Chabal

Dashing off a quick blog so that I can get off my chest the incredible, mind-blowing, delirious and generally large-scale sense of joy at watching France beat New Zealand at rugby. It was a match to remember, the kind that comes around once every ten years. At half-time they were 13-3 down, but something about their performance told me it wasn't over. And it wasn't. The second half was indescribably thrilling: the All Blacks pushing and pushing with their scrum at the French line, the French taclking and tackling and tackling. Then Michalak and Chabal (the cuddly caveman -- see above) came on and the team got a sudden burst of energy, and Jauzion scored the second try. Right down to the last seconds -- and the failed drop attempt by New Zealand -- it could have gone the other way. Utterly gripping. Typically French, too, to lose to Argentina and then beat the best. It was the same in the football world cup last year. Everyone wrote them off after some dismal performances in the opening stages, but they came back with stytle. Bravo. Now England next Sat.

Le jeu-à-13

I bow to no man in my love of the game of rugby, and this month's World Cup is proving a wonderful antidote to the blues of "la rentrée". But the opportunity is too good to miss, so I must now bring up a subject I first wrote about five years ago -- that is, the shameful record of French Rugby Union in suppressing its younger rival "le jeu-à-13".
(Rugby experts, skip this. There are two forms of the game, Union and League. Union is played with 15 men, League with 13. They have different rules, and very different cultural histories)
My researches took me -- symbolically enough -- to Vichy, because it was there in 1941 that Marshal Petain signed an order prepared for him by his minister of sport, banning Rugby League. Yes, in addition to hunting down Jews and promoting Catholic nationalism, the Vichy government actually took the time out to outlaw a sport!
In brief, the story goes back to the early 30s when Rugby League made a sudden impact in France. The Union game was in disgrace, largely as a result of violent play by French sides, and France had been banned from the five nations championship. Rugby League took up the slack, and by 1939 there were 225 League clubs -- all set up in just five years. But then along came Vichy. The Rugby Union authorities saw their chance, and lobbied hard against the rival game. League was professional, they said, (true -- League players signed annual contracts) and an affront to to sporting values. Worse, it was championed by the left and closely associated with the Popular Front government of 1936. They won the argument, and League was outlawed, its property confiscated, and players urged to "convert" to Union.
Later of course it was unbanned, but the prejudice endured. Not until 15 years ago was League allowed to call itself rugby at all -- the official name before that was the "jeu-à-13". And not till 2002 did a government enquiry conclude that "influential officials in the French Rugby (Union) Federation endeavoured to eliminate the competitor, which they claimed was a deviant form of Rugby Union".
Today League is played in some parts of the southwest -- and the Catalan Dragons play in the European super-league -- but of course it is a pale shadow compared to Union. I am a Union man myself, but this shameful story should not be forgotten.

Le jeu-à-13

I bow to no man in my love of the game of rugby, and this month's World Cup is proving a wonderful antidote to the blues of "la rentrée". But the opportunity is too good to miss, so I must now bring up a subject I first wrote about five years ago -- that is, the shameful record of French Rugby Union in suppressing its younger rival "le jeu-à-13".
(Rugby experts, skip this. There are two forms of the game, Union and League. Union is played with 15 men, League with 13. They have different rules, and very different cultural histories)
My researches took me -- symbolically enough -- to Vichy, because it was there in 1941 that Marshal Petain signed an order prepared for him by his minister of sport, banning Rugby League. Yes, in addition to hunting down Jews and promoting Catholic nationalism, the Vichy government actually took the time out to outlaw a sport!
In brief, the story goes back to the early 30s when Rugby League made a sudden impact in France. The Union game was in disgrace, largely as a result of violent play by French sides, and France had been banned from the five nations championship. Rugby League took up the slack, and by 1939 there were 225 League clubs -- all set up in just five years. But then along came Vichy. The Rugby Union authorities saw their chance, and lobbied hard against the rival game. League was professional, they said, (true -- League players signed annual contracts) and an affront to to sporting values. Worse, it was championed by the left and closely associated with the Popular Front government of 1936. They won the argument, and League was outlawed, its property confiscated, and players urged to "convert" to Union.
Later of course it was unbanned, but the prejudice endured. Not until 15 years ago was League allowed to call itself rugby at all -- the official name before that was the "jeu-à-13". And not till 2002 did a government enquiry conclude that "influential officials in the French Rugby (Union) Federation endeavoured to eliminate the competitor, which they claimed was a deviant form of Rugby Union".
Today League is played in some parts of the southwest -- and the Catalan Dragons play in the European super-league -- but of course it is a pale shadow compared to Union. I am a Union man myself, but this shameful story should not be forgotten.

Zidane

Just back after a week in Dublin to experience the tail-end of the Zidane shock-horror (cup final head-butt on the Italian). So much pious nonsense I have not read in many a year. If football now has quasi-religious status, then people like ZZ are its high-priests -- and the world affects to be bouleverse when they behave like mere mortals. The truth is that Zidane -- a hugely uncommunicative human-being -- became a blank sheet on which any interest group could write its agenda. For the starry-eyed politico-media class, he was a much-needed symbol of integration; for the advertisers he was a "do-no-evil" role model for the masses; for many in the banlieues he was a permanent poke in the eye to the establishment. On top of that he was accredited in our cultish world with a level of genius that once would have been ascribed to an Einstein or a Leonardo. Gentlemen, please, some proportion. Today the papers are full of people saying either 1) he has disgraced himself and tarnished an otherwise faultless career or 2) that this act of instinctive competitive energy is the perfect, almost god-like, concluding touch. For God's sake let him be. He is a footballer. He did what footballers do. Leave it there.

Those who know and care about these things tell me that the French reaction to the World Cup is shamefully low key. I say 'shamefully' only because from a British perspective not to be obsessed by the World Cup seems to be a dereliction of one's human duty. But I see what they mean. By comparison with across the channel, the lack of frenzy here is quite startling. No flags, no wall-to-wall newspaper coverage, no World Cup blogs by cabinet ministers. Here in Paris there's more enthusiasm to be found outside the many English, Scottish and Irish pubs than in the cafes and bistros. Cycling through the city centre Saturday, I saw a giant screen up outside the Hotel de Ville, and presumed the authorities were laying on all-match coverage for die-hard fans. But no. It was the rugby final between Toulouse and Biarritz. France's games will be screened, but nowhere near the city centre -- at Stade Charlety out by the peripherique. Why is this so? First point: let us not forget that the British attitude to football has got completely out-of-hand, so critical comparisons of France are a bit unfair. And in any case France has never been a football nation in the way the UK is: viz the relative lack of interest in clubs. Second: I don't think anyone has very high hopes about this French team. England, by contrast, is built up -- as in every cup -- as a potential winner. Perhaps things will heat up on Tuesday when they take on Switzerland.