Something I wrote for the New Indian Express (but can't find the link now), which might be contextually interesting and related:
On Saturday, October 8, 2011, the football team of South Africa faltered comically and failed to qualify for the African Cup of Nations (ACN). The reason—the South African-born coach of the Bafana Bafana, Pitso Mosimane, was apparently unaware of the finer details of the qualification rules. In case you missed it, the South Africans went into their final qualifier against Sierra Leone level on eight points with their opponents and a point behind Niger, who were playing Egypt at the same time.
An hour into the game in Nelspruit, the score was 0-0, while Niger were down 3-0 in Cairo. That meant three teams—South Africa, Sierra Leone and Niger—were level on nine points. South Africa had the best goal difference, but, what their coach had missed was that their head-to-head records, and not goal difference, is what matters these days under FIFA qualification rules. On that count, Niger led by a point (they had six points against South Africa and Sierra Leone, while the Bafana had five against Sierra Leone and Niger). South Africa needed a goal to win, move up to 11 points, and qualify undisputed. Confident of his understanding of the rules, Mosimane decided to play safe, and held back star striker Lehlohonolo Majoro on the bench. They got the draw they wanted, and celebrated their 'qualification' on the pitch. Then, reality dawned on them. Mosimane admitted he had been at fault, while the South African Football Association wrote to the Confederation of African Football challenging the rules.
As the world media poured in, it became immediately apparent what they were after. Why would the ACN suddenly necessitate such coverage, when none was given earlier? Why, but the smug fulfilment of the deep-seated colonial hangover, of white man's obligation to rule over and encourage development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In plainspeak, people of colour being the 'missing link', it's for their benefit that they should not be allowed anywhere close to positions of power, or those that require higher (read logical) faculties. It is the reason why you'd be hardpressed to find a black coach in US basketball, a sport dominated for ages by African-Americans on the court, or in European football, despite club and national teams filled with players of African descent. Or why African national football associations plump for unknown or out-of-work European coaches just before marquee events like the ACN or the FIFA World Cup, ditching successful local coaches who may even have led their sides through the qualifiers.
But does the argument—that the black man should be allowed to play because of his palpable physical advantages, but not allowed to coach, because nature hasn't been kind enough in endowing 'Sambo' above the shoulders—have muscle? What about Shaun Pollock, then captain of the Proteas, in the 2003 cricket World Cup, who erred on Duckworth-Lewis, counting one less run for the ball, that resulted in the Proteas getting eliminated in the first round, in their own country? And just in case you'd think a white man, born-and-brought up in warm climes, goes soft between the ears, what about Michael Vaughan, who became the second Englishman after Graham Gooch to be given out handled the ball in Tests: in 2001, in a test match against India in Bangalore, on 64, he brushed away a ball from Sarandeep Singh, and was given out on appeal.
The Indian subcontinent has thrown up its fair share of headless-chickens in the sporting arena, with generations of wooly-headed Indian cricketers and captains adding to the overall image of a 'soft' sporting nation. In fact, the reason why Sourav Ganguly's bare-chested act at Lords left so many panjandrums of India's cricketing hierarchy frothing in the mouth, is most likely because it sharply contrasted with their own meek surrenders in the face of bullying, for decades. But would this then mean that cockiness, cunning and streetsmartness is antithetical to sub-continental sporting traditions? The likes of Imran Khan and Javed Miandad would certainly disagree, even though in recent years, the Pakistan cricket team has indeed lost some of their edgy gamesmanship. Maybe, their team has lost its collective memory and nous in the haze of match-fixing and the death of cricket-nationalism. Maybe, the relative lack of education in the new-gen Pakistani cricketer, a far cry from the time when an Oxbridge education was the qualifying norm to captain the side, is to blame. But then, what is the correlation between street-smartness and formal education?
In 2006, the genial giant of Pakistani cricket, Inzamam ul-Haq, then captaining the side in a test series in England, refused to re-enter the field after tea at the Oval after allegations of ball tampering from umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove. The umpires had awarded England five penalty runs and the choice to replace the ball, after ruling that Pakistan had illegally altered the ball. Inzamam and his team decided to protest, and sulked inside their dressing room. The umpires, having tried to persuade Inzy to come out, decided that the match could not continue. Later, Inzamam returned to the field with his team, only to find both the umpires and the English team to have already left! Inzy had just become the first captain in history to forfeit a Test match. And he wasn't even aware of his 'achievement', clearly because of his lack of understanding of the rules of the gentleman's game. Can one imagine this happening under Salim Malik or Wasim Akram's watch?
This wasn't the first time in the new millenium that a Pakistan team member had ended up with egg on his face. Inzy himself has been one of the biggest culprits. From blocking a fielder's return throw with his bat while short of the crease, to missing a sweep against Monty Panesar, losing balance and collapsing on to his stumps, to being run out in every possible comical fashion, he was a walking disaster mitigated by his genuinely bumbling character and sublime batting skills.
Even in the infamous 'monkeygate' scandal involving the Indian and Australian cricket teams in the summer of 2007, whatever be the actual sequence of events, barring Sachin's 'Yudhisthir act', what the Indian team displayed was that they were ready to give it back to the Australians in their own coin, much to the consternation of the Kangaroos who were, till then, used to steamrolling visiting teams, particularly Indians, by their 'creative gamesmanship' and mental disintegration techniques.
It is clear then, that gumption, logical faculties and cunning among sportspersons is not necessarily a racial characteristic and preserve of 'more evolved' humans. However, they are essential components in all modern sports, and involves not only a comprehension of the intricacies of the laws that govern the particular sport, but also the ability to understand their limits, and the cunning to stretch the boundaries, much like the sledging by Australian cricketers. And, crucially, it presupposes knowledge about the history of the game, particularly the precedents of anomaly that indicate they direction in which the laws can be stretched without breaking them. Veeru, Yuvi and Dhoni be warned—there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost—in their proudly professed lack of interest in the history of the game.
AuthorTopic: Happy that kids are playing football in India: Thomas Mueller (Read 537 times)
July 18, 2006, 10:31:13 PM