If you're trying to work out what makes someone tick, one way is to look at the things he [she] is interested in and the choices he [she] makes, e.g. which football team. In most cases, this latter might not be indicative at all but in the case of more 'on the edge' clubs, it can be.
For example, my club was Wimbledon and that was not for any geographic reason but for their physical play, for Kinnear's defying of the odds, for Fash, Vinny and the opportunistic style of play. For the way they placed 6th in the top league without having any actual right to be there in many people's eyes. Next season they did it well again, confounding people's expectations.
In Australia, my team was/is Geelong and pundits joke that some people are born to be disappointed; for such people, G-d created the Geelong Football Club. On a roll, they were unbeatable, with sheer poetry in their style of play - everyone conceded that - but when they were bad [maybe 20% of the time] they were woeful and could be beaten by a junior grade side, for example, losing last year's flag after trouncing everyone all season.
That's very much me. When serious - not bad at all. When an arrogant smarta-s- ... woeful.
Another very strong trait running through Hob is Rugby Union - the principle that on the pitch, you aim to knock the other man's head off and give no quarter whatsoever, to stretch the rules to the limit and still keep within the spirit of the game. However, you shake hands after it and then, the moment you're off the pitch, you socialize with your enemy, have a few drinks and do the post-mortem.
The idea of holding a grudge, even if he took you out of the game, doesn't compute in the Rugby man's mind. Mind you, the bstd'll get his next time.
This came through when I used to don the colours and help out at the general elections. At one particular election, the woman on the other side and I hit it off immediately on so many issues but not over the key issues which divided us. We each put our assistants in for an hour and went off to have afternoon tea together.
Then we came back and resumed hostilities. Somehow, I quite like that idea but I don't expect everyone to agree with me on it.
I like that last line :-)
ReplyDeleteThat's called civilised.
ReplyDeletehad to go back and read that last line. (yes, a second smile...)
ReplyDeletehmm, this has the feel of a little Christmas truce footie
So, when SixNations or Heineken cup starts up again, does this mean we'll have to agree to be civilised in between matches? ;D
It's a terrible thing you know but sometimes I enjoy my enemies more than my friends. The issues are external and one can be civil whereas with friends, the issues are the result of countless little irritations over the years.
ReplyDeleteI understand, to a point, what you're saying James. With friends, there's more vulnerability, more emotional risk; and, left undealt with can add up. Even things dealt with can return and irritate worse. That's why marriage and close friendships can be so difficult, the little things do add up.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that's where love and forgiveness and the whole 'long-suffering' part comes in. All in all, the balance usually tilts in favour of the positive, but both friends have to do their share of giving in things. (hope this makes sense; harder to type rather discuss)