In football, winning is everything - nobody who plays the beautiful game goes into a match with the view of just participating. So with winning solely in mind, why would a second or third spot be deemed as enough?
Earlier today, Captain Alzheimer’s wrote an article called “Is Second Spot An Attractive Incentive?” Here he cited the fact that with a CAF Champions League spot now extended to the team finishing in second place, it could cushion the blow for missing out on a league title.
In response to that article, I feel that should never be the case. If a team does well enough to finish second in the Absa Premiership, there is no reason why that team couldn't have gone on to win the trophy.
Going into a league or cup competition with the aim of not winning it makes no sense at all, and this is why I feel that second place should never be an option - regardless of what incentives come along with it. Realistically, there can only be one winner, but it all comes down to the type of winning character a team will adopt.
At the end of it all, we want to breed players with a winning mentality. For example, if a coach sets points targets in a league campaign, and the team reach that goal earlier than expected in a season, the chances of those players becoming complacent after that are greater.
There will be times where plans go pear-shaped but there should never be a substitute for hard work and a winning mentality.
Yes teams will occasionally be forced to settle for second best, but if we have a league filled with players and coaches who always think of second best being okay, then our national team will never reach its full potential.
Do you agree with this statement?