A Life Too Short: The Tragedy of Robert Enke

Ronald Reng's biography of the late German national goalkeeper is William Hill Sports Book of the Ye

As the sporting world digests the news of the death of Gary Speed, the former Leeds and Newcastle midfielder and lattermanager of the Welsh national team, the William Hill Sports Book of the Year has been awarded to the German sports writer Ronald Reng for A Life Too Short: The Tragedy of Robert Enke. The biography of the late Robert Enke, Reng's and German national team goalkeeper, was praised by the judges "for its powerful and insightful nature as well as its sensitivity and sincerity." It is the first translated title to win the prize. The book was first published in Germany (as Robert Enke: Ein allzu kurzes Leben), received widespread praise and soon became an international bestseller.

Graham Sharpe, the co-founder of the prize and the chairman of the judging panel, stated that:

Robert Enke was one of Germany's greatest goalkeepers and his tragic death shocked the world. Ronald Reng's intimate portrait - vivid, powerful and moving - is an outstanding piece of sportswriting and a very worthy winner of the prize.

The other judges were broadcaster and writer John Inverdale, award-winning journalist Hugh McIlvanney, broadcaster Danny Kelly and columnist and author Alyson Rudd.

In the NS's review of the book, Simon Kuper finds it to be "At times ... almost unbearably painful to read ... but this is the mature work of a writer who has gone far beyond sensationalism. It allows you to turn back and read football differently ... [It is] not just about Enke and depression, but about the stress that pervades most footballers' lives." Kuper notes that "Enke's widow gave him [Reng] the dead man's diaries and the poems he had written on his mobile ... Reng writes, 'I have deliberately excluded passages [from the diaries] that I see as too revealing.' Not many biographers would do that."

In September, Jonathan Derbyshire talked to Ronald Reng Enke's tragic life and death. Before Enke's suicide, he and Reng had agreed to work on the former's autobiography, although they never discussed the footballer's depression. Describing the national mourning in Germany which followed Enke's death, Reng said that "I was certainly taken aback. There was a feeling of not knowing what to make of it, and a lot of people were absolutely moved by his death and they wanted to show their grief ... This was something totally new in Germany - a big crowd gathering together to mourn." Reng told Derbyshire how "he [Enke] and [his wife] Teresa had this vision, a dream scenario, that one day Robert would have moved to Lisbon and we would all sit on a roof terrace and contemplate his autobiography."

"A Life Too Short" is published by Yellow Jersey Press.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war