The 'two-footed tackle' has come under intense scrutiny in the football media over the past two weeks as the latest scurge to plague the beautiful game. Once it was the elbow, now it is the indignant and unnecessary lunge with studs showing that has raised concern. Whether it was Robbie Keane's sending off versus Birmingham City that reignited the debate, the talk has been growing louder in recent days, and yet Ricardo Carvalho still incredulously jumped in on Gabriel Agbonhlahor on Boxing Day in such a fashion that demanded an instant dismissal.
But, as pundits would point out, the consistency of referees in applying the laws of the game has been questionable. But surely it's a matter of common sense first and foremost that if you come in a) from behind b) with two feet off the ground and sometimes c) over the ball, you have to walk. Without a doubt. It's a universal absolute for the game.
So what excuses this then? The fact that it's not the Premiership? The fact that the referee is a woman? Neither. Usually when I'm at a game like this, things flash quickly by but I was convinced at the time he should have walked. It could have been passed off as slightly-drunken bias but when the post-match photos surface, and you're proved right, it's near unbelievable that Ms Rayner (looking straight at the incident) cannot apply the laws correctly.
Play continues, Stevenage goalkeeper Alan Julian clears out of play to allow Stuart Lewis treatment, but he's back to his feet before the ball goes out. Rushden attack, win a corner and wonder why Boro' players aren't amused. Cue brawl, and a booking for Julian (plus a Rushden player). So what should have been a straight-red for Rushden becomes a booking for the opposition goalkeeper... But be warned, it's usually the most inconsistent referees from the Blue Square Premier that earn a promotion come the end of the year.
Who says it's a British trait to reward failure?
27 December 2007
22 December 2007
Cod pub rock??
Seriously, there's not much on the internet that gets me bothered enough to post some form of comeback. You see, I like to play the "those who speak, don't know; those who know, don't speak" card that, in all honesty, has varying results.
Then again, there's not much on the internet like this. Admittedly, I am a massive Manics fan - they were the first band who made music relevant to me at the tender age of 14. They put books on my shelves I may never have discovered, and added CDs to my collection I may never have considered.
But, to your eternal delight I'm sure, this is not an impassioned, one-sided tirade cursing Leonie Cooper for daring to cross my opinion. I want to be a journalist, disagreements are par for the course. I couldn't give two shits if said author doesn't like the Manics - enough people don't, so I'm definitely not going to start a war I can never win.
The issue I have a problem with how the piece is written. For an article dealing with the news that the Welsh band are to be awarded 'Godlike Genius' status by the ever-reliable NME next year, most of the discussion is a second-rate explanation as to why Cooper dislikes the band. There are two immediate things which strike me - 1) Is this news really worth getting that worked up over? I'm not overly concerned with what the NME choose to bestow upon a band they've had a fifteen-year-plus love-hate relationship with. And 2) what exactly is the justification for the use of 'cod' - is it because it rhymes with 'god'? Who knows.
And then there's the killer material - 'pantomime Stereophonics'. A truly evocative claim. But the facts, surely, speak for themselves in that MSP have had greater commercial and artistic success than their Welsh counterparts, so elevating Kelly Jones et al above the Manics seems as an ill-conceived idea. If you want pantomime, think Stuart Cable!
If it's a genuine dislike for the Manics, then fine. And yes, I guess as a blog it is going to be more personal. But I still think the outright critique was a tad unnecessary. Mind you, if it were Keane, The Feeling or Snow Patrol up for the award, I could perhaps understand how it might be hard to bite your lip before pressing the 'publish post' button.
But there we go. I've had a little say on the matter, and in truth have said very little. I'm sure I had a point based around the idea of the search for a little balance. Conceding one song in a long list of songs to be good is not quite there in my opinion. Anyway, there's enough time for that sort of Manic-bashing when the next record comes out. But I'll still buy it, and I'll still (hopefully) enjoy it. Because while I grimace at the idea of 'Godlike Genius' awards, the Manics have done more for British music in the last 20 years than some others have, and I'm not sure if one can deny that. Still, in the words of Public Image - "I could be wrong, I could be right..."
Then again, there's not much on the internet like this. Admittedly, I am a massive Manics fan - they were the first band who made music relevant to me at the tender age of 14. They put books on my shelves I may never have discovered, and added CDs to my collection I may never have considered.
But, to your eternal delight I'm sure, this is not an impassioned, one-sided tirade cursing Leonie Cooper for daring to cross my opinion. I want to be a journalist, disagreements are par for the course. I couldn't give two shits if said author doesn't like the Manics - enough people don't, so I'm definitely not going to start a war I can never win.
The issue I have a problem with how the piece is written. For an article dealing with the news that the Welsh band are to be awarded 'Godlike Genius' status by the ever-reliable NME next year, most of the discussion is a second-rate explanation as to why Cooper dislikes the band. There are two immediate things which strike me - 1) Is this news really worth getting that worked up over? I'm not overly concerned with what the NME choose to bestow upon a band they've had a fifteen-year-plus love-hate relationship with. And 2) what exactly is the justification for the use of 'cod' - is it because it rhymes with 'god'? Who knows.
And then there's the killer material - 'pantomime Stereophonics'. A truly evocative claim. But the facts, surely, speak for themselves in that MSP have had greater commercial and artistic success than their Welsh counterparts, so elevating Kelly Jones et al above the Manics seems as an ill-conceived idea. If you want pantomime, think Stuart Cable!
If it's a genuine dislike for the Manics, then fine. And yes, I guess as a blog it is going to be more personal. But I still think the outright critique was a tad unnecessary. Mind you, if it were Keane, The Feeling or Snow Patrol up for the award, I could perhaps understand how it might be hard to bite your lip before pressing the 'publish post' button.
But there we go. I've had a little say on the matter, and in truth have said very little. I'm sure I had a point based around the idea of the search for a little balance. Conceding one song in a long list of songs to be good is not quite there in my opinion. Anyway, there's enough time for that sort of Manic-bashing when the next record comes out. But I'll still buy it, and I'll still (hopefully) enjoy it. Because while I grimace at the idea of 'Godlike Genius' awards, the Manics have done more for British music in the last 20 years than some others have, and I'm not sure if one can deny that. Still, in the words of Public Image - "I could be wrong, I could be right..."
9 December 2007
Kevin Pietersen - Form and Fortune?
It's a bit frustrating to wake up on a Sunday morning and find that a test match has started out in Sri Lanka. Perhaps as an England fan, I'm automatically programmed to a Thursday-Monday timetable - even a Friday start throws me occasionally, so Sunday starts are completely new. I mean, this match will be running through to Thursday should it go the distance. Hardly conducive to the productivity of us armchair fans back in Blighty trying to get TMS to kick in at 3.45am.
But the most frustrating part of the affair is to wake up and see that Kevin Pietersen is gone, cheaply, and that England are straddling the line between collapse and rearguard action. At 4am (roughly, I wasn't in the best state to confirm), England were looking imperious on 160-1. So to be 258-5 at stumps is not the best of scenarios. And yes, there are mitigating factors that can explain the slump, and yes, England still can go on and get a score of 400+ as things stand. But the one score that worries me from the scorecard is:
It's not an exaggeration to say that England look to KP to get some runs on the board. He is, without doubt, a superb batsman of the modern game. Aggressive, astute and elegant. When facing bowlers like Muralitharan, you need batsmen who have the confidence to play him effectively. Coming in at number four, with such a solid base laid courtesy of Cook and Vaughan, it's the sort of opportunity that KP is most devastating at exploiting. It's that time of the game when he can take the game well away from an opponent. But at the same time, should he fail, the opposition know that they've made their task easier by removing him.
That's not to say that England will automatically collapse when KP walks. But the pressure that then gets put onto players like Collingwood, Bopara and Prior is intensified. The selectors took a while to cotton on to the qualities of Collingwood but if ever a player will get valuable runs regardless of the game's state, Collingwood is someone England can turn to more often than not. But it's not a fail-safe.
With England precariously positioned, Colly sits on 49no with Prior finding his batting form on this tour on 10no. Bopara's already back in the hutch for a first-ball duck and early wickets tomorrow morning will expose the tail. While Broad and Sidebottom can bat, any runs they contribute are more of a luxury. Further more, as often as I insist that Monty is on the verge of a 50 at number 11, it doesn't materialise. Even a repeat of his 26 vs Sri Lanka at Edgbaston would be welcome.
So we come back to Pietersen. Last summer against India he hit big centuries that helped combat the potent threat of the tourists' batting line-up, albeit in vain come the end of the series. But after three innings in Sri Lanka, his cumulative score is a mere 50, with a best of 31. If England are going to look for victory in Colombo this week, they need KP to hit big in the second innings.
His first innings dismissal for a single run is looking controversial in terms of whether the ball was grounded rather than caught legally. So in this instance, perhaps fortune was not on his side. If Michael Vaughan is aggrieved by the dismissal then the decision must have been a bad one. But umpires making erroneous calls are sadly part of the game. Sreesanth should have been given out at Lords last summer, Sidebottom should have been given not out in the last test... you can't legislate for such decisions. But KP can legislate for his own game, and if he can get it right in the second innings then it will be to England's massive benefit (and relief?).
But much depends on where the game is tomorrow morning. If England can muster some sort of first innings lead, then the pressure is on the Sri Lankans. And that is where Pietersen can come in and take the game out of the reach of the hosts on Day 4. If England trail heavily from the first innings (and this is a worst case scenario), then the pressure is on England to save the game and it will inevitably stifle batting. And consciously trying to stay in seems to be the time when you are most likely to get out.
It's alright though. Monty WILL get a half-century tomorrow morning. And a 10-fer. And Sports Personality of the Year... oh wait!
But the most frustrating part of the affair is to wake up and see that Kevin Pietersen is gone, cheaply, and that England are straddling the line between collapse and rearguard action. At 4am (roughly, I wasn't in the best state to confirm), England were looking imperious on 160-1. So to be 258-5 at stumps is not the best of scenarios. And yes, there are mitigating factors that can explain the slump, and yes, England still can go on and get a score of 400+ as things stand. But the one score that worries me from the scorecard is:
| Pietersen | c Sangakkara | b Vaas | 1 |
It's not an exaggeration to say that England look to KP to get some runs on the board. He is, without doubt, a superb batsman of the modern game. Aggressive, astute and elegant. When facing bowlers like Muralitharan, you need batsmen who have the confidence to play him effectively. Coming in at number four, with such a solid base laid courtesy of Cook and Vaughan, it's the sort of opportunity that KP is most devastating at exploiting. It's that time of the game when he can take the game well away from an opponent. But at the same time, should he fail, the opposition know that they've made their task easier by removing him.
That's not to say that England will automatically collapse when KP walks. But the pressure that then gets put onto players like Collingwood, Bopara and Prior is intensified. The selectors took a while to cotton on to the qualities of Collingwood but if ever a player will get valuable runs regardless of the game's state, Collingwood is someone England can turn to more often than not. But it's not a fail-safe.
With England precariously positioned, Colly sits on 49no with Prior finding his batting form on this tour on 10no. Bopara's already back in the hutch for a first-ball duck and early wickets tomorrow morning will expose the tail. While Broad and Sidebottom can bat, any runs they contribute are more of a luxury. Further more, as often as I insist that Monty is on the verge of a 50 at number 11, it doesn't materialise. Even a repeat of his 26 vs Sri Lanka at Edgbaston would be welcome.
So we come back to Pietersen. Last summer against India he hit big centuries that helped combat the potent threat of the tourists' batting line-up, albeit in vain come the end of the series. But after three innings in Sri Lanka, his cumulative score is a mere 50, with a best of 31. If England are going to look for victory in Colombo this week, they need KP to hit big in the second innings.
His first innings dismissal for a single run is looking controversial in terms of whether the ball was grounded rather than caught legally. So in this instance, perhaps fortune was not on his side. If Michael Vaughan is aggrieved by the dismissal then the decision must have been a bad one. But umpires making erroneous calls are sadly part of the game. Sreesanth should have been given out at Lords last summer, Sidebottom should have been given not out in the last test... you can't legislate for such decisions. But KP can legislate for his own game, and if he can get it right in the second innings then it will be to England's massive benefit (and relief?).
But much depends on where the game is tomorrow morning. If England can muster some sort of first innings lead, then the pressure is on the Sri Lankans. And that is where Pietersen can come in and take the game out of the reach of the hosts on Day 4. If England trail heavily from the first innings (and this is a worst case scenario), then the pressure is on England to save the game and it will inevitably stifle batting. And consciously trying to stay in seems to be the time when you are most likely to get out.
It's alright though. Monty WILL get a half-century tomorrow morning. And a 10-fer. And Sports Personality of the Year... oh wait!
8 December 2007
Manic Street Preachers - Ghost of Christmas
There was a time when Christmas singles were shamelessly fun... long before the days of pretentious X-Factor wannabes cluttering up stockings around the country. Not since Mr Blobby has there been a Christmas song I've thought worthy of listening to. I toyed with Proper Crim-bo! a few years ago but I mean, come on.
So, in keeping with the goodwill to all men and such bollocks, Manic Street Preachers have recorded a Christmas song for shits and giggles and made it free for download off their official website. There was talk that Ghost of Christmas was pencilled in for a proper release but you could cite reasons such as losing bottle for that not eventually happening. Depends who you want to believe.
Releasing this track properly wouldn't have been a crime. In fact, it may even have pushed other Number One contenders hard. It's deliciously glam, albeit with the chugging power chords that wouldn't necessarily be out of place on a standard MSP b-side. But the ingredients for a successful Xmas track are all over this three-and-a-half minute beauty.
There may be a distinct lack of sleigh bells over the verses, but there are the obligatory tubular bells and a glorious - YES, glorious - saxophone solo ripped straight out of the Dexy's instrument archive, or maybe lifted straight off the Whose Line is it Anyway? theme. Oh, and there's also the rousing sing-along chorus. So why not take a chance and let rip on an unsuspecting public in the year that credibility was restored through Send Away the Tigers?
I guess it depends on what the Manics wanted to achieve in the first place. But maybe, for the fans, it's all the more nicer to have something tucked away from prying eyes. It certainly sits on my Christmas playlist... Leona fucking Lewis does not.
So, in keeping with the goodwill to all men and such bollocks, Manic Street Preachers have recorded a Christmas song for shits and giggles and made it free for download off their official website. There was talk that Ghost of Christmas was pencilled in for a proper release but you could cite reasons such as losing bottle for that not eventually happening. Depends who you want to believe.
Releasing this track properly wouldn't have been a crime. In fact, it may even have pushed other Number One contenders hard. It's deliciously glam, albeit with the chugging power chords that wouldn't necessarily be out of place on a standard MSP b-side. But the ingredients for a successful Xmas track are all over this three-and-a-half minute beauty.
There may be a distinct lack of sleigh bells over the verses, but there are the obligatory tubular bells and a glorious - YES, glorious - saxophone solo ripped straight out of the Dexy's instrument archive, or maybe lifted straight off the Whose Line is it Anyway? theme. Oh, and there's also the rousing sing-along chorus. So why not take a chance and let rip on an unsuspecting public in the year that credibility was restored through Send Away the Tigers?
I guess it depends on what the Manics wanted to achieve in the first place. But maybe, for the fans, it's all the more nicer to have something tucked away from prying eyes. It certainly sits on my Christmas playlist... Leona fucking Lewis does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)