Lionel Messi leading his team to a famous World Cup triumph surely signals the end of the GOAT debate once for all. It would be safe to say that those who are still unconvinced will never be convinced. In fact, the Leo v Christiano debate was settled quite a while back. Although Leo’s stats per game played have for a long time been better than Christiano’s on just about every important count, the GOAT debate in any sport is rarely about stats alone. No doubt, as a striker par excellence Christiano has had a stellar career, but Leo is much more than just a striker. He is as mesmerizing when he effects an impossible assist as when he scores an unlikely goal. True, the likes of Piers Morgan continue to gamely argue for Christiano with a straight face, but this species is on the very brink of extinction.
Leo’s competition with compatriot Maradona was always tighter. For like Leo, he was much more than merely a striker. And like Leo, he was scheming and starting a move when he was not busy converting a half-chance into a goal. Leo’s failure to win major trophies for Argentina was held against him for a long time, but like a true champion he has responded by first winning the Copa America and finally the World Cup, winning the best player accolade on both occasions.
While Christiano silently drops out of the GOAT debate, certain sections of the media have chosen to shift the goalpost for Messi. With the lack of international trophies on the part of Messi not a valid argument any more, they are now arguing that the fields were rougher, the tackles nastier, and there were far fewer yellow and red cards in the times of Maradona and Pele before him; and that therefore, their achievements are that much more praiseworthy. Pele and Maradona both were amazing players without a doubt but what is conveniently forgotten in this line of reasoning is that Leo has always had to contend with defenders with fitness-levels unthinkable in the old times. Throw in the technology – video footage and expert analysis – available to the modern defenders, and Messi’s longevity and brilliance become all the more extraordinary.
Qatar 2022 was a memorable event with more quality and drama than one is reasonably entitled to expect from a single event. Quality and drama on the pitch, that is. Off the pitch (including the stands and outside stadiums) it was a remarkably trouble-free affair. The UK football policing unit has reported that not a single England fan was the subject of an arrest or police incident through the duration of the tournament. It is attributed by senior officers to the lack of access to alcohol within the stadium perimeters. That is solid evidence if one needed any. But for some, it is apparently too much to accept it as conclusive evidence.
This came to the fore when talkSPOSRT’s Jim White asked Simon Jordan his views on the correlation between the gentlemanly behaviour of British fans and the unavailability of alcohol in the stadiums, something in drastic contrast to their generally outrageous conduct in European and world competitions of the past, exemplified so vividly at Wembley in Euro 2020. When it comes to world cups, according to police reports, one has to go back to Spain 1982, and before that to Mexico 1970, for four straight games involving the England side without significant fan trouble. Jordan’s reply to White was a study in ambivalent evasiveness. In his response, Jordan threw in just about everything – everything except the big elephant in the room, that is. That England fans, like fans of all other nations, comprise a very small percentage of criminal elements. That Qatar’s strict policing and generally higher law and order standards could have a lot to do with it. That it could be because of the fewer number of tickets available. And that it was common knowledge that many people drink alcohol and do not cause trouble. He just could not bring himself to as much as consider the possibility that alcohol could be one of the factors, if not the single most significant reason, behind incidents of hooliganism in sport.
Because a majority of Westerners, including the most responsible of social drinkers, would be hard pressed to find its replacement. To most Westerners therefore, a society without alcohol is probably next to inconceivable, and certainly unworthy of belonging to.
The last excuse of an argument, namely ‘many people drink alcohol and refrain from criminal behaviour’ especially reminds one of the famous pro-gun slogan ‘Guns don’t kill, men do’. Both statements are true of course, but both fall spectacularly short when pressed into service as conclusive arguments by alcohol- and gun- enthusiasts respectively. With the notable exception of influential sections in the USA, it is obvious to the whole world that guns play a decisive role in violent crime. It should be similarly clear to any unbiased observer that passion and ‘spirits’ make for an explosive mix in and out of football stadiums.
Freedom is the cornerstone on which the Western civilization is supposed to have been built. Any curtailment of freedom is only justifiable on grounds of potential harm to others. As a maxim, this is as unassailable as they come. But its practical application is arbitrary at best. Alcohol, in this civilization, is kosher ‘provided one does not drive while inebriated or become a public nuisance otherwise’, while drugs less damaging to the health and less likely to cloud judgement are banned outright without any such provisos (freedom can go take a ride in this instance). When it comes to alcohol, this spirited reluctance to face the facts is not without reason. Because a majority of Westerners, including the most responsible of social drinkers, would be hard pressed to find its replacement. To most Westerners therefore, a society without alcohol is probably next to inconceivable, and certainly unworthy of belonging to.
