Here is the translation of the provided content: "See the talents of Peking University" Note: The "" (carriage return and line feed) is not translated as per the instruction to keep it as is.

Author: Liu Guosheng, Tian Hongjiang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-07-01
Features: A well-timed fart Chaos theory has a famous argument: a butterfly flapping its wings in the sky above Beijing could potentially cause a storm in the sky above the Pacific. So, the fart I accidentally let go on the street yesterday might also lead to a goal for China's team in the World Cup. I know this possibility isn't very high, it's just a 1 in 10^N chance in logic, but there's still some logical sense to it. Other arguments, however, seem grand on the surface but lack the thorough logic of my "fart can score a goal."
In Chinese history, there's a joke about a man who finds an egg and talks to his wife about his grand dreams: I plan to take three steps. First, I'll hatch this egg into a chick; second, I'll raise the chick, and the chicken will lay eggs, which will hatch into more chicks. But what about the third step? His wife asks. He replies: With this, I'll have money to take a concubine. The result is, his wife gets furious and splits him, and the man ends up eggshelled—actually, he didn't even have a chicken yet—and flying.
Regardless of the outcome, the man's three-step plan was still progressive, step by step, not arrogant enough to directly use the egg he found to take a concubine. Other "three-step plans" aren't as well-structured. For example, China's team's goal in the World Cup: the leader said, "We'll take three steps": First, strive to score a goal; second, strive to draw a match; third, strive to win a match. Leaders always have wild ideas, but they're still better than the man who found the egg.
Simply put, if China scores one goal in a match, there are three possible outcomes: a win, a draw, or a loss. If the defense is solid, the goalkeeper performs exceptionally, or the opponent has bad luck, we could win 1-0, and the leader's three steps would be achieved in one go! A goal is enough to achieve the goal—why divide it into three steps?
The key issue is that the leader clearly hasn't studied logic, and honestly, once you're a leader, why bother with logic? Setting goals like this isn't fun at all. Why doesn't the leadership emphasize defense? They could set World Cup goals like this: First step, in the first match, strive not to let the opponent score; second step, in the second match, strive not to let the opponent score; third step, in the third match, strive to let the opponent score.
Theoretically, China could still advance to the second round and become one of the 16 teams if it doesn't score a single goal. If all three matches end in 0-0 draws, it's entirely possible to finish as group second. Isn't that absurd? I think it's at least more interesting than the leader's plan.
What's the point of scoring goals? Even if Brazil scores three, it doesn't matter—3-4 is still a loss. Should we comfort ourselves by saying "we lost with honor" and celebrate when we go home? I admire the words of the Paraguay coach at the 1998 French World Cup: We're also here to strive for the World Cup. Although they were eliminated in the quarter-finals after conceding a golden goal to France, they could still be proud in the eyes of their hometown folks because they fought.
Without the belief in victory, what's the point of going to the World Cup? If we strive to score one goal, draw, or win a match, does that count as fulfilling the goal? For example, if Brazil beats us 5-1, should the leader praise the team or write another article titled "An Accurate Positioning for Chinese Football"? I feel embarrassed for the leader. If possible, I'd genuinely love to let out a well-timed fart to help China score a goal and achieve the leader's World Cup goal.
P13-14