United Fans, Boo Out Your Pressure!

C. Ronald may have missed the opportunity to sew up the tie, but Fergie's tactical shift worked really brilliantly.

To be honest, it is quite surprising to see Man United's setup in this match. It is strange, to say the very least, with Rooney playing in the right and Teves almost in the midfield area. However, Fergie's strategy of containment, so to speak, frustrated a Barcelona with all the possession for the whole match. Given the unconvincing records of United's away ties, we can take heart from a goaless draw with an equally impressive team.

Nevertheless, what strikes me most is the "twelfth man" of the match--the home fans. Camp Nou is well-known for its intimadating atmosphere. But United seems to have the previlege to get a more "special treatment". Just listen to it, the chorus of boos, hisses, jeers and whistles appears to be never ending when United got the ball. I thought I had been well-prepared to brace such a situation, but I was wrong. The noise was much higher and consistent than what I had expected--even than what they did to their archrivals Real Madrid. At one moment, the voices of the commentators were even drowned. At the other moment, the English announcement from the stadium was received with such an ocean of derision that I began to wonder how Barcelona would be treated in the Theatre of Dream in the return leg.

English football is often known for its infamous hooligans. But having watched the Premier League for more than a decade, I often ask myself why the English fans got the bad name they don't deserve? They are the most civil fans that I have ever seen. In fact, sometimes too civil to the point of being timid--they are good at cheering up their home team, but often fail to exert enought pressure on their opponents with their noise.

Old Trafford is arguably a case in point. The crowds there are too polite. In the wake of what we have witnessed in Camp Nou, what do you think you should do when you watch the second leg in the Dream Theatre?

In Ewood Park, I Semlt Arsenal

If I had any optimism for United to win the title after last match, it all but evaporated after this one.

Yes, we still have 3 points in hand--but that can change as we have to go to Stamford Bridge; yes, we have a massive goal difference advantage--but do you really want to count on that to win the trophy? No, at least for me.

In the last five minutes, Teves scored a precious goal, which may save United another league championship. However, some familiar scences kept rolling in front of my eyes, making me rather confused. I found a question was constantly banging my head: which team am I watching, United or Arsenal? That's not the United that I konw: collision in the backline, loose pass in the midfield, cursing bad refereeing, desperate to get an equaliser and especially, indecisiveness. Where is that United, who, although not getting the lion's share possession, play efficient, flowing, and decisive games?

I don't want to blame the players, because they all tried their utmost--look at Rooney, although his perfomance is below par. But I can't refrain from having a word or two on Fergie. Where is Pique? Where is Anderson? Where is Hargreaves? With Vidic just recovering from an injury, can't you just trust Pique once and give him a chance? The other two, you have to reserve them for the visit to Camp Nou? No, please, do you yourself believe it? Why not look at what happened when Anderson was on in the last weekend? And Rooney. He has already got a nasty knock, why not replace him earlier?

Yes, no one doubts the exceptional blocks from Friedl. He is phenomenal! If only for once, he could slip! Yes, the referee missed at least one undisputed penalty. So what? Are you going to emulate the whining Wenger, complaining everything but himself? Come on! Grow Up! The important thing is We Lost Two Points!

Perhaps the title really has to be fought out on Chelsea's turf. Until next week, reflect on what should have been...

Hotel Rwanda: Conscience Put on Trial

It seems like ages ago when I first heard of the film, while, in fact, it was released as late as in 2005. Perhaps it is what the title conveys that made think so: Rwanda—Africa, which to me, I am ashamed to confess, is almost the equivalent of backwardness; Rwanda—Genocide, which took place roughly a quarter century ago. However, the real reason, I figure, lies in the general aloofness to the outside which characterizes today’s world.

Totally by chance, I ran into Hotel Rwanda online, and downloaded it, and watched it. And…I was shocked. Before, I only had the faintest idea that this film has something to do the 1994 genocide, but never knew exactly. Now it is completely verified.

By all standards, the plotline seems simple: The manager of a four-star hotel in Kigali (capital of Rwanda) by the name of Paul Rusesabagina sheltered over 1000 Hutu and Tutsi refugees during the 1994 massacre. It is the kind of film that you can predict the ending almost right from the beginning. But it is far from that simple. Unlike those films with a predictable outcome, you are into this one from the very start. You feel the same horrors, pains and joys—if you can call their final escape as joy—together with the characters as the drama unfolds itself.

Twice during the film, I erupted into tears. When the refugees welcomed the French troops like saviors, but only to find out they were only escorting the White people out of Rwanda, I was devastated. “Abandon” is the only word I could possibly think of. Like trapped ants, these poor people are left there, waiting to be trampled. The cruelest thing in the world is not hopelessness. It is when your last straw of hope is thrashed. Fortunately, they did not lose faith in themselves. When they finally made it to safety, I could not hold myself anymore.

More than evoking cheap tears, Hotel Rwanda is also a sitting tribunal without a judge, grilling every single audience about their conscience. Why did we, as human beings, fail to prevent such atrocities from happening in the first place? Why did we fail again, when we knew of the carnage, to intervene to salvage those innocent lives? Where were those high-minded, moralistic and omnipresent Western crusaders, who had made Africa what it is today? And where were we, seemingly as innocent as those slaughtered? The British photographer in the film had a point when Paul held high hopes of Western intervention, “When they see the footage [of the massacre], they will exclaim ‘Oh My God! How terrible!’ Then they will just sit down as usual and have their dinner.” The Canadian colonel made it even more clear, and starker, when he shouted ironically to Paul, after learning the French troops would only pick up the White people, “You are not worth a vote. You are blacks. They treat you as dung. You are not even Negroes, YOU ARE ONLY AFRICAN!” Yes. Why care about Rwanda when it has no impact on my re-election? Why bother about a place which I haven’t heard of? Why sacrifice our troops because of their quarrels? Why intervene when we scholars and foreign policy analysts alike have told you that it is against the national interests?...... Thus run the countless counterarguments. It certainly saddens me when I am faced with such a downpour of forceful rhetorical statements. It pains me excruciatingly when those same politicians boasting of moral integrity, those same fellow citizens speaking of compassion, and those same scholars talking of world peace now turn a blind eye to the sufferings of those people, simply because their skin is of a different color, their language is of a different tone, and their country is in a different geographical location.

What is truely terrifying is not hypocricy, not apathy, not even cynicism, it is oblivion. It is astonishing to think that a collective crime committed on such a scale only 13 years ago has lapsed into the dustbin of history, let alone the fact that it does not even enter into the history proper but languishing in a handful of insignificant footnotes. It is more appalling to see how people these days take this issue so casually as if a fly has been just flapped.

Well, well, well…Luckily, we still have Paul, the Canadian colonel and tens of thousands of nameless heroes out there holding out for our conscience, and the director, Terry George, who brought about this film as a reminder. As Milan Kundera famously observed, memory is always prone to oblivion. And the film is just a timely sting. A sting in our consciousness. A sting in our conscience. A sting for us to remember. A sting that I hope would perpetuate itself.

P.S: This piece was completed on 10/10/2007, and was originally posted on my Myspace blog.

United won match, but still more to be done

United may have won the match, but a lot more still needs to be done.

As expected, the match between Man United and Arsenal proved to be a potential championship decider. With 6 points clear and 19 ahead in goal difference in the remaining 4 matches (Chelsea still has a game in hand), many concede that United has already bagged the title. However, if Fergie wants to convince Arsenal and Chelsea fans that United are the true and deserved champion, he may have much to ponder on. Certainly, one might argue they don't need to care about the opinions of fans from rival clubs. But if you are a genuine United's follower, you have to guard yourself againts being carried away by winning this match.

Indeed, the first half was almost dominated by Arsenal, with Adebayor and Hleb particularly dangerous. Had they seized one chance, the result may well have changed. On the other side, United only managed to threaten Arsenal with occasional counter-attacks, which were equally penetrating. Rooney was equally wasteful, missing two deadly opportunities. In the second half, Arsenal still controlled the match until the penalty. When Hargreaves scored the magnificent winner, Arsenal's nerves totally broke down.

However, as a United fan, I'm not happy even if we won. Arsenal almost outplayed United in every aspect in the first 60 minutes. Their pass, their attack, their organization, their scoring chances...For quite a while, I was very nervous and frustrated. To tell you the truth, I really have to accept Arsenal are playing more beautiful football--at least in this match, and they are attacking. Yes, you could counter that football match is about 90 minutes and defence is as important. But always putting up a defensive team to wear out your opponent when you play a strong team is not always the answer.

In fact, I was disappointed when I saw the line-up of Fergie's team. As far as I can recall, a two-forward formation has never been provided, playing the other three of the Big Four even at home. And you get the impression that United usually have to struggle before they get something. That's not what football should be: you have to win, and you also have to entertain. Besides, it is masking real problems. For United, better passes and better finishes are really needed. As for passes, compare again with Arsenal. The accuracy of United's passes is not high; as for finishes, the fact that Ronaldo has socred the most goals so far this season really highlights the impotency of the forwards.

It will be hard for United when facing a resurgent Chelsea, if Fergie doesn't change his mindset. Maybe it is true that a conservative mind always accompanies an older age.

United Defeat Roma--Again!

Roma still no match--even for a 'subprime' United.

To prepare for the coming match with Arsenal, Fergie rested five playes featured in the first leg while Roma welcomed its centre-back Juan. But a second-tier United is more than enough to take United through to the semi-finals.

After the 2-0 loss at home, Roma has every reason to come out and fully attack so as to keep alive the dim hope of pulling off a victory and even going to the next stage. Surpriselingly, unlike some of the pre-match predictions, it is Roma who were on the defensive, as if guarding the fruit of the first leg. In fact, United could well bury the match in the first 25 minutes but for the splendid saves from Doni, arguably the best player in a less-than-impressive Roma team. As people began to ponder how many goals United might score--how many chances they might miss--a twist made United fans standing on their feet: Mancini, the Brazilian winger, won Roma a penalty, though out of outrageous dive! After De Rossi thundered the ball over the ball, I knew the match was over for Roma. When Teves finally got the opening, the rest is to focus on Barca.

To Roma's credit, they put up a spirited fight throughout the match. However, a Roma without Totti is a team without soul. Indeed, most of Roma's chances came from set-pieces and the opponent's defensive lapses. After being eliminated in the quarter-finals for the second year running, Spaletti will have to ponder on strengthening his team. The exit of Roma also means a semifinal without a top Italian club and three semi spots occupied by English clubs yet again.

For United, the change of half a squad has little effect on their consistency. Young Pique and the long-term absentee Silvestre paired reasonably well with Ferdinand and Brown in the back, although Roma did come up with several decent chances on its right flank. And interesting to note, Fergie has put three of United's most tireless and tenacious players in the front, with Hargreaves doing exceptionally well. When the team was in defence, he played his familiar role as a defensive midfield; and when in attacking, he almost became a winger: indeed, the goal was created by his beautiful cross from the right. But the problem of wasting chances is still haunting United, with Teves and Parker especially profligate in this match. I can't help but compare this match with the one against Lyon: tons of chances and good control of the match with somewhat nervous fans and even the players themselves. If this cannot properly be solved, with Vidic injured, Pique not fully tested an d Silvestre still a little rusty, prospects about winning the match against the Gunners aren't so bright. The good news is that United at least did not have to depend on Ronald's another personal brilliance; and the skipper Gary Neville's return may well boost morale on and off the pitch.

Anyway, United procceded to the semi-finals of the Championship League again. Now, their major task is this Sunday's clash with Arsenal, which could be a possible Premier League Champion decider.

"If you want war, so be it!"

"If you want war, so be it!" is a line from Jinyong's The Legend of the Condor Heroes, one of the most recognized Chinese Wuxia novels, when Genghis Khan prepares his ascending Mongolia for a war with the arrogant Khwarezm Empire. Genghis Khan easily crashed his enemy and went on to conquered the entire Central Asia. The rest is all history.

If anything, this line aptly captures the boiling sentiment currently engulfing China. Feeling embarrassed and humiliated in the Olympic torch relay by the West, the Chinese are venting their anger through the media and on the internet. The once subdued nationalism looks poised to burst at any minute. Some urltranationalists even call for a settlement with "those shameless saboteurs". Genghis Khan's messengers' beards were shaved--one of the deepest insult to them--before he decleared war on Khwarezm Empire; in China's case, she lost her face. While Mongolia was on its path to become one of the greatest empires at that time, the whole world is now talking about China's rise. The only difference: Mongolia had already had the intent to go to war, while China did not and still do not have it. But times change. Even if a major clash between major powers is beyond thinking today, a major incident such as the currently unfolding one may well prove to be a major cause to a major conflict tommorow. In fact, it will not be long before the secret antipathy between China and the West since the late Qing Dynasty develops into open antagonism.

As always, instead of helping defuse an already tense and fragile situation in Tibet, the media on both sides seems determined to fan the flame of the fire until--it caught themselves. What should have been a plain "cry wolf" story turned out to be all the more special. Normally, when something big happens in China, Chinese media will blame anyone other than the government, and its western counterpart will provide concrete evidence to point otherwise, and the public on both sides will tend to believe the latter. In time, after this pattern repeats itself for a number of times, Chinese media became a liar. Only this time around, when the Tibeten riots erupted, they switched their roles. Feeling fooled by the western media, the Chinese vociferouly questioned their credibility. However, blatant errors and falsafications in their reports are nothing to their mistake of equating "China" with "the Chinese government" and "its ruling Communist party". When the western media asked their leaders to boycott the Olympic Games hosted by "China" because of "China's" human records, and when they compared "China's" Olympic Games with Hitler's 1936 Games, proclaiming "China", not unlike Hitler, just wants to stage a pure showoff, it is those who have a connection with "China" that are insulted. Honestly, few would believe in the conspiracy theory that the western media are doing it intentionally, since it is an established tradition to identify the nation with its government. Well, on some occasions, one has to observe the subtlety these different terms can convey.

Olympic Games is a case in point, especially in China. Under most circustances, the public are indifferent to, say, whether you write "China" or "the Chinese government" in your reports, as the news has little bearing on their life or on their perception of themselves. But it's different now. After much fanfare and relentless propoganda, the majority of the Chinese people have come to identify themselves with the Games. So when the western media are questioning the suitability and qualification for China to host the game, they are in effect calling into doubt the ability of the Chinese, at least as perceived. Not only the national and personal pride, even the identity is at stake. At a time when nationalism is on the rise and is tightly controlled by the government, attacking the western media and bashing the West serve as a perfect venue. The media appear not to learn the lesson, or rather, choose to ingore it by reporting in a much unglamourous and often accusatory way. Well, to a certain extent, we have ourselves to blame, since the media are only catering to our needs. As readers and audience, what do we want to read and watch? A high-profile murder, a sex scandal, a riot, a tsunami...anything but mundane. Anything that is dramatic will attract our attention. A well-orchesrated prostest against the torch relay; a boycott of the opening ceremony by some bigwigs; and even a disruption to the game itself will be enough to catch eyeball. A welcome line-up for the torch; patriotic students waving the national flags; and great Chinese enthusiasm for the Games. Why not feature them in the news? No, not because they are not real, but because they are so natural even to the Chinese. To borrow a journalism jargon, they are not newsworthy.

In truth, the above analysis may be only the simptoms, masking the real cause--the established powers' refusal to accept China into their club. Some say it's the unease caused by China's rise, as in a classic security dilemma case. Possibly. But more reasonably, it lies in the fact that China and the roughly-defined West are fundamentally incompatible, in the way of living, in the way of thinking, in the way of running their nations, in the perception of the world, and in nearly everything. The Olympic Games only highlighted these incompatibilies by the West's rejection of everything "China", unwittingly and unconcoiusly (maybe too ingrained in their consciousness to be manifest).As in the case of Japan in the late 1980s, the USA and the Western Europe were not alarmed by Japan's being stronger, but by the fact that they are of different kinds. The same holds true for China, only that Japan's power is no match for today's China: they are also different in kinds. While being constantly humiliated in the early years by his future enemies certainly strengthened Genghis Khan's determination and brutality, I see no reason why such a heavy slap in the face will not plant a similiar seed for China's coming clash with those democratic bullies.