A clever diversion to take the heat off the real debate?

The political show of the century, as the debate between Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Audrey Eu Yuet-mee has been dubbed, made three things clear.

The chief executive wasn't trying to change Eu's mind when he invited her to spar with him. Indeed, it would be fair to say that it was never his intention; and he certainly didn't hide the fact.

Instead, he picked the Civic Party leader precisely for her inability to be swayed. After it, it would have been politically impossible for her to do an about-turn, since she was the one who took the League of Social Democrats' 'de facto referendum' ball and ran with it. Tsang wanted to present his own case: Hong Kong's political reality.

Did he 'win'? Let us indulge ourselves in the notion that the debate - and, in essence, the issue of the debate, Hong Kong's democratic development - was nothing but a soccer match, like any of the ones we are currently watching at the World Cup in South Africa.

In this case, no, he didn't 'win'. Eu's performance was absolutely deserving of a standing ovation. Her plea to hold out rather than give it up for the wrong guy was as slick as those new soccer balls that some of the World Cup teams have been complaining about. And so if we view the debate as simply a game, Eu was so good, she should, rightfully, get the trophy. Her fans camped out in Chater Garden would be the first to concur.

But if we look past the theatrics and the substance of what was discussed - and more tellingly, the issues both evaded - then we get a very different story.