The Sporting Calendar is made up of a series of rivalries, but what is the point?
With the Varsity clash looming ahead, and the debate over the relative merits of York’s two rivalries in last week’s Vision, I thought it best to examine why sporting rivalries occur, how people react to them, and whether they are in fact a good thing.
In most people’s eyes, the debate of Varsity over Roses is a fairly pointless one. Roses dates back to 1965, barely two years after the University was founded, has an tenuous historical link to the 15th century Wars of the Roses, and features three days of competition over 37 different sports. In contrast, Varsity is entering its fourth year and, in all fairness to York St. John, is far less of a contest than Roses, over far fewer sports.
The winner is therefore clear. What isn’t immediately clear is why these rivalries come about in the first place. The Varsity rivalry is obvious, with St John sharing (some would say sullying) the same city as us, but is it really worth a sporting rivalry? When Varsity Wednesday comes around, St John will only participate in the small number of sports in which they have a chance of competing, and will still get heavily beaten. A sporting contest in which the victor wins by such a score as the 56-17 demolition of St John last year is hardly worth the tag of ‘contest’.
Still, it’s always fun to rub St John’s face into the mud (and after all this rain, the presence of mud is about as inevitable as a York win), and who can resist a whole day of sport. This cannot however be the only appeal of sporting rivalries and it is also unnecessary for the rivals to inhabit the same city or area. Games between teams from the same city are derbies, not necessarily rivalries. I’m sure Sunderland fans would disagree with me, but they can hardly be said to have a rivalry with Newcastle because they are a far poorer team. The same can be said about Varsity. Yes, it is a derby, but it’s not really a rivalry. That honour surely belongs only to the Roses clash.
But why are York and Lancaster such rivals? Apart from Roses, York students barely have any contact with their Lancastrian counterparts. There is also no reason for us to be rivals. The Wars of the Roses link is completely ridiculous; the war wasn’t fought between York and Lancaster. We don’t even battle it out in all the BUSA leagues. It is simply that we play them every year. It is the history of the Roses fixture itself that makes it a rivalry. No one is exactly sure why they should hate Lancaster, pour out in droves and cheer for York until their throats feel hoarse – but they do. It is just the feeling that this is something we have to win. That, is a true sporting rivalry – where no one is exactly sure why they want to win so badly, but still give everything they have to try to do so.
That still leaves the question of whether such rivalries are beneficial. Every year there are a few unsavoury incidents that leave people questioning the wisdom of having the event. Fortunately, the answer is simple – of course such rivalries aren’t wise, but no-one is going to pretend that they are. What they are is a chance for the whole university to unite together, to be part of a unique atmosphere, probably in the entirety of British university sport. It is true that people are occasionally hurt, and there do need to be safety measures in place, but that should not detract from the overall experience. Varsity will need to keep going for another 30 years, and will need St John to improve massively, to generate the same experience. It’s still a good warm-up though, and who would pass up the possibility of a whole day of sport?
Steve
The sunderland newcastle rivalry comment is ignorance of the highest order. I lived in north east for couple years and it is rivalry of the worst kind i have ever witnessed. Ruud Gullit made comment similar to yours before derby game, then on defeat was sacked.They aren,t even that much worse poorer anyway, they have both always been yo yo teams before keegans 1st arrival at st james.The rivalry comes from people who live in each city,some of which don’t even follow football.They spot each other in each others town’s at a word spoke in a split second.in my experience in football, the derby matches involing neighbouring towns are hugely worse.The most violent,hate fuelled derbies in football are the Tyne Wear one, Portsmouth Southampton,Burnley Blackburn and wait for it… Man utd Liverpool- not Liverpool Everton or Man u Man City.The Tyne Wear one shades it due to the football being religion factor up there.Birmingham Villa buck the neighbouring town trend but the others prove your theory to be ignorant,thoughtless and downright nonsense.
Matthew Jeynes
Ok, I see your point. The Sunderland/Newcastle example was a bad one - but not for the reasons you give.
It was meant to show that derby matches aren’t neccessarily proper rivalries if there is a gulf in quality between the two teams. This makes the example I gave shoddy because 1) There is not that much of a gulf and 2) They are in different cities, unlike York and St John. I should have gone for Arsenal or Chelsea against one of the lesser London teams.
Unfortunately, I believe you have missed the point of my article. Nowhere do I claim that the worst rivalries are between teams in the same city/town. I am not even trying to make any broad, sweeping statement. I don’t talk about national trends in any way - this is a student-written article primarily about York’s rivalries. It is unfortunate that the one outside example I included was probably a poor one.
Please read and understand the whole article in future, instead of jumping on one remark that had little to do with the rest of the article and claiming that I have made a ‘theory’ out of it.
Thank you for your comment