The beta male football fan, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worryi

[reggiepaul]

Kind of encompasses some areas of football that I experience meeting many different fans. It became a very long post so it's a bit of an article I guess : Enjoy!

The beta male football fan,Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Cygan

The fact remains that journalism is born upon sensationalising and
exaggerating events.

=Why Cygan?=

I've seen most of (if not all) of Cygan's, Wiltord's and Gilberto's
performances and I don't know what the fuss is about. All brilliant and
great players and all players make mistakes. If he has a problem with the
players in front of him, great. Last season he was covering for their
mistakes only for fans to get on HIS back rather than Pires', Parlour's,
Gio's
back for being out of position. It's the old "oh don't say anything to our
older players" because they have a stronger bond with the club and THUS a
stronger bond with the fans and in the end (and the crux of this) more fans
to upset if you said they made mistakes. So don't say our older players make
mistakes because that would mean more fans would disagree with you since so
many of them have been around longer to create a bond with fans. Right?
Yeah. The fact is - they all make mistakes but it's comfortable and
convenient to blame the new guy. Isn't it.

Cygan has not only saved us in situations but is also a "winner" (for a lot
of reasons. France? last season? core man) and his career is quite
successful, for a defender. Big fish in a small pond but that small pond
appears bigger when it is the strongest footballing nation in the world,
probably Brazil on the odd day. They have got Gilberto after all but then
again, France do have Wiltord. Decisions, decisions.

It's the first thing they teach you in journalism (at a decent school of
course ) ). Papers sell on readers wanting a dramatisation of life's
events. Sad but true but also true not everyone can get to a game these days
(those well documented by our mass media that is) and also ultimately true,
not everyone has the courage to speak their mind and have a unique view on
events. It is boring following people and sucking up to a group dynamic.
Your just not your own person. Sad fact is, people need people but in truth
it's better to seek out people who will always be there for you, no matter
what. Rather than people who are only there for you if you agree with them.

=Journalists (making money the more fans they upset)=

Most people watch things and become involved in that activity for the
entertainment value and at times (or most of the time) in the media, what is
deemed informative is also entertaining, even if you are an arsenal fan and
they are feeding you information that negates an arsenal player. You want
that information so you have tit bits to pass on later - rather than (god
forbid) do the holy and speak your mind. Fans will grasp hold of a notion
they feel only other fans possess. A factor that exists in group dynamics so
they feel they belong to the group. Along with other superficial factors of
football support to express your allegiance and enforce and convince people
you are true fan. It's really problems in communication for people when they
can't express themselves as they feel.

The truth is we all have unique views on the game. It'd be bizarre if we
didn't because we are all different and would carry a different view. That's
the realism of events not the fact we all carry the same opinion. No one
carries the same opinion on events. We may agree upon a generalised ideal
but realistically speaking we either arrive to that ideal by differing means
OR we are just agreeing in a oral expression and hope we belong and want to
belong. The latter is a more common dynamic.

=Point being - say what you see not what they feed you=

Last season many other players were involved in our losses when Cygan was
involved. Also he isn't that bad a player as it is handed out. It's easier
and convenient for people to get someone to blame for mistakes in a game
rather than weigh up the problems in strategy and tactics between teams and
outline exactly where the team failed when they were caught out.

When managers send out players they don't expect them to be in a quiz show
expecting each player to play for their own prizes. A manager sends out a
team and in that he also sends out one specifically chosen player for a
specific team dynamic. Everyone playing together. Why? because you are
playing a team. You don't expect to stand around waiting to play on your
own, you watch what the team are doing based upon what your manager briefed
you with before the game. The point in this is a team can become exploited
because of their strategy and tactic played and there can never be a
situation where a player is singularly involved in the loss of a game.

=The modern game=

So you might say why does one player move up in the pecking order based upon
a "game"?

The answer is simple. The manager weighs up different possibilities based
upon the options available in his squad and upon how he sees the player and
based upon this (and this only) what he feels the player is capable of
within the team. These days it isn't a player who is weak but a players
position and game that is exploited based upon what the manager expects of
him. A player can only work and adapt around the team a manager plays and
how much the manager knows of the team. The manager will play a player based
upon his experience and understanding of the player. This is why we see some
players play differently and in a different capacity and expertise between
international and domestic games or transitional phases between clubs. All
down to different managers seeing different things in a player. When we see
a player not playing it's because based upon a deficit in our game which has
been continuously exploited - the manager has presented a better option and
new style of play.

Our problem in Europe. We played in England as we did in Europe. We needed
to defend and work better defensively meaning strengthening the defensive
factors to our game since we were so counter attacking for the past few
seasons. Teams in the champions league are strong offensively as opposed to
a core a "English" play in England which we had battled and overcome. So
when Lehmann, Cygan, Sol (the kernel of our back) tell our players to get
their act together it's because (as Wenger has stated) we have begun to
present our offence as a defensive option alongside our supplementation to
defensive play as well. If the offence aren't working effectively on our
best offence being our best defence it's up to those players (our defence)
to get behind our offence to push further up field and also to drop back so
they can begin a counter attack effectively.

It is really just natural for some to find someone to blame. It makes a
complex situation appear conclusive and sensical for someone because "you've
got someone to blame". The truth is there is a difference and reason for
league positions and professionalism and the game is far more complicated
the higher and higher you go. The champions league is so much more different
to lesser leagues in domestic competition and we can't automatically say "he
was crap". A lot of the time, if not all the time it's the way the manager
plays a team and what he asks for them. If a player had a free role it would
appear a little silly. Every team you play is different and different
scenarios will present themselves as threat. That is why you need a good
football manager who watches a lot of videos of football manager, namely the
Wengerfied manager and for this reason if you can get Wenger - nice one.

=The beta male football fans world=

The blame a player scenario is just normal of any group dynamic. It puts
people at ease. It is also very much like calling football players
egotistical and arrogant. It's the "beta male" football fan seeing the
"alpha male" professional football player and quite "surprisingly" (sarcasm
dears) stating the footballer is egotistical BECAUSE he has a fast car or he
has a big house or he is VERY GOOD at football. It's not a coincidence that
this is something the beta male football fan is not it is in fact the beta
male football fan just highlighting "he is crap and a pathetic excuse for a
human being because he has things I don't". The beta male football fan adds,
usually to females "don't fancy or adore the footballer because he is a
pathetic excuse for a human since he has all those possessions and is a
great footballer too but is egotistical so choose me instead because I'm a
nice guy because I see lot's of faults in others". Obviously the mating
ritual of the beta male football fan.

The alpha male football fan is on the other hand appreciative and respectful
of his team because they are just that damn good.

My point is a lot of football support and conclusion for people revolves
around social ideals rather than the purity of football as it is. Many
people like to bring real life in to football. The fact football players are
bad, evil and corrupt is just a reflection of how they see the world and how
it appears all the more comfortable for them to see things like this because
the reality (the simplicity of the "beautiful" game being beautiful because
it is so unifying and an expression of the better things around you) be too
hard to take for the beta male football fan.

All our players are amazing. A lesson in lesser football would be to watch a
lesser game like, Wolves Vs Leicester and a more intense game, like Arsenal
Vs Inter and see exactly what our player - especially the most slated, hated
and corrupt do during the game.

So don't be a beta male football fan. Your just missing out on so much! )

 

[Adam]

Interesting names, Dr Strangelove. The idea is correct although illogically and wildly put! :wink:

We shouldn't focus on what the media perception is (bias, acting in other interests, and wildly assumptious). Say what you see, and not what you read perhaps.

 

[reggiepaul]

I like wild illogic because there is always stability in every chaos. It's finding it like the most diverse and complex of mathematical equation - so is the most diverse and chaotic of grammatical and linguistical expressions.

When someone writes it's better to strap yourself in for the ride because someone else is in control - not you. If you were in control - you would be writing. When someone else is writing we have no expectation, no reason for understanding and no influence upon it because we are the readers rather than the writers. If you begin to manipulate or change someone elses writing you are stating that it is not what you want it to be, so maybe your seeing your own reasoning rather than the reasoning the writer expresses in the way they have "chosen" to express it.

If it was expressed differently it would be expressing something different. If the paragraph structure and grammatical expression was formed differently the expression and meaning would change. It's one of the first things they teach you in linguistics. Learn to argue your case because if you agree that expression is wrong, especially your own then you are playing to someone elses rules of writing.

;D :angel

 

[Adam]

I'd say yes and no. It's important to write for other people so that they can comprehend it in their own logic. There has to be a common ground of expression when you post on a forum - otherwise people wont bother to read it and will dismiss it. I took the time to read!

I'd rather comment on the points you are bringing up though because this is not relevant. Everyones different - people take on the media views if they are less intelligent because they are less likely to search for their own meanings and are more absorbed into the mass media in society. The only information channel we are fed in football concerning the "beta male" is that of the news when they will predominantly publish the negatives of professional football i.e. players faults, and privelaged lives.

 

[reggiepaul]

I'd say yes and no. It's important to write for other people so that they can comprehend it in their own logic. There has to be a common ground of expression when you post on a forum - otherwise people wont bother to read it and will dismiss it. I took the time to read!

but Adam, again that is dependant on expression. Modern readership is based upon where it is written really and for some yes logic matters when conveying informative pieces but thats where the media wins - they take facts and manipulate them as informative. A writing will remain a writing and it's meaning will remain a meaning. So - if that is the case why change it's structure from what it is and how it is formed? Point being - where is the point in that?

You take out one piece - the whole piece changes. You remove one sentence - the whole piece changes. You move bits around - the whole pieces changes. Editors work for investors and owners to make sure the publication is in line with what the owners aim to achieve from publicising such events. While in opinion and complex articles they are untouched and as written (apart from word count at times - only so much paper in the world, all hail the internet) because that is how the writer wanted it.

Point is - the writer remains in control and the reader reads the writer not what the reader wants. If we control writing in uncontrolling environments we are kind of, trying to tell people to write for me (like the owners and controllers of publications) rather than accepting writing for what it is.

In the end, and the crux of all this, linguistics and language has developed and formed upon creativity of culture and individuals. The risks individual writers have taken to the point in the modern age has moved language to a well accepted level and all structure and concepts in language are accepted to respect the differences in structure and expression that exist in global language. We move on because we understand ourselves better.

So you can't write for a reader when you have something totally different to what the reader thinks and believes in to say. If you did that, you'd just be writing. No expression, no shape and no flavour.

I'd rather comment on the points you are bringing up though because this is not relevant. Everyones different - people take on the media views if they are less intelligent because they are less likely to search for their own meanings and are more absorbed into the mass media in society. The only information channel we are fed in football concerning the "beta male" is that of the news when they will predominantly publish the negatives of professional football i.e. players faults, and privelaged lives.

I dunno about that though. I think first of all people try to find something to belong to. Purely football is like, just football. I have met more fans with an individual aspect to football. On the surface they may first echo dislike but underneath it all - if you begin to talk to them more - all football fans have a diverse and unique view of the game. I think everyone does, although there are the odd few who will fight out certain factors like blame and scapegoating because - that just makes everything more understandable for them.

 

[Adam]

What i am saying Reggie is that when you write so much - you lose the concise quality that makes your points understood. It seems to me that you get carried away in your thought flow and write more than you need to. Think to yourself once you have finished a piece "how can i make this more readable?". I am sure you will get an audience for your writing (although not in a large amount), and these will probably be the people that you want to read it because they appreciate it. However, if you want to really challenge people and make a difference with what you have to say - you have to adapt and draw in the readers you wouldn't normally attract with such an alternative writing style. That is the mark of a skilled writer - being flexible and able to adapt to conditions using their knowlegde and talent. And this is not at the detriment of your written freedom, but at the focus of producing a piece that people will want to read. Writing is a sharing experience, and there are rules you follow which help to control what you want to express. These rules, along with your audience (football forum) influence what you write. I agree with alot of what you think, but sometimes it isn't exactly realism. Sensational.

On the other point - i think that what you say is right. Yes, there are intelligent fans, but i am not wrong in saying there are not so intelligent fans and i gather you agree by saying it makes football more "understandable" for them.

 

[reggiepaul]

What i am saying Reggie is that when you write so much - you lose the concise quality that makes your points understood. It seems to me that you get carried away in your thought flow and write more than you need to. Think to yourself once you have finished a piece "how can i make this more readable?". I am sure you will get an audience for your writing (although not in a large amount), and these will probably be the people that you want to read it because they appreciate it. However, if you want to really challenge people and make a difference with what you have to say - you have to adapt and draw in the readers you wouldn't normally attract with such an alternative writing style. That is the mark of a skilled writer - being flexible and able to adapt to conditions using their knowlegde and talent. And this is not at the detriment of your written freedom, but at the focus of producing a piece that people will want to read. Writing is a sharing experience, and there are rules you follow which help to control what you want to express. These rules, along with your audience (football forum) influence what you write. I agree with alot of what you think, but sometimes it isn't exactly realism. Sensational.

In all angles though adam I do have a lot of people who like what and how I write and it's because of this feedback that I prefer to continue to express certain things like this.

It's not like I can't write in different ways because when I was studying language that was one of the facets to learning being able to write for many people but in this situation this is how I want to express it. I'd rather not make it altogether informative because it will lose how I want to present it and express it. I am sure there are other ways of writing it that I know of but I'd rather not use those means of writing simply because I won't be able to say it how I want to say it and in this scenario I have no controls over how I want to express it since it is a open forum for open expression and open ideas. I'd rather take that advantage and write in the most complex structure suited to how I want to write it.

All in all though there is no one area that I would like to omit because it all adds to the points, former, latter and unique towards creating a whole idea.

Then Adam there is also the factor that people DO understand and DO grasp the points as they are brought forward. So in this sense it doesn't matter how it is expressed and at what length but ultimately then if I were to remove anything there would be emphasis, concepts and style that would be omitted to the loss of the whole piece.

If the style is lost then a lot can be lost.

On the other point - i think that what you say is right. Yes, there are intelligent fans, but i am not wrong in saying there are not so intelligent fans and i gather you agree by saying it makes football more "understandable" for them.

I wouldn't actually state intelligence though Adam. I think it all boils down to what the whole football "thing" means to someone. I wouldn't like to say intelligence has a point in it because for one I don't take tests when I talk to people and secondly it's more about feeling and how involvement shapes what a fan aims to acquire from the world of football.

So on the one hand it is belonging and to feel they belong a fan may believe they have to behave and act in a certain way, while another fan would feel they belong on the simple notion of "interest" - which lets them step away from the whole "tribal" and/or status factors of supporting or following a team and thus stems the ability to form their own unique opinions and experience through football. I guess it's how an individual enters the game and how that follows through.

 

[reggiepaul]

...and yes I write loads but that's just it really :angel

 

[Adam]

And the effort put into posts is respected.

Applying what you have said - ,would you imply that some fans act in a pretense way to be a "Gooner" and they dont have unique views? That would be a tribal thing. And would'nt Interest lead to tribal if the attachment grows stronger towards a club? I am not sure about these ideas. Interesting; perhaps have a bit of truth, but not quite feasible. The only thing that is definite is the last line mentioned in that paragraph.

 

[reggiepaul]

Yes but it is dependant again on what you are attached to. Are you attached to football or the love of belonging to something?

It's the belonging and the need to belong to something that creates and develops superficial and unrealistic factors to the game.

Superficial and unrealistic being anything that is generalised and symbolic of wanting to belong.

Where as realism is unique views and being a part of something out of interest.

There is the interest factor leading to tribal but not entirely superficial in this respect. It is superficial if your beliefs are built upon and exist on the basis of wanting to belong and belonging meaning you have to have "tribalistic" notions. Not tribalistic on the basis of cultic factors but tribalistic in a non-superficial form meaning it is further away from carrying cultic, sectarian views of tribalism so in conclusion purer football support is a group unto itself as a subculture unto itself.

So, rather than being TRIBAL football support is accurately SUB-CULTURAL. There are elements of TRIBAL symbolism like wearing the shirt, being with your own fans and love but experientially it will remain unique - on that point it stops being TRIBAL and becomes ultimately SUB-CULTURAL.

The cultic, sectarian TRIBAL ideal is a notion that spans around symbolism and aligning yourself with superficial factors in an attempt to feel you belong. Where as realistically football experience is in itself uniquely experiential and then a personal view not a generalised universal symbolistic view. That is cultic and lacking personal experience and feeling.

 

[blimpar]

Zzzzz