Football crowds around the globe make a fervent clamour in the stands with the aim of inspiring their team. This takes the form of chanting, singing or the playing of instruments such as drums or horns. This behaviour is an evolved communication strategy which links closely to vocal tactics displayed by other animals.
Vocal sounds, such as the bear’s growl, or dog’s bark, are often used for aggressive reasons, for example, when repelling an intruder. These noises indicate the fitness of the animal making the noise: an explosive sharp noise demonstrates anaerobic muscular power, whilst sustaining the vocal performance shows stamina and cardiovascular capacity. A rival that notices these qualities is likely to reconsider making any challenge. Natural selection thus favours the use of such vocal gestures as they manage to sustain advantages, such as access to territory, whilst averting potentially damaging physical conflict. A vocal display is a particularly effective tool, as the display is almost impossible to ignore. Hearing is a distinctive sense, as sound is a special modality that cannot be easily mediated by the recipient. Whilst we can close our eyes and hold our nose to block out visual or olfactory intrusions respectively, it is very difficult to mute an unwanted auditory input.
‘To hear’ also has an interesting etymology. Psychologist Julian Jaynes highlighted in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that ‘hear’ and ‘obey’ have the same root; it is probable that they were originally the same word. In English ‘obey’ comes from the latin obedire, which is a composite of ob + audire (to hear facing someone). Whilst instructions may be flouted, the acts of listening and obeying are related and this is reflected by the interlinked etymology of the words. When a verbal request is issued there is a presupposition that the hearer will comply. Noises, such as those used by animals in the general examples above, are utilized with the intention that the recipient of the sounds will comply with the sender’s communication.
On reflection, we now have insight into the reasons for sounds emanating from the stadium stands. The crowd supporting the home team will endeavour to make a sustained noise to underscore the territorial advantage of their side. The vociferous vocalised support emanating from the stands should inspire the team they are supporting, whilst intimidating the opponents. The home team should obey by playing well; the away team should obey by tamely capitulating! In South Africa the favoured means of aggregated communication from the stands is the vuvuzela which is a type of horn. The unrelenting wail of the vuvuzela was apparent at the South Africa hosted Confederations Cup, and it is highly likely that these will be clearly audible again at World Cup 2010. The local crowd will hope that some of the inescapable effervescence from the stands, captured via the din of the vuvuzela, will motivate South Africa to the latter stages of the tournament.
Whilst noises from spectators in the stand are now clearly explicable, the phenomenon of people watching the game from their living rooms and screaming at the TV requires additional scrutiny.
Like domestic club sides, international teams have nicknames. It is often the case at club level that these sobriquets are slightly unimaginative, and merely describe the colour of the side’s shirt. But in different languages these names become more exotic and phonetically pleasing. For example, Argentina are the Albicelestes (white and sky blue) whilst Italy, famously are the Azurri. Spain have developed colour-based nickname theme and, like the Red Devils of Man Utd, their nickname has some additional bite, as they are the La Furia Roja (the red fury).
In a short apercu ‘On Exactitude in Science’ Jorge Luis Borges imagined the possibility (and worthlessness) of a map to the scale of 1:1. Every single point of the territory would correspond to a point on the map. But a map should be detailed enough to enable us to apprehend the area to which it pertains, but not so detailed that it becomes excessively complex and unwieldy. This highlights that a model should be an abstraction derived from a phenomenon; the model is not the same thing as the phenomenon.
Football punditry provides a clear example of theories and models exceeding the breadth and complexity of a 1:1 map. Major incidents are considered from psychological and sociological angles but even when we’ve layered mounds of theories and speculation upon the incident, difficult questions still remain. For example, Thierry Henry generated international attention when his handball led to the goal which put France into the 2010 Finals, at the expense of the Republic of Ireland. This incident even prompted consideration of the ethical underpinnings of sport and whether it is up to a player to admit they have cheated, or whether it is merely the prerogative of the officials to establish wrongdoing. Did Henry act instinctively or with intent, and does it make a difference either way? Was Henry’s main obligation to support his team and nation to qualify for the World Cup, or to higher principles of fair play and honesty?
The 2006 World Cup was the third and final time that Sven Goran Eriksson took England to a major tournament. For the third time they were knocked out at the quarter-final stage, and for the second time this was decided by a penalty shoot-out. This was arguably the most disappointing of the three efforts as England never really got going during this tournament.
This second round fixture represented England’s overall form in Germany. They performed competently enough but had little cutting edge. England failed to test the keeper from open play and it required a Beckham free-kick on the hour to separate the teams. The 4-5-1 formation performed with an absence of adroitness; Rooney was painfully isolated up front and scant penetration was provided from midfield. Gerrard and Lampard underachieved and were well marshalled by Ecuador’s central midfielders, Castillo and Edwin Tenorio. Joe Cole had performed well over the group stage but made negligible impact on this game, while Beckham was pedestrian on the right. England were successful in denying Ecuador the capacity to build any attacks of their own, although there was a scare early in the game when a miscued John Terry header played Carlos Tenorio through on goal – a flying challenge by Ashley Cole deflected the shot onto the bar. The inflexible 4-1-4-1 provided enough security in this instance to enable progression to the next round. But fundamentally, England had toiled to an unconvincing win over arguably the weakest side to make it through to the last 16.
Fabio Capello tinkered to good effect 