The Meaning of Life (aka Football)

ps: Anyone for another prawn sandwich?

I was born on Merseyside into a mixed family (mums side are reds) and then brought up in Chorley so pretty much between Liverpool and Manchester so had kids who supported all 4 of the big teams and those that followed the Lancashire clubs too. The school playground used to be a brutal place to be, especially in the mid 80s.

I know in my most disappointed moments watching our team, I often think why the hell am I getting so upset/depressed about events that you've really so little influence over.
On the other hand sometimes, such as the season were enjoying, we experience great joy!

Life would be very boring without it, I reckon.

Some people love drink, sport, money, drugs or women.

I'm so lucky to have a taste for all of the above (Only messin' - honest!)

Why did football and not the two codes of rugby, American football, Aussie rules football or basketball not conquer the world's imagination?

All of them, very broadly speaking, share the same common goals. Attack your opponents' weak spot - basket, touchline or goal.

And you might argue that all of the alternatives to football use hands - surely a far more natural form of showing prowess than restricting yourself to just feet and heads.

I would suggest that the success of the game that we love owes more to history than to sociology or anthropology.

One way or another I, for one, will not sleep tonight. Either laughing or crying will keep that Everton duvet tossing & turning all night.

I've often thought along these lines myself. Football, to me, feels like a place where all that suppressed rage and frustration of the mundane, sedentary lives we lead (compared to our more primitive ancestors) can come out relatively safely. Who hasn't wanted to scream, eyes bulging and mouth contorted in the way when faced with some petty managerial decision in the office. I know I have. Football allows you to vent these passions without facing bankruptcy and/or a reputation as a social pariah!

Similarly, those of us who've played roar into tackles and throw heads into flying boots without a thought of injury. That basic need for 'violence' and tribal battle is partly satisfied on the pitch.

Very true.

I was reading The New Male Sexuality by Bernie Zilbergeld. His thoughts on the attraction of sport for men are that in growing-up emotions are simply not tolerated in boys. Crying, touching, a sharing of emotion are perceived weaknesses and will be on the receiving end of calls of being a girl or being sissy etc. And this is reinforced by toys such as fire trucks and guns for boys where by the macho is relevant, where as girls who play with dolls promote feelings of empathy, care, a sharing of... you know, girl stuff.

Sport however allows the excuse among men to experience the inherent desire for these 'sissy' emotions where by they can cheer, cry, hug, dress up, bond... a whole bunch of such emotions that in any other environment they would have been conditioned to distance themselves from.

In particular, we haven't evolved to repress our true natures, we have simply expanded on a basic reliance on group co-operation shown by many other of our primate relatives. Quite simply, we are generally far safer and more successful as a group than we are as individuals and this is hard-wired into us. It is both pointless and wasteful to wage war and it is this that is unnatural, not the communication (literacy) or peace that you postulate. The only natural 'excuse' for any kind of warfare is competition for limited resources or removal of a threat.

In addition you haven't separated the 'player' and the 'spectator' roles which are actually quite different. Sport is an outlet for the planning, energy and aggression that our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have required to thrive in their environments and is likely to have existed in some form since we became farmers, though the leisure time to play organised games is severely restricted in all but the most advanced societies. Football clubs were formed for the benefit of the players (and the incidental benefit of their local societies by having those excess energies channeled) and likely not in any way shape or form for the spectators.

Humans do indeed enjoy spectating / shared appreciation (I am an advocate of the experience myself) but it is not really limited to sports and your off-hand dismissal of other peoples particular tastes is as disappointing as the disdain you assume they regard football supporters with. In my experience, there are far more people who enjoy a variety of different distractions than those whose choose to dedicate themselves to a solitary calling.

There is something exciting about shared emotionally charged experiences that people get swept up in and it is innate, we like the affiliation and the 'advantages' that accords. We stick to our 'group' because we are primed to see loyalty as a virtue (treason / betrayal still hold a major revulsion for most of us) but there is a fine line between camaraderie and mob mentality. By all means we should enjoy the release of that which a relatively mundane, limited and sanitized lifestyle can unfortunately bottle up, but we should also remain aware that expression without control is not a liberation of our 'true nature', just our unfortunate excesses.

Because there is always a spectrum of characteristics in a population (which is what an evolutionary significant pressure selects against) some people are not 'team players'. That does not stop them from supporting a team however, as an affiliation can simply be chosen to show the 'good taste' of the individual. This is where glory hunter fans come from, picking a team based on its current standing and the consequent reflected glory. They will flit from team to team because they are not conscious of being part of a group, rather assuming that everyone wants to look the best just as they do.

I could show you with a packet of Bensons.

I’d shout ’catch!’ then toss the fag-packet at you and you’d catch it.

Then I take the pack off you.

Next I’d shout ’catch it with your foot!’ before I tossed it.

You might sort of lift your leg a bit but the Bensons would end up on the deck.

And there, imo, is the reason football is the world’s game and rugby is played by a handful of countries and a few Pacific atolls - it’s infinitely more skillful.

And no matter how much BBC/Sky/The Observer etc, try and promote rugby, the world understands that moving a ball around a field with your feet is a thousand times more engrossing than watching a fatty deliberately welly the ball out of play, or charge into other fatties with an egg tucked under his arm.

As has already been pointed out, it is the simplicity of the game that gives football its pre-eminence. All that is needed is some flat ground, a couple of people and a ball and you can play football, even a wall adding a variety that you won't get in other sports. Therefore, football is uniquely urban which is where most people live and get their first exposure.

Don't know what your issue with egg-chasing is? It is a very different sport, though its origins are in football, and has its own nuances and skills. Absolutely no reason why any individual can't enjoy / appreciate both (personally I pity anyone who thinks you can only like one or the other). You are never going to get a proper game of street rugby though and keepy-uppy does become a much simpler exercise! :)

There is Rugby, League, Sevens, 'Touch the the game we used to call tick.

You can play footy on your own, just running and dribbling with the ball or kicking it against the wall.

There's what we used to call ' spot' with 2 3 4 or more players ( usually against and end of terrace wall )

Attack and defence to be played with small odd numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 or at a push 7 ( one in goal 2 attackers 2 defenders)

Goalie in or out - 2 Vs 2 + a goalie

Then Games of any number that lasted all morning, until you went in for your dinner...all afternoon, until you went in for your tea... then until it went too dark to see.

For a take on this that you may not have considered go to You Tube, enter a search for 'Redneck & Soccer' and be prepared for an enlightening experience.

I advise you to have a pee before you do so.

Let me know what you think.

For the record, I was supporting the pre-eminence of football having played it for as long as I can remember, I just don't think there is any need to sneer at the other sports (some of which I also enjoy playing though they came later in my life).

I know there is no such thing as street rugby; that was the point I was making - the ubiquity and accessibility of footie in its many forms.

"Why did football and not the two codes of rugby, American football, Aussie rules football or basketball not conquer the world's imagination?"

It's not a question that can be answered 'correctly' or where you can say 'I'm right' - one can only give it some thought and give an opinion.

And, re rugby, that's what I did.

For the record, I only have three criteria when posting.

1) Say what I think.

2) And er..

3) That's it.

You say ' I pity anyone who thinks you can only like one or the other'.

Well...so do I (I suppose), but that's not the case and it's disingenuous to suggest that's what I was doing (or suggesting).

If the subject is raised (nb: as it was) I HAPPEN...to think football is a superb, incredibly skillful, beguiling game and (important bit) BY COMPARISON, I think rugby is a shite game.

And the facts remain, football IS the world's game and only about 8 countries play rugby (seriously) (and half of them are in Britain) and even in those places, the interest is only really with international games

(see Sale Sharks of the Aviva Premier League, average att 6116. Luton Town of the Skrill Football Conference, average attendance, 6751)

And one more thing, as well as thinking that, aesthetically speaking, rugby is a mess of a game, it doesn't help (me) that union is a game steeped in the elitism of public schools.

Bet you're glad you asked.

If you read my initial post you will see that I don't believe sport is just about skill (which comes down a lot to innate co-ordination), with speed, strength, stamina, bravery, mental discipline, and psychology all being part of the blend (and the attraction for the participant), and I very much doubt that the average football supporter is as much of an aficionado as you are. As Stephen Sullivan points out, what is popular will also tend to attract those who just like to be part of the herd.

As for aesthetics, well beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Some of us just don't have one 'type', but that should be allowable because you can't 'cheat' on a sport.

As you (inadvertently?) pointed out in your response at 732, Albert's initial question listed a variety of sports. So why did your original post spasm into a dig at one sport in particular? Generally I really like your contributions but this one was unnecessarily sour and deliberately barbed.

You whine..

"Eugene - I am very disappointed to see 'class war' prejudices clouding a reasonable debate on a forum where the only criteria should be our regard / loyalty to Everton Football Club"

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh god no.

(nb: I'm guessing by 'reasonable', that's anything you deem reasonable)

And..

"Generally I really like your contributions but this one was unnecessarily sour and deliberately barbed".

Jeus, who the fuck are you, Kenneth Tynan?

I'm not in the least bit interested in what does or doesn't disappoint you.

Plus I couldn't give a monkey's toss what you (nb: or anyone else) thinks is 'necessary' - I write what I think is necessary and if it's deemed 'too much', it'll be removed by TW.

(for the record, 99% of what's posted on TW isn't 'necessary')

You continue with..

"If you read my initial post you will see that I don't believe sport is..."

Sorry but I really don't care what YOU 'believe' sport is (but thanks for trying to enlighten me)

It really seems to me (from your disappointment) that you see TW as some kind of friend-face reunited,

Well, I don't (lad/mate/fella).

A question was asked (by Albert) and accepting it was something one/I COULDN'T be correct about, I gave my opinion.

You don't like it?

Tough titty!

As for 'deliberately barbed', yes it was...and?

(is deliberately barbed not allowed? Is this Si-web?)).

Suggestion - rather than trying to present yourself as a cross between Private Godfrey and Mr Chips (but imo coming across classic passive-aggressive) why not just concentrate on your actual 'argument'.

Your first paragraph (577) tells us we should think of nothing but Everton, we should unite in our Evertonness, while living in harmony in the land of Evertonia..er..before going on (and fucking on) to say how wrong I am about rugby.

By all means let me have another blast of cold hard semantics but you should know, I'm immune to 'reasonable' (particularly your brand of unreasonable reasonable).