Sounds a bit like Chinese whispers to me mate, but that said I wouldn't be upset if Wenger and Bould had 'had words'. I think it shows that they are both passionate and have got strong ideas and want to win
Not so sure mate, these people go to Colney regularly and speak to everyone, they're considered part of the club and see/hear an awful lot more than me and most others, they're very discreet people and have never exagerated anything to do with the club....
Fair enough fella I'm not sure what to make of that really, but like I said; I wouldn't be too upset if Wenger and Bould had had a spat. I think it demonstrates that they are both passionate and want to win. Sometimes you need to say what you really think and not let diplomacy get in the way
You want to be careful to distinguish between a communist political system and a communist economic system. Most communists outside of the old soviet block support a communist economy which is arguably the most efficient economy you can have (which is why it is so popular in the 3rd world). That financial system has rather been tainted by the use of the world communist to refer to a single party state (or more often an outright dictatorship), which a large number of communists are not necessarily in favor of. I am not entirely sold on full-blown communism, mainly because it is rather difficult to implement practically without a dictatorship, but in many, many, ways it is more sensible (and moral) than the brand of capitalism that we are stuck with now. In any case, I don't think him being a communist in any way invalidates or diminishes his views on Arsenal. In fact I respect him for his courage to stand up for what he believes in, in the face of the ignorant, rather like Wenger.
Any system that ensures that people are given equal share is infinitely more desirable than the pathological consumption that is trashing the planet and lining the pockets of the rich. Capitalism is responsible for more death and suffering than any war over the last century.
Except Communism as an idea and Communism in practice are two totally different things. Communism does not and will not work. It goes completely against Human Nature. Firsly it requires amazing organisational and logistical skills that the governments of the world simply don't have. And secondly it requires everyone to be happy with being equal, which just isn't realistic.
Human Nature is an indeterminable state, as it is entirely dependent on it's cultural context. The only thing you can say with any certainty about 'human nature' is the state of any animal which is to eat, sleep, keep warm, self preserve and procreate. Beyond that, you are talking about Politics / power and the application of systems of governance and control, these are cultural constructs designed to give order to societies, but they are not behavioural traits of 'Human Nature'. Therefore the whole idea that any political system 'cannot' work is flawed, as it is entirely possible for communities to organise themselves according to their own set of belief systems. What is 'realistic' is based on the aspirations of that community, the logistical and organisational skills are entirely possible to create a society based on whatever principles are deemed worthwhile. Communism only appears to be unworkable, based on the perceptions of a society that is culturally engrained in Capitalism
Well, I would say that I am resigned to sticking with capitalism, but still. I wasn't trying to lead us into a debate on politics, I was just trying to say that, in my opinion, gooner shouldn't face ridicule for his political views.
I disagree. I think the most basic of human traights is Survival of the fitest. If i am bigger, faster, stronger or more intelligent i survive, if not i lose. It's a basic instinct bread into us over thousands of years to be better than those around us. If caveman A brings home more food than Caveman B, the cave lady wants to hook up with Caveman A. The tribe want Caveman A to be there chief. It is the most natural thing in the world to be competitive. It happens in the animal kingdom on a daily basis, packs and herds are run as hierarchies, those with the most competitive advantages gain the most. Thus capitalism was born. The problem is that everyone can't be equal. Someoen will always be unhappy with what they have, someone will always want more, someone will always feel there contribution is deserved of a higher reward. I agree that society and cultural leanings effect what we see as human nature, but i can't help but feel like the reason we have developed a capitalist society is because it fits in perfectly with our natural behaviours - we always want to be better.
To bring this back to football, I am involved in a debate about building a coaching program. One of the things that many many "experts" are advocating is removing keeping score, league tables, promotion and relegation etc, before the age of 13. They believe it encourages coaches to use (and I quote) "short term negative tactics" rather than "developing skills". They also advocate a lot of mini-football (not playing 11v11 until 15), no offside for almost as long, and playing competitive matches very infrequently. I'm not sure, in a competitive sport, whether this makes sense to me. But these guys are experts and they have yards of material that say that this is the way to success. It just doesn't seem natural to me. Human beings want to compete, at any age. Can't we just let them have fun? It all seems like political PC BS to me, but I'm not an expert. I hadn't thought of accusing them of being communist.
That doesn't make sense, when I was a kid, one of the greatest things about playing football was the competitive aspect to it, that's what made it so enjoyable. Even when I was a young teen and played for the official school football team, what made that amazing, was the competition, I remember we had a league format, and then a final day, which would be played in a cup format, with groups etc, and that made it such an interesting prospect to look forward to. If the competitive nature was taken out, it would be really boring and meaningless.
I completely agree with both of you - the competitive edge is what made football such fun as a kid. Trying to win the end of season cup, the league etc... If scores are not kept and there are no competitions etc i can see a lot less kids actually taking part. That being said i do understand the idea behind what they are saying, that actually the focus should be on developing the skills of the young players rather than the end result as in the long run the players will benefit from playing a passing game etc as opposed to kick and rush for results. But without the competitive edge alot of kids just won't enjoy it. The idea of only 5 a side, 7 a side and 9 a side games for pre-13 year olds is probably a good idea though. At that age it doesn't matter if your playing 7 on a team or 11 on a team thats not why you enjoy it. But on an 11 a side pitch you tend at young age to get a lot of ball chasing and long balls, with all your defenders thinking they play up front. If you only play 5 a side, 7 a side etc you are encouraging players to play out of tighter spots, learn how to properly pass and control the ball, it improves your movement off the ball and in general makes you rely on footballing ability as opposed to physical attributes such as pace and strength. I wish i had played more 5 a side and 7 a side as a kid. I'm 6ft3 and can out-run just about anyone, but only started to develop my technique properly at far too old of an age to have ever been a football player. Now im pretty skillful if i do say so myself! But what that shows me is i had the ability but not the right type of focus in training (always played for school teams etc). So i can see why the ideas you say have been mentioned as for me it is obvious how some of those things could benefit youth level football. P.s. no im not saying with more 5-a-side training i'd be playing pro football - just pointing out that in my own development as a person who plays footy for the fun of it, it makes sense to me that 5-a-side from a young age could be very useful.
With respect, I think that's quite a naive viewpoint. There is nothing 'natural' about Capitalism, it is not based on survival of the fittest, that is a skewed analogy. It is based on accumulation of resources by the few in order to subjugate the many. The parameters of 'survival' are not based on who is best, but on who is selectively afforded the opportunity to exercise power - and that is an artificial precept. I think you would find that a purely competitive society would end up with everybody dead. Because we cannot survive without cooperating as a social unit. Even in the Animal kingdom you cite, packs and herds are based on a social unit, with cohesion that comes from cooperating for survival. Man is social animal and needs his fellow man in order to survive and exist. If everybody simply competed with everybody else in order to try and accumulate the most they could, the whole human population would be at war with each other trying to have more than the next person. Although this is an extreme example - this is Capitalism in microcosm. For all 6bn people on this planet, there are more than enough resources to feed, house and provide warmth for every man, woman and child. But what do we have instead? War, famine, occupation, homelessness, and mass consumerism that is killing the planet - this is the result of Capitalism and it is a wholly unnatural way for a social animal to live. The real model that exists is one that is based on both cooperation and competition. And bringing it back to Football, this is exactly what you see. A team cooperating with their teammates to compete against another team.
