A kind of grace that comes from losing or coming off second best. Sometimes said to be the best team that never won the world cup (but in all fairness I think that has to go to Brazil, '82).
But there was something special about Holland in the '70's and J.C. in particular: stylish, cool, off-centre. And, of course, the idea of "total football" which allowed for a lot more fluidity, interchangeability.
But what was it about sportsmen and women like Cruyff and Borg and Nadia Comeneci (or, to a lesser extent, Viv Richards, "Hurricane" Higgins, Imran Khan, Zidane), what was that special kind of invulnerable and aloof mystique?
Not just brilliant technical skill (that is taken as given). Beyond phenomenal levels of skill, discipline and concentration there was always the question of personality and how it was somehow magically expressed in technique. And always the word 'effortless' would crop up, as if a kind of intelligence had been so ingrained in one's way of life it could manifest itself at any moment. Another way of thinking about this is the repertoire of shots/moves they could call upon at any given time. But surely originality doesn't stem from a quantitative notion of the scope and range of options?
How is greatness connected to timing, to having more space because one has a fraction of a second more time? You're there just before everyone else, in the moment but also out of it, the mind still holding close to it a picture of a quiet Romanian meadow, the streets of Marseilles after sundown..Does having more time mean you see what other people can't see? (The Greek gods?)
Related to that sense of having more time is surely the idea of balance. There is a wild kind of talent (Higgins, George Best) but the three named always seemed calm and collected, unruffled. Borg, for instance..it was like he didn't need to speak a word.
No comments:
Post a Comment