Nick Bendel
Is this a face that only a mother could love?
October 3rd 2008 09:07
In May 2007, Hewat was famously omitted from a 59 man training squad that then-Wallabies coach John Connolly assembled prior to the World Cup. Now, Carle has been omitted from a 35 man squad that Socceroos coach Pim Verbeek has assembled prior to the qualifier against Qatar.
Every now and then, a player will arrive on the scene to polarise opinion. Some will proclaim him or her an exceptional talent; others will consider the person in question to be overrated. Facts and figures will be bandied about in support of both sides of the argument; tempers will rise as supporters and detractors alike shake their heads at the apparent absurdity of the other’s position. Who knows why, but two people will look at the same picture and see something completely different. Although the endless debate can be maddening, it is ultimately to be celebrated; after all, it is the subjective beauty of sport, allied with its capacity to arouse passions and stir debate, that makes it so grand. Sport is capable of stimulating every possible emotion- be it rapture, wonder, astonishment or despair- to the extent that so many of us feel compelled to follow and discuss it. Even as it draws people apart it brings them together.
Peter Hewat was only on the rugby union scene from 2005-7, yet in that short time he was responsible for a good many arguments. Supporters of the NSW fullback seemed to like him for objective reasons; anybody who scores so many tries and kicks so many penalties, they insisted, must be good. Opponents, however, took a subjective line; his defence is shaky and he goes missing in big games.
As Hewat was arriving on the Super 14 scene, Wendell Sailor was preparing to leave it. He, too, polarised opinion- and, perhaps not coincidentally, in much the same way. Supporters hailed his try-scoring record and pointed to the number of metres he would gain per match. Opponents countered that his erratic defence and lack of rugby nous made him a liability. The key difference is that Sailor found favour with the national selectors. What they had in common is that both were highly unconventional.
Beauty, we all know, is in the eye of the beholder. But there are some things that are manifestly beautiful, or appealing. Audrey Hepburn was manifestly beautiful in a way that Sarah Jessica Parker is not; staying in a five star hotel is manifestly appealing in a way that camping in the bush is not. Some things the human brain will readily accept as pleasing; others demand a great deal of effort. To appreciate an unconventional athlete like a Hewat or a Sailor demands effort. Of course, whether such effort is deserved is another matter.
As far as John Connolly was concerned, Peter Hewat was not so much oddly beautiful as ugly, to the extent that he was not even considered amongst the 59 fairest players in the land. Having looked for beauty and found none, Knuckles did not care how many people may have swooned at the sight of Hewat, nor how ardently those admirers might have pressed for him to see things from a different angle; the boy was ugly and that was that.
The sight of Nicky Carle with the ball at his feet makes many fans swoon, but it appears that Pim Verbeek is not one of them. Some will consider this unsurprising, for if ever there was a player guaranteed to polarise observers of Australian football, it was surely Carle. After all, Nicky doesn’t do conventional. He doesn’t throw himself around like a Matt Simon, he doesn’t run all day like a Brett Emerton, he doesn’t hound opponents like a Vinny Grella- in fact, he doesn’t do anything the way we are accustomed to see it done. For Australians to admire a footballer, he usually has to be beautiful in an obvious way- a Hepburn, or, more to the point, a Pamela Anderson. And God knows that Nicky Carle is no Pamela Anderson.
That Graham Arnold, when he was Socceroos boss, did not hold a high opinion of Carle was only to be expected. He wanted his team to produce a physical style of football, in which the opposition would be outmuscled rather than outthought. The subtle gifts of Carle were wasted on a coach who valued athleticism over the ability to caress the ball, or play the incisive pass.
What is unexpected, though, is that Verbeek should also look down on Carle. Aren’t the Dutch meant to value technique over physique? To be sure, Verbeek has shown himself to be a pragmatist, but surely there is room for artists and artisans in the same team? It’s all very well including the likes of Grella and Carl Valeri to win the ball, but shouldn’t it then be given to somebody who knows how to use it?
Even Carle’s staunchest supporters acknowledge that there are several people ahead of him in the queue- Harry Kewell, Tim Cahill and Marco Bresciano, no less- while he also faces stiff competition from Jason Culina, Brett Holman, Mile Sterjovski and Scott McDonald. But how could Verbeek consider Shannon Cole, who was included in his squad, to be amongst the 35 best players in the country and not Carle? Cole has played a total of six top-flight games in his career, yet he is already adjudged a better prospect than the 2006-07 A-League player of the year. How is this possible?
The only explanation is the one that has already been given: beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Different characteristics may catch different people’s eyes, but when somebody looks you over and decides that you’re ugly, no amount of preening is going to change their opinion. To adopt a metaphor that has lately been in vogue, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Pim Verbeek has looked Nicky Carle over and decided that he doesn’t like what he sees. Peter Hewat would no doubt advise Carle not to expect him expect him to change his mind anytime soon.
| 38 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add Comments
