Tag Archives | World Cup

Soccer Simile

Robinho scores "as unfussily as a man peeling a ripe banana."

In most of my classes on literature, I teach my students to recognize, analyze, and even make use of figures of speech, literary devices that involve unusual uses of language in order to create deeper meanings. Figures of speech are typically divided into two categories: tropes (sometimes called “figures of thought”) and rhetorical figures. Roughly speaking, a trope is a figure of speech that alters the meanings of the words it employs, while a rhetorical figure makes use of standard meanings but uses words in a way that creates unexpected effects.

Tropes often involve a comparison between two unlike things. The two tropes that most students learn first are simile and metaphor. To refresh your memory: a simile is a comparison two unlike things (referred to as a “tenor” and a “vehicle”) using the words “like” or “as.” In a metaphor, the association between tenor and vehicle is made without the words “like” or “as.” A metaphor, therefore is a trope of substitution in which the tenor is represented or figured by the vehicle. So, for example, in the sentence “Kaká is a gazelle,” “Kaká” is the tenor, and “gazelle” is the “vehicle.”

We can change the sentence to make use of a simile: “Kaká runs like a gazelle.” The tenor and vehicle are the same, but there is something different about the association between them. In the metaphor, the two things are superimposed on one another; in the simile, the two things are kept apart conceptually.

Sometimes a metaphor is only “implied”: “Robinho sliced through the Dutch defense.” In this case we have only the vehicle, the slicing; the tenor (the act of running) is implied.

I’m starting a new series of posts that point out figures of speech in everyday uses. Today’s figure of speech is a simile that would have made the mystery novelist Raymond Chandler, who was famous for his very elaborate similes, proud. It comes from the Guardian‘s account of the Dutch soccer team’s victory over Brazil in this morning’s World-Cup quarter-final:

The change may have had some influence on the opening goal, which came in the 10th minute when Melo, from inside his own half, measured a straight ball that invited Robinho to run behind the two centre-backs and stroke the ball past Maarten Stekelenburg from 15 yards as unfussily as a man peeling a ripe banana. (Emphasis added.)

I’m not sure I understand what it means exactly, but it sure is picturesque.

If you find a trope you like, send it to me and I’ll post it.

[Photo credit: Jamie McDonald/Getty Images via the New York Times]

Posted in Figures of Speech, Sports | Comments { 0 }

Hamartia at the World Cup

For the second World Cup in a row, Ghana eliminates the USA 2-1. At least this time there was nothing to dispute about Ghana’s second goal.

Hamartia is one of the most famous concepts from Aristotle’s Poetics, and it’s translated as “the tragic flaw” that both accounts for a hero’s greatness and also brings about his downfall. But some scholars suggest that it simply means “error,” a mistake that the hero makes from which he cannot recover.

The USA displayed hamartia in both senses of the term.

The abiding flaw: a tendency toward early defensive lapses that saw them constantly conceding early goals and needing to come from behind. A second flaw: the lack of a lethal striker up front to help them make up for the early defensive lapses.

Today’s errors: Bradley’s tinkering with his line-up; a giveaway near the start at midfield, with the central defense to slow to recognize the threat and goalie Tim Howard cheating toward the center and beaten on the near post; and the defense getting split and out-muscled on the winning goal.

The USA were valiant, battling until the very end. And I hope that interest in soccer that the team’s run in the competition has generated here in the US will continue and grow.

You didn’t have to consult the Delphic oracle before the Cup began to foresee that the USA would be eliminated before the end. So I transfer my allegiance now to my backup team: the Netherlands. Go Robin van Persie!

[Photo: Asamoah Gyan scoring the winning goal. GETTY IMAGES via the Telegraph.]

Posted in Sports | Comments { 0 }

World Cup Bits and Pieces

I’ve been enjoying listening to the partisan commentary on ESPN’s coverage of the World Cup. Former footballers Shaun Bartlett (South Africa), Ruud Gullit (Netherlands), Jürgen Klinsmann, (Germany),  Alexei Lalas (USA), and Steve McManaman (England) offer useful insights into each of the games they’re covering, but when those games involve the countries from which they hail, they aren’t shy about using the words “we” and “us.” McManaman comes across as the most partisan and least journalistic of ESPN’s pundits, wearing his heart on his sleeve and clearly mortified by England’s performances in the first two games.

So I’m sure he loved ESPN’s intro to the USA-Algeria game, featuring President Bartlett — I mean, Martin Sheen — make a series of invidious comparisons between the situations of the USA and England going into their respective final matches of group play — all in good fun, of course.

“Now ask yourself,” Sheen intones, “whose boots would you rather be in”? Well, looking at the brackets, who in his or her right mind would choose England. The USA plays Ghana, looking for a little payback for the defeat they suffered in the final match of group play in 2006: Ghana won 2-1 on a disputed penalty, going to the round of 16 and sending the USA home. Current FIFA rankings: USA 14th, Ghana 32nd. If the USA defeats Ghana, they get the winner of Uruguay (16th) vs. South Korea (47).

England has it a wee bit tougher. They play Germany: it’s age and experience (England) vs. youthful exuberance (Germany). I told my wife that England has some scores to settle with Germany. England beat German in 1966 in the World Cup final in overtime, benefiting from the so-called “Ghost Goal” scored by Geoff Hurst, who would then net another before the end of the game to complete the only hat-trick in World Cup final history. It was England’s only World Cup win. Since then, the teams’ fortunes have gone in different directions. Germany has been a dominant force in international soccer, and England, well, has not. Injured Germany captain and former Chelsea player Michael Ballack writes in the Times, “It should be a fantastic game and great occasion, but the rivalry everyone talks about is more on your side than ours. For us the rivalry is only so-so.”

Not well-versed in World Cup history but well aware of the history of the twentieth century in Europe, my wife said: “The English are still bitter about the Blitz.” Sure enough, the World War II analogies are popping up in the media. The Sports Blog in the Guardian reported this quip from an English fan in an airport upon hearing the news of England’s second-place group finish: “”This World Cup is exactly like the second world war,” he guffawed. “The French surrender early, the US turn up late, and we’re left to deal with the bloody Germans.” And Simon Barnes, the chief sportswriter for the Times, began a recent opinion piece by writing, “I have to mention the war. There is no dodging it. This country was at war with Germany twice in the last century, and while it is terribly important to move on and to deal with the 21st century as it unfolds before us, there is no possibility of — or, for that matter, any use in — forgetting that it happened.” The point of his piece, however, is about the difference between war and sport:

Sport doesn’t create peace, but sport is an irrefragable symptom of peace. The history of sport gets mixed up with the history of history, and it can make for great sport. But even with a history of warfare, the very act of playing sport together is an expression of the exact opposite. Sport is peace. Minus the peacefulness, of course.

England, of course, is ranked 8th — two spots behind Germany at 6th. If they survive Sunday’s blitz, the English get the winner of Lionel Messi’s Argentina (ranked 7th but looking very dominant at the moment) vs. Mexico (17th). Chances are good they’re going to be seeing Messi if they make it to the quarterfinals. Personally, and I’m not just being partisan, I think the USA has a better chance of playing in the semifinals than England does.

Not that the rankings I’ve cited mean anything much at this World Cup. Italy was ranked 5th in the world; France was ranked 7th. These two teams — respectively the reigning World Cup champions and runners-up — not only failed to emerge from group play but finished at the bottom of their groups! Italy was ousted by 34-ranked Slovakia, and France lost its final game to host South Africa, which was ranked 83rd.

Frankly, the USA should forget all about the rankings, which make them the favored team in their bracket. Because they seem to play best when they’re under pressure, when they’re behind, when they’re the underdogs.

Hey, guys, how about a couple of early goals on Saturday? I think I speak for the nation when I say that we really aren’t up to another cliffhanger like Wednesday’s game!

Posted in Sports | Comments { 0 }

Riveting

My friend Dick complains that he finds it to sustain interest in soccer games because there is so little scoring, but i think that sometimes it’s precisely the lack of scoring that makes soccer “the beautiful game.” Goals like the one that Landon Donovan scored today in the waning minutes of the USA’s game against Algeria get burned into your memory precisely because they so hard to come by.

I love it when the best players prove themselves to be the best by coming through in the clutch. I’ve called it “The Athletic Sublime.” And Donovan’s goal was sublime.

I count today’s match among the most riveting sporting events I have ever seen, perhaps just behind Game 6 of the 1986 World Series between the Mets and the Red Sox and Game 6 of the 1994 Stanley Cup semi-final between the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils. If you know me, you know that I do not make that statement lightly.

My wife called after the game. Despite the fact that none of her “boys” were at home, she found herself watching the game — and riveted to it.

The announcers for ESPN called it a Hollywood ending. But, as I’ve written here before, part of the glory of sport is the fact that such endings aren’t scripted. At the beginning of the 92nd minute, no one knew whether the United States would be flying home tonight or winning its group and moving on to the knock-out stages.

Narrative in process. Collaborative narrative. Riveting.

[Photo credit: Brian Snyder/REUTERS via the Guardian's match report.]

Posted in Sports | Comments { 1 }

Not so EASY

Do you suppose the English tabloid The Sun now regrets this piece, which was entitled “Best English Group since the Beatles” — referring to the World Cup soccer team? After looking at the Three Lions’ opponents in the group stage — Algeria, Slovenia, and the United States — the paper decided that the team was a shoo-in to make it to the knockout stage. The article, published on December 5, 2009, began:

ENGLAND looked dead certs last night to roar into the World Cup knockout stages after landing their easiest ever group.
Their unfancied opponents helped to spell out England’s “EASY” task – Algeria, Slovenia and the Yanks.

David Beckham, at that point still lobbying for a spot on the team before the Achilles tendon injury that dashed his hopes, did offer a cautionary note: “We’ll still have to beat the world’s best to bring the Cup home.”

Uh-huh. At this point, they have to beat Slovenia (ranked 25th in the world by FIFA), having failed to beat the Yanks (ranked 14th) and Algeria (ranked 30th), to even have a shot at the world’s best.

After the game, ESPN’s resident England partisan, former England midfield Steve McManaman, bemoaned his team’s poor play: “Individually when they put on the colors of Manchester United or Chelsea — superstars. Collectively when they put the white of England on — phfft — disappointing.”

Commentator Alexei Lalas, a former defender for USA responded: “How about this: they’re just not that good.” McManaman: “Together, maybe so …” Lalas: “They’re just not that good. They have great names. They make a lot of money. But they’re just not that good.” You can catch the exchange at the end of espn3.com’s replay of the game.

Lalas is being a little harsh (or maybe just a little arch), but I think England’s disappointing showing is predictable after Fabio Cappello picked a team full of “experienced” (older) players who’d just been through the trials of the extremely demanding Premier League season. In fact, according to the Guardian, it’s “the oldest squad that England has ever sent to the World Cup, with a record number of caps to boot.”

Supposed superstar Wayne Rooney, who doesn’t have age as an excuse, still looks banged up and not fully recovered from the injuries that marred his otherwise stellar season for Manchester United. No jump in his game. As opposed, say, to Lionel Messi, who’s been working his magic as Argentina has cruised to two victories.

Things may change for Rooney and for England — as long as they defeat Slovenia next week. We shall see.

One thing’s sure: if England does get through to the knockout stage, it won’t have been EASY.

Posted in Sports | Comments { 0 }