Perfection – or glorious uncertainty?
Yesterday sports editor Tom Hollingworth posted an early-morning instant personal reaction to the impact of that super-typhoon Hagibis had wreaked upon the hitherto admirable smooth running of the 2019 Rugby World Cup even before it had hit land.
Having, like all good and true followers begun my computer day by reading the Rust from cover to proverbial cover, I then followed the story in the media as it developed during the day.
In the scheme of things it seemed to me that – against the background such breaking news of Turkey’s invasion of the Kurdish-held area of Syria – the travails of the rugby fraternity now gathered together in Japan had been placed in a proper perspective, heart-breaking as they were both for those countries and players whose continued participation in its greatest tournament and showcase had either been summarily terminated or threatened and for those who had in some cases just travelled halfway around the world at considerable expense to watch matches that now would never take place.
At this point it is probably appropriate to reference in passing the old adage – uttered in many contexts, for example (in a military one) – that “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”.
In other words, you can do all the planning you want but, once the project or contest begins, the rest is chaos.
As regards the Rugby World Cup, I’ve no doubt that – at whatever degree of competence they were operating – World Rugby (the organisers of the tournament) had done their contingency planning.
I offer that because clearly, somewhere in the contractual agreement and rules signed up to by everyone involved, were set out the consequences that (we ordinary folk learned of for the first time yesterday) would apply in the wake of a force majeure event such as potentially life-threatening extreme weather.
None of the above, of course, absolves those involved in the decision to award ‘host nation’ status to Japan bang-slap in the middle of the typhoon season of responsibility for it.
However, in a wider context including that of the Rust’s occasional parlour games e.g. as to whether physically attending a sports event is a superior experience to watching it on television, it occurred to me that it might be worth initiating a discussion under the general heading “Weather and Sport”.
Here’s my suggested starting point. The human race has reached a stage of technological development in which the effects of adverse weather conditions can to some extent be offset, deflected or – dare I say it – controlled.
In terms of drought, as I understand it, the science exists whereby planes can fly through clouds and release or drop certain substances which induce rainfall.
The human race can build dams and coastal defences that – with one degree of success or another – can hold back rivers or sea tides.
It can also build vast air-conditioned sports stadia featuring either permanent or retractable roofs.
If my memory is correct, towards the end of his eccentric but dictatorial rein at the helm of Formula One, the buccaneering Bernie Ecclestone posited the idea of ‘livening up’ what had by then become in many people’s eyes a too-predictable, uncompetitive and therefore boring era of racing via the introduction in every Grand Prix of a sudden monsoon-like downpour that would induce frantic pit stops, tyre-changing and – yes – even skidding or accidents.
Let me now put forward the moot topic proposed for consideration.
Is it better – assuming for the moment that this is possible in practice – that all tournaments, games and contests should be played in stadia or on grounds from which all elements of the weather have been removed or excluded … or not?
Arguments for the proposition would include the fact that surely – in this day and age – with hundreds of thousands of fans investing their hard-earned money in attending big sporting events … and TV schedules, sponsors, advertisers and commercial interests similarly committed … it would only be beneficial to remove potentially-adverse extreme weather conditions from the equation?
Surely the fundamental attraction of all sporting events, tournaments and races is the prospect of seeing which participant prevails and thereby proves that he, she or they are “the best” – whether that be in any particular case be e.g. the Olympic or World champion, the FA Cup Final winners or indeed the winner of The Open?
In furtherance of that idealistic goal, would it not be advantageous to ensure in advance that the contest takes place in perfect ‘playing’ conditions for whichever sport, game or pastime we are talking about?
The fundamental arguments against the proposition would, I suggest, primarily come under the heading of “On The Day in Question”.
Down through history – and here Rusters might like to flick through their lists of either great sporting occasions … and/or perhaps lesser ones from their own lives in which they were personally involved as participants – for examples where the weather, either prior to the event (e.g. icy/wet conditions or a prolonged drought) or even randomly occurring during it (e.g. a snow storm, squall or monsoon, or high winds) has materially affected the outcome.
Perhaps in some of them, because the underdog adjusted better to said weather conditions on the day, thereby causing a shock result, or very nearly so.
On a personal level, I can recall with relish and pleasure cricket Test matches in which a sudden turn in the weather – before or during – has caused anything and everything from consternation to opportunity as the teams involve attempt to cope with e.g. the sudden onset of advantageous swing bowling conditions … or even the random irritation of a day and a half of play lost to rain.
From this angle, would not sport in any form be the poorer for the advent of always (artificially-rendered) perfect playing conditions?
I was just wondering …
