Matthew Norman - You Cannot Be Serious! - The 101 Most Frustrating Things in Sport

Philip, alas, is quite another matter. More gormless and less gifted by far than his elder brother, his career has contained just the one moment of immensity: the immense act of foolishness that concluded England’s involvement, under the riotously clueless stewardship of Kevin Keegan, in Euro 2000. England, astonishingly incompetent even by their own standards in the final group game against Romania, had inexplicably recovered from conceding an early goal to lead 2–1 at half time.

The plucky little Ceau escu-executors duly equalised in the second half, but with a couple of minutes remaining England had the draw they needed to make laughably ill-deserved progress to the knockout stage. And then, for no apparent reason, with Viorel Moldovan heading harmlessly towards the byline, Our Philip chose to scythe him to the turf. Short of picking the ball up and dribbling it around the box in homage to the Harlem Globetrotters’ Meadowlark Lemon, he could not have gifted Romania a more blatant penalty.

An admirably distraught Phil would eventually receive full punishment (a transfer to Everton), but from Neville Neville there has been not a word of regret for his own central role – part genetic, no doubt, but surely part nurture as well – in the creation of this national humiliation.

Shameless Shameless.

99

Adolf Hitler

On 28 May 1940, Winston Churchill held the most important Cabinet meeting in British history. With the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax championing the majority view that the military situation was so hopeless that the only option was to sue for peace, the new Prime Minister had a desperate fight on his hands to keep buggering on against the Hun. The need to win round his ministers elicited from him what is regarded as even his greatest speech – the fight must continue even if it meant every one of them bleeding to death in the dust, he said, because a nation that is conquered can rise again, but one that surrenders is finished for ever. The memory always amuses when a peevish politician does what Hillary Clinton did in the spring of 2008, and insists that fancy oratory ain’t worth diddly.

For all that, I can’t help wondering if Winston could have spared himself the rhetorical bother had he known then what we know now about Hitler and cricket. In the event, all he would have needed to do was inform the Cabinet, take a vote and go back to his bath.

In fact this outrage didn’t emerge for another seven decades, when a contemporary account by a Hitler-loving Tory MP, one Oliver Locker-Lampson, was unearthed. This related how in 1923 Hitler came across some British expats enjoying a genteel game of cricket and asked if he could watch them play. Happy to oblige, these thoroughly decent coves went that extra mile for post-Versailles Treaty hatchet-burial by writing out the rules of the game for his perusal. Hitler, having duly perused, returned a few days later with his own team and took them on. The scorecard of this Anglo–German clash has never been published, but from what followed we may presume that the result pre-empted the one to follow in 1945.

In an unwonted flash of intolerance, Hitler took umbrage at the rules, declaring the game ‘insufficiently violent for German fascists’ (Bodyline, which might have changed his thinking there, had yet to come). To this end, and with a novel way of training troops in mind, he suggested tweaking the rules by introducing a larger, harder ball, and abandoning pads. The absence of any masterplan to jettison the protective box may well be further evidence of that rumoured gonadic deficit. With only one to protect, imaginary Nazi cricket scholars posit, why bother?

If the Führer had entirely misunderstood the point of the game, failing to appreciate the languor, subtlety, nuance and infinite complexities that make Test cricket the most captivating of sports, perhaps he can be forgiven. He was never a chap easily imagined daydreaming at deep fine leg, or taking four hours to score 23 on a flat wicket.

Even so, and however unsuccessfully, he had blazed the trail of cheap-thrills pseudo-cricket that would find its apotheosis in Twenty20, and for that, among other things, he cannot lightly be forgiven.

98

Simon Barnes

‘I suppose the problem,’ observed the chief sportswriter of The Times once, when contemplating the crazy misconception that he merits the teasing of the inferior and the envious, ‘is that some people can’t come to terms with the idea that intelligent people like sport, and might want to read someone who tries to write about sport in an intelligent way.’ How true this is, how very, very true. I mean, it’s hardly as if there are incredibly bright and thoughtful writers like Hugh McIlvanney in the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday ’s Patrick Collins out there covering this turf, is it? It’s not as if Mike Atherton, Matthew Syed, Marina Hyde, Paul Hayward, Oliver Holt and others sate the appetite for smart and insightful sportswriting. ‘My attempts to do so have met,’ Mr Barnes went on, ‘with a bewildering hostility in some quarters.’

Bewildering indeed. To be a lone oasis of intellectualism in an arid wasteland of moronic cliché must be a grievous weight on the shoulders of this most engagingly unpompous of hacks. Yet, like Atlas, he bears his burden stoically and without complaint. ‘Occasionally I’ve come up with some high-faluting notion,’ said this Pseuds Corner fixture, ‘and somebody will say, “What if Private Eye got hold of it?” I say, “Well, fuck them. Let them get hold of it. I’m setting the bloody agenda here, not these guys.” ’

It’s that ‘occasionally’ I love. At his best, when writing about his Down’s Syndrome son and even every now and then about sport, Mr Barnes – an eerie doppelganger, with his lupine face and ponytail, for the Satanic character Bob in Twin Peaks – is very good indeed. At one iota less than his best, when presenting himself as what someone identified as a ‘posturing narcissist’ – well, suffice it to say that another hack once expressed bewilderment of his own on finding him using the words ‘unpretentious’ and ‘unselfconscious’ (of Amir Khan) with apparent admiration.

From the canon of Simon Barnes, you could pluck many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples to illustrate the massive range and power of his mind, or indeed his commitment to wearing his learning lightly. Sometimes, for example, he will restrict the Nietzsche references to no more than one a paragraph (I’m a Heidegger man myself, with the odd Hegelian twist). But space is short, so let us leave it to this all-time personal favourite to give the flavour. Roger Federer, Mr Barnes once declared, is ‘as myriad-minded as Shakespeare ever was’.

Sometimes, as the agenda-setter himself might be the very last to agree, there simply are no words.

97

The Argentine Polo Player

The abundant ridiculousness of the sport itself need not detain us here. That it appeals to male members of the House of Windsor within a death or two of the throne is ample comment on its mingling of needless physical danger and grotesque unaffordability. Its appeal to the female sex is predicated on something else, of course, as close students of Jilly Cooper’s oeuvre will need little reminding. Why frustrated women d’une certaine age prefer the ogling of equestrians, and inter-chukka traipsing around fields stamping down displaced pieces of turf to work off some of that ardour, to availing themselves of the splendid pornography so freely available on cable television, I cannot say. All we know is that the Argentine polo player, that prancing ponce of the aristo sporting world, makes the polo field cougar paradise.