The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Emotional Chelsea return for Rodgers Posted: 23 Sep 2011 04:48 PM PDT SEPT 24 — This afternoon, Brendan Rodgers will take charge of Swansea City as they face Chelsea at Stamford Bridge in the Premier League. It will be an emotional occasion for the ambitious young manager, who is returning to London to take on his former employers having spent four years as a youth and reserve team coach for the Blues from 2004-8. In fact, it's been an emotional few weeks for Rodgers and his club. Invigorated by their historic promotion to the top flight at the end of last season, the Swans approached the season on a high, eagerly anticipating their first-ever chance to mix it with the big boys. Then reality hit — and hit hard. The Welsh club were thrashed 4-0 at Manchester City in their opening fixture of the campaign, and again failed to score a single goal in their next three outings to leave themselves with no wins, no goals and just two points from their first four games. But whatever emotional turmoil the Swans might have felt they were going through as they desperately strove to make an impression on the Premier League, their plight was soon put into perspective by two truly tragic events: firstly the death of Rodgers' father after a battle against cancer, and then the death of four local miners when the shaft they were working in was flooded.  Rodgers poses with the trophy after Swansea had won their Championship play-off final match over Reading at Wembley Stadium in London on May 30, 2011. — Reuters pic At the same time, though, and in complete contrast to that initial sentiment, sport somehow becomes even more important in times of tragedy due to its unique ability to bring people together under a common cause, engendering a true sense of community spirit and belonging. However strange it may seem, in times of grief we often turn to sport for solace and comfort — especially when that grief has affected a wider community, as it did with the mining disaster. The people of Swansea were in shock and in mourning; and perhaps the most effective way for them to come together and express those difficult emotions, even on an unspoken level, was under the banner of their local football team. The impact of tragedy on our feelings towards sport can be summed up by saying that the results of individual fixtures become far less important; but the impact of sport's actual existence becomes even more important. We care less about whether our favourite team wins, but we care more about the fact that they are there in the first place. Under those extreme circumstances, then, just try to imagine the intense atmosphere of total unity and community that prevailed at the Liberty Stadium when Swansea hosted West Brom last Saturday afternoon — just two days after the mining tragedy. Only one result was possible, and the Swans duly obliged by performing extremely well to record a 3-0 victory, securing their first goals and their first win in the process. Now, with momentum restored, they travel to Stamford Bridge to take on the glamour boys of Chelsea, for a game that holds particular significance for their manager, whose career owes an enormous amount to the club that he will be attempting to defeat. Rodgers had started his career by spending a decade as a youth coach at Reading, slowly climbing up the long and slippery managerial ladder, before being lured to Chelsea by Jose Mourinho back in 2004. I also worked for Reading at the time and had got to know him well — and to say he was surprised to be given the opportunity is an understatement. He was speechless. Of course, he believed in his ability and always had ambitions to ultimately climb into management, but being given the chance to join such a major club at such a young age (he was just 31 at the time) was way beyond his expectations. He immediately recognised it was his golden chance to take his career onto an entirely different level, and made the most of that chance by closely attaching himself to Mourinho and devouring every piece of knowledge he could grab from the Portuguese maestro. From that moment, Rodgers' eventual move into management was inevitable, and it came in 2008 when he took over at Watford, where he enjoyed immediate success. Then came his big mistake — allowing his heart to rule his head by returning to Reading to take over from Steve Coppell in 2009. It was a near hopeless task for any manager because Coppell had left a huge hole to be filled, and Rodgers lasted less than six months before being fired. After a spell out of the game, Rodgers was given a second chance by Swansea who recognised in his passing philosophy and his youthful ambition the opportunity to continue the work that had been so skilfully started by previous managers Roberto Martinez and Paolo Sousa. And continue it he certainly did, leading the Swans to promotion at the end of his very first season. So now here they are, taking on Chelsea in the Premier League. Chelsea should win because they have better players; but football is a people business, and people are an unreliable, irrational and emotional bunch. So don't be surprised if Swansea upset the odds. * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| Posted: 23 Sep 2011 04:41 PM PDT SEPT 24 — Amidst all the cheery Raya greetings, general moans about the Twitterification of the quintessential Hari Raya wish to "SHRMZB" and endless pictures of Eid fare from all corners of the globe, popped up this interesting quip, apparently from an acquaintance's Dad: "Dulu kalau orang ramai berkumpul tapi senyap, orang kata malaikat lalu — sekarang sebab semua mengadap handphone masing-masing." (In those days, when a group of people congregated but were silent, people used to joke that it was because an angel passed by. These days, it's because everyone is on their mobile phones.) The ubiquity of the mobile phone —and, of late, the smartphone — has finally dawned upon my father's generation. And, I think, this is much to their despair. Was it only half a decade ago that only serious corporate types and aspiring presidential candidates needed to be "always connected", slaves to those scurrying for tidbits of their time? Perhaps it was, perhaps even more recent. I am of the generation that has seen major leaps in the timing of communication. Post-SPM in 1994 I was still writing letters; into my third year at university queueing at the post office to buy stamps turned into queueing at the computer lab for a turn on the only two computers on campus with an Internet connection. Internet Relay Chat broke down geographical barriers in friendship, and webcams and Skype allowed for not only video calling but free video calling during my post-graduate years. (*Yes, I am aware I omitted fax machines among other things. But fax machines never transcended into the home, being more of an office thing.) And as I finally graduated into employment, 3G connectivity meant the Internet was always on for those with an appropriate device. These days even writing emails has given way to instant messaging applications such as the Blackberry messenger or WhatsApp. Considering that the written word was couriered to locations from as far back as the days of Achilles to as recent as 30 years ago... I'd understand if the email is a bit miffed at its limited minutes of fame. What has accelerated the demand for constant connectivity, I would argue, are the "apps" that are connecting us, allowing interaction without the rather pesky limitation of the lack of mutual geographic presence. Facebook and Twitter — two of the main "culprits" — are key events of the Noughties themselves, and should we be surprised? The beauty of all of this, of course, is the breaking down of barriers. If on Facebook, reunions with those you haven't seen for years (sometimes, you realise after deleting an old friend for being a Perkasa member, there was a reason for the enforced absence!) does away with the barriers of time and distance, Twitter allows controlled communication with selective interaction. I quite like the way Twitter works because it allows the average marhaens like me to engage with people of more "social worth." While Facebook provides a safe space for interaction between only those you know, on Twitter people can follow you without ever requiring an obligation for you to "follow" them back. Celebrities, politicians and people of certain importance have jumped at this opportunity for one-way communication with much mirth — and they seem to have put it to good use, too. An ardent reader of sporting history, one lament I always read in the memoirs of sports writers is the lack of approachability of modern sporting heroes. If, in days of old, journalists would share aeroplanes with the sports teams they were covering, these days an interview is a carefully negotiated interaction involving layers of officialdom and agent machineering. I always thought this had a somewhat direct correlation with the increased market values of said sporting stars, which fuelled their egos and sense of self worth. But after following the Twittter feeds of major sporting stars such as Rio Ferdinand, Joey Barton and Michael Owen, their interaction with the fans (and these two sports stars do interact as well as have an active timeline) sheds part of their external shell and public face. Barton is definitely worth an "add" by the way — with philosophical musings and an uncanny viewpoint, this is one side of the bad boy footballer you have to see. Today, apparently, he had his first kosher meal.. Twitter statements are now also seen to be "official" — how many times have you read news articles lately that quote directly from the Twitter feed of celebrities and other people of certain importance? I gather that as this gathers more momentum, the sheer veneer of approachability will crumble and we will be back to the ways of old. But until that moment comes, perhaps savour the knowledge that even benched footballing centrebacks (and England stars) get annoyed with a toothache and they too are unable to command an immediate appointment with the local dentist. The downside of this increased visibility, of course, is the Internet equivalent of watching where you tread; or in other words, being careful with what you type. The unassuming nature of interacting in spaces such as Twitter gives an illusion that we are among friends — but only around the corner lurks the acquaintance who doesn't quite get your inside jokes, and is ready to misinterpret banter meant for a select few. Your Internet presence is more and more taking the mantle of defining your personality — as behavioural economist Dan Ariely argues, we want our Facebook walls to reflect who we are, acting as "a storefront window to our self." Think about it... when was the last time you edited your list of favourite movies before approving the friend request of the guy you have quite a secret crush on? On a more serious note, beyond stalking celebrities, this year Twitter and Facebook gained a legitimacy beyond its usual realm of pop culture. While the thrust of the Internet as a means of reaching out is not something new — denied public space in the mainstream media, Malaysian opposition parties were first in adapting their campaigns to make full use of the unregulated Internet — Twitter, Facebook and real-time chat applications played key roles in the Arab Spring uprisings and the London riots this year, moving it into the more serious arena of power and politics. Lauded as the impetus behind the wave of protests in the Middle East and a main player in the ousting of Hosni Mobarak in Egypt, there was a sense of bittersweet irony (is irony anything but bittersweet?) when British politicians demanded that the Internet be "shut down" for a while to stem the spreading of the riots in England — the very thing Mobarak was criticised for doing in January 2011. I also recall Western criticism of the UAE's intent to ban the Blackberry for its highly encrypted messaging service which did not allow the government to access discussions made via it — only for the West to consider tapping into these exact same resources when civil unrest hit recently. These British politicians argued that their point of view differed as their call was for the greater good; but in what sense did the UAE or Mobarak not perhaps believe that their calls, too, was for the greater good as they saw it? Walk a mile in a despot's shoes... and be scared that they may fit. The common wisdom with respect to these things is that at the end of the day, they are just tools after all — and you make the choice whether they are to be used as a force for good or bad. What is slightly murkier, however, is how you define what is good, what is bad and what evils are necessary or otherwise. And for that, there is perhaps no wisdom to be begotten, common or otherwise. * The writer is very proud of the fact that she wrote an article about Twitter and Facebook without ever once using the phrase "social networking". Except just now, but that was to make a point. * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan