGHT (ack! Scott Norwood! I lost money on that game!), it is only then that they seem somewhat human.
And in no way do I want to see players fail, of course. I like winning. There was no greater joy in my pro football viewing life than getting to be that guy in the office on Super Bowl Sunday. In every newspaper gig I ever worked at, there was always that guy who was a huge fan of one of the teams involved, and he'd be wearing the jersey and screaming at the TV instead of doing work. Well, when the Seahawks made it to the Super Bowl, there I was dressed in my Shawn Alexander #37 jersey screaming at the TV in the offices of the Examiner. I got to be that guy for a day and it was the best. (Even though the Seahawks got screwed. But I'm not bitter.)
Having grown up in the Pacific Northwest, where losing has become something of an art form over the past 50 years or so, I’ve endured an insufferably large number of completely awful sporting events over the years both in person and on TV, and I’ve come to develop a curious sort of fondness for sports done badly – a fondness which is usually accompanied by strong beer, of course.
Sports done badly wildly vary, however, in terms of entertainment value. Take baseball, for example. Bad baseball teams usually have a propensity for doing one or both of a couple of things: a) their pitchers issue a lot of walks; and b) their batters strike out a lot. The walk and the strikeout are two of the most fundamentally boring aspects of the game. Consequently, bad baseball tends to be boring as sin. The exception to this, of course, is that high comedy can be found on the defensive end. Witness my post from two days ago. But for the most part, it is boring.
Bad basketball is also boring because basketball teams universally share one fundamental deficiency: THEY CAN’T SHOOT! Watching a bunch of bricklayers chuck enough bricks to build a new fieldhouse gets old really fast.
Bad hockey is sort of like Public Skate Night at the Eagles Ice Arena on a Tuesday night. It’s a bunch of guys skating around in circles who don’t seem to know where they are going.
Bad soccer is ... well, soccer is a whole different animal that we’ll get to at some other point in time. That’s an entirely different cultural phenomenon. Still, the occasional own goal or a striker missing an open net from 2 yards away is mighty entertaining.
Bad golf and tennis can be interesting, just because the guys and gals doing it who are otherwise juggernauts and drone suddenly seem shockingly mortal. "Oh look! He hit his tee shot into the trees! I do that!" But those games don't interest me in general, for a variety of reasons I will surely get into at some point. And god help us, we NEVER wants to watch bad auto racing, for the safety of everyone involved.
For my money, only one sport done badly truly stands out, and that's football. This is because football is really an incredible team effort – it takes 11 guys carrying out their assignments and working in unison on every play for the course of 120 plays or more during a game to be successful. For all of the brute strength and physicality involved, what makes the game so challenging is that it's also all about attention to detail – and there are LOTS of details, which means there are also LOTS of ways to screw up.
Football done badly is an endless series of mistakes. Jumping offside, lining up incorrectly, missed blocks and missed tackles and missed assignments and missed field goals. Fumbles, interceptions, dropped passes and blocked punts. Penalties of all sorts, the best being 12 men on the field. 12 men on the field! For heaven’s sake, people, learn how to count!
For someone who appreciates all that is done badly, it can get no better than bad football – a showing of brute force and strength often undone by a complete lack of IQ or competence. And this is after a week's worth of preparation, mind you. Guys spend all week drilling and then promptly jump offsides on the first play of the game. What are you doing? What the hell is wrong with you?
Here is a summation of what was the most amazing game I’ve watched in the NFL in quite some time, a game that occurred on Nov. 18 in Dallas between the Cleveland Browns and the Dallas Cowboys. The first 3½ quarters were rather unremarkable, a run-of-the-mill failure of a game full of miscues and mistakes. The Browns can’t stop committing defensive penalties which sustain Dallas drives, and the Cowboys then return the favor by allowing Tony Romo to be sacked repeatedly. Dallas is leading 17-13 with, I think, around 5:30 to play when this amazing series of events commences:
• Browns QB Brandon Weeden fumbles the ball away deep in Cleveland territory, thus giving Dallas the chance to close the game out once and for all.
• Tony Romo then fumbles the ball back to the Browns. He is not blameless in this, of course, because you just can’t fumble in this situation. And were the Cowboys to lose, he would most likely be skewered among the frenzied Dallas media, who like to blame Tony Romo for everything from global warming to the national debt. But to be fair, the poor guy has spent the whole game running for his life, as the Cowboy offensive line more resembles a group of toreadors twirling their capes and sidestepping bull-rushing defensive lineman. He’s been sacked something like 8 times, and it’s amazing he’s still standing upright at this point in the game. Nevertheless, not a good time for Turnover Tony to cough one up.
• Given new life, the Browns promptly march down the field, aided by the fact that the Dallas pass defense scheme apparently involves leaving vast acreage of space open for the Cleveland receivers to run through freely.
• The Browns get to 1st and goal and run three unimaginative plays. It’s 4th down at the Dallas 1 yard line and they decide to run the fade pattern in the end zone. Dallas, of course, is looking for the fade pattern, which is pretty much what every NFL defense is looking for down at the goal line, and the Browns’ passing formation more of less telegraphs that this play is coming. The fade pattern only works when you have some superstar receiver on your team like Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson who is big and who can just go up high and catch the ball in spite of whatever coverage is being offered. The Browns possess no such no such receivers, nor do they possess a QB with the sort of precision and accuracy necessary to throw such a pass. So this is truly a terrible play call all-around by the Browns offensive coordinator.
• Weeden throws the ball about 4 yards out of bounds, anyway, giving his receiver no chance whatsoever to make a play. Turnover on downs. Egads.
• There are little more than 2:00 left at this point but the Browns have all their timeouts left and can stop the clock, while Dallas is pinned at their own 1 yard line. The Cowboys run the ball thrice and net about 1½ yards and then have to punt. They need a good punt to get out of this mess. A good high kick that’s unreturnable, or something angled close to the sideline.
• And you can hear a stream of profanity on the TV coming from the Cowboys punter, who more of less flubs the kick in almost every way imaginable. It’s a low wobbler that’s right to Josh Cribbs, one of the game’s best return specialists and pretty much the only guy on the Browns who ever seems to know what he’s doing. Cribbs jukes and cuts across the field and returns the punt well into Cowboys territory, finally being tackled around the Dallas 30.
• The Cowboys are then assessed a 15-yard penalty, a personal foul for a horse collar tackle. It turns out this is a bad call, since the Cowboys tackler didn’t grab the back of Cribbs’ jersey but instead grabbed Cribbs’ hair, which flows freely out the back of his helmet. You cannot tackle by the back collar of the jersey (and understandably so, because it is a dangerous play) and yet hair pulling is somehow legal in the NFL. So on top of the general incompetence being exhibited by both clubs and their respective coaching staffs, you now have the officials screwing up as well.
• With 15 yards tacked onto the end of the play, Cleveland now starts really deep inside Dallas territory. They start from about the Dallas 15 and there is about 1:30 left on the clock and, in an ideal world, the Browns would somehow eat up that time and score with scant seconds remaining, giving the Cowboys no chance to respond. But it takes Cleveland all of one play to score, as Weeden finds a wide open receiver running free again in vast acreage of open space.
• Like I say, in an ideal world you wouldn’t want to score so quickly if you’re the Browns, but given the fact that Dallas defense has ONLY 9 MEN ON THE FIELD, how could they not score? Somehow, amid the heated debate between the Cowboys coaches and referees over hair pulling which ensued after the punt, they had forgotten to count to 11. So at the very moment they are being called upon to save the game and possibly the season – Dallas has underachieved all year and desperately needs this win over the hapless Browns to stay in the playoff race – the Cowboys defense is, instead, completely disorganized.
• So now it’s not looking so good for the home team, who start deep in their own territory down 3 points to the Browns without much time left. But during the ensuing hurry-up drive, the Browns defense commites 50 YARDS IN PENALTIES, thus greatly aiding the Cowboys’ driving the length of the field in short order and kicking the game-tying field goal to send the game to overtime, where they would eventually prevail.
Now, occasionally there are swaths of time in a game where one team totally goes on the fritz and forgets how to play – witness the Jacksonville Jaguars recently giving up 28 points in 6 minutes vs. Tennessee without the Titans ever running an offensive play. But this particular comedy of errors involving Cleveland and Dallas was notable because both teams were doing seemingly everything possible to try and give the game to the other team while simultaneously refusing the gifts. It was the most incompetent 5½ minutes of professional football I have ever seen. It was absolutely spectacular to watch, simply because I had NO IDEA after a while how they would fuck up on the following play.
And it was no sure thing the game would go to OT, of course. My buddy Chris Cree down in Dallas was watching this game and theorizing how the Cowboys would mess it up – his favourite theory being that, with :06 left on the clock as they lined up for the tying field goal, the Cowboys would jump offsides. (A penalty by the trailing team in the last 2:00 is considered to be a deliberate attempt to stop the clock, and a :10 runoff is required.) Or, the Cowboys could lose their minds and let Tony Romo hold for the field goal again:
"There is nothing automatic in football."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm a Seahawks fan. That was one of the best moments in franchise history.
The point is this: bad football can be spectacular entertainment if you allow it to be. It's a wonderful release, a celebration of idiocy and mayhem. Bad football is beautiful in the most absurd sort of way. It's far better to laugh off the foibles of your favourite team than it is to get all bent out of shape because you lost. Guess what! Lots of people lose! In play lose, remember? The difference being that they fail on national TV, of course, whereas most of us just fail on a small, local level.
But we can feel a kinship to those who flounder. It's hard to truly feel connected to the winners – hell, those people do things with their bodies we cannot even imagine. But when the gladiators fumble or drop passes or the kicker misses WIDE RIGHT (ack! Scott Norwood! I lost money on that game!), it is only then that they seem somewhat human.
And in no way do I want to see players fail, of course. I like winning. There was no greater joy in my pro football viewing life than getting to be that guy in the office on Super Bowl Sunday. In every newspaper gig I ever worked at, there was always that guy who was a huge fan of one of the teams involved, and he'd be wearing the jersey and screaming at the TV instead of doing work. Well, when the Seahawks made it to the Super Bowl, there I was dressed in my Shawn Alexander #37 jersey screaming at the TV in the offices of the Examiner. I got to be that guy for a day and it was the best. (Even though the Seahawks got screwed. But I'm not bitter.)
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?
Like I said in the original post of this blog, the goal of this blog is not necessarily to make fun of failure, because losing sucks.
Not necessarily. Which means we will do it sometimes.
Especially when it comes to something like this, the worst play of 2012 and quite possibly the worst play I’ve ever seen on a baseball diamond:
But that’s only the beginning. We must not forget the throw from rightfield ...
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 2012 Houston Astros, a team that even myself – a devoted champion of losers, stragglers, and hopeless causes – is at a loss for words to explain.
Not necessarily. Which means we will do it sometimes.
Especially when it comes to something like this, the worst play of 2012 and quite possibly the worst play I’ve ever seen on a baseball diamond:
But that’s only the beginning. We must not forget the throw from rightfield ...
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 2012 Houston Astros, a team that even myself – a devoted champion of losers, stragglers, and hopeless causes – is at a loss for words to explain.
IN PLAY LOSE
This is a blog about losing. Why losing? Because winners are boring.
For those of you who may not understand the title, here is a brief explanation: when you follow the MLB gamecasts, the site gives an original description of the play that reads something like IN PLAY OUT, IN PLAY NOT OUT, or IN PLAY RUNS, after which the site will give you more information about the play. Among tech savvy baseball fans, this has led to a bevy of jokes: things like IN PLAY FAIL when your hopes for the big inning are crushed by the .218 hitter grounding back to the pitcher with the bases loaded. Or a better example would be a AAAA reliever who shuttles between San Francisco and Fresno and goes by the name of Dan Runzler, who has inherited the unfortunate moniker of “In Play Runzler” when he's not particularly effective on the mound.
IN PLAY LOSE is a blog that will be about losing – the act of losing, the history of losing, the seemingly inescapable ability to fail, the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I personally find winners to be boring as fuck. Guess what, we all want to win. None of us like to lose and none of us try to do so. Well, there is the occasional person or team who throws a game here or there, and their defense when challenging the assertion that they tanked usually reads along the line of, “I didn’t lose on purpose. I just suck.”
And winners get all the publicity, anyway. They get all the spoils. They get to rewrite history and make it look like they were fucking superstars. Whatever. The losers don't get their due, in the end. They had similar objectives, they prepared, they competed and they came up short, and often times weren't so far removed from being the winners themselves. In games and contests, the differences between being the superstar who gets the babes and the bum who “coulda been a contenda” is often infinitesimally small. And often times, it turns out the losers are far more likable.
The point of this blog is not to out-and-out ridicule those who fail. It will only seem that way sometimes. Failure is funny, after all. But we will attempt to show the appropriate sympathy for those who come up short, while also lampooning their incompetence from time to time.
And while this may be quite often a sports blog, it is not restricted to such – after all, there are lots of things to lose and countless ways to lose them. The aim of this blog is to be a larger examination and explication of failure.
Ready, set, LOSE.
For those of you who may not understand the title, here is a brief explanation: when you follow the MLB gamecasts, the site gives an original description of the play that reads something like IN PLAY OUT, IN PLAY NOT OUT, or IN PLAY RUNS, after which the site will give you more information about the play. Among tech savvy baseball fans, this has led to a bevy of jokes: things like IN PLAY FAIL when your hopes for the big inning are crushed by the .218 hitter grounding back to the pitcher with the bases loaded. Or a better example would be a AAAA reliever who shuttles between San Francisco and Fresno and goes by the name of Dan Runzler, who has inherited the unfortunate moniker of “In Play Runzler” when he's not particularly effective on the mound.
IN PLAY LOSE is a blog that will be about losing – the act of losing, the history of losing, the seemingly inescapable ability to fail, the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I personally find winners to be boring as fuck. Guess what, we all want to win. None of us like to lose and none of us try to do so. Well, there is the occasional person or team who throws a game here or there, and their defense when challenging the assertion that they tanked usually reads along the line of, “I didn’t lose on purpose. I just suck.”
And winners get all the publicity, anyway. They get all the spoils. They get to rewrite history and make it look like they were fucking superstars. Whatever. The losers don't get their due, in the end. They had similar objectives, they prepared, they competed and they came up short, and often times weren't so far removed from being the winners themselves. In games and contests, the differences between being the superstar who gets the babes and the bum who “coulda been a contenda” is often infinitesimally small. And often times, it turns out the losers are far more likable.
The point of this blog is not to out-and-out ridicule those who fail. It will only seem that way sometimes. Failure is funny, after all. But we will attempt to show the appropriate sympathy for those who come up short, while also lampooning their incompetence from time to time.
And while this may be quite often a sports blog, it is not restricted to such – after all, there are lots of things to lose and countless ways to lose them. The aim of this blog is to be a larger examination and explication of failure.
Ready, set, LOSE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)