Sometimes I see football everywhere. I see it, I smell it, I think about it on almost any topic, even if it has no apparent connection. They are tactical or group management things. In recent days it has happened to me again with the reactions to the elections in the United States. I am not a political specialist nor do I intend to open any deep debate, but I want to do the exercise of crossing the commonality of both worlds.
I have heard that Kamala Harris has talked more about Trump than herself and that having focused so much on him, and so little on her own arguments, has prevented her from becoming stronger as a new candidate. I couldn’t help but connect that with the preparation of a football match: you know your characteristics, you analyze the opponent and propose an operational strategy. When it is time to transfer it to the squad you have to be right between how much you talk about yourself and how much space you give to the opponent. And it’s not easy to find the key. It is not only a matter of getting the right dose of virtues or defects so as not to overestimate or belittle the other, but, to the extent that you talk more about them than about yourself, it seems that you maximize them and distort yourself. How much are you going to want to condition them and how much are you going to let them condition you? Football is an opposition game and it is difficult not to take into account what the opponent wants to do—and does—but finding the right dose brings you closer or further away from victory. It seems that the same thing happens in politics.
Another key pointed to the fact that confrontation and that constant rhetoric of confusion and fear ends up eroding so much that it exhausts energy. The discursive tension and emotional exhaustion of this perpetual battle is such that on the day of the fight, you are exhausted. Transferred to football, it takes me to the typical tight and hostile match, which usually ends up benefiting more those who handle themselves well in the murky, than those who want a clean and fair duel. Waste of time, constant protests, fake absences. At the limit of the regulations. And noise. Do you despair? Or do you inhale-exhale? The success of a coach surely lies in his ability to remain lucid, especially on days when what happens on the field bears little resemblance to what his ideal game would be.
The Trump voter has camouflaged himself among profiles that go far beyond the stigmatized ranch-class Texan. His message has reached more social groups. Understanding the motivations and ideals of who you are facing is key to emerging victorious from a duel. In football, you have to try to detect the main patterns of an opponent, without ignoring those other things that, in front of you, they could do. Then the secret is to condense the information so as not to overwhelm the player, nor to fail to give her the tools she may need.
Another reflection: is it easier to build or destroy? Football cannot agree, blinded by almost philosophical debates about more offensive or more defensive styles. There are proactive teams and reactive teams. In politics—and in football—whoever sets the agenda usually has the advantage. In football—and in politics—it is about moving your rival to attack him where it suits you.
Kamala has lacked time to distance herself from Biden and run a more personal campaign, they say. More yours. We coaches are always asking for more margin to establish our model in a team. 100 days is not always enough to change inertia and leave your mark without inherited vices. So what, do we accept the similarities?
