A P.S to yesterday's post on the Everton manager. I see in yesterday's newspaper that Mrs Benitez wants Rafa to come back and manage in the Premier League, so there's hope. And I doubt he would be a candidate for Arsenal or Manchester United when there's a vacancy. He's missed out on Spurs, so why not Everton? There is the small matter that Rafa is managing in China at the moment and is clearly finding the Wanda Project at Dalian stimulating. He has advised on their £230 million training facility (!) which was only started last summer but will be completed by December (!!) Oh, and he's earning £12.5 million nett.
The Sunday Times say Everton and Leicester made approaches to Benitez while he was at Newcastle but he stayed loyal to the Magpies. But if Mrs B wants him home then at some stage perhaps we could see him in charge at Goodison.
I may be being unfair to Dyche but I see him as a young Allardyce.
As for Moyes, I worry that he may not be up to date with Premier League tactics. But that is also probably unfair, as he has always been a fanatical student of the game.
So my considered suggestion is that Everton should line up Benitez for next summer and, if the situation requires a change, bring in Moyes till the end of the season. They would probably have to keep the first bit confidential for Moyes to accept of course and they may have to offer at least an 18 month contract.
Monday, 25 November 2019
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Do statistics lie?
I spotted a stat in yesterday's paper that surprised me. It said "If Everton beat Norwich" (I know, they lost but bear with me) "Marco Silva will have the highest win percentage of any Everton manager since the club last won the title in 1987". But for that clueless, spineless, passionless shambles, Silva would have had an Everton career to date win percentage of 43.1%. What does that compare with?
Howard Kendall had a win rate of 54.1% in his first spell which lasted from 1981to 1987. This was only the second time that an Everton manager in charge for more than one game achieved a figure over 50%. The other was Dick Molyneux in 1889-1901. Kendall is therefore head and shoulders above even the other great Everton manager of my lifetime, Harry Catterick, whose win rate between 1961 and 1973 was 46.5%, though Everton and Catterick were on the slide for some time at the end of that period and he would have had to step aside much sooner in the modern game. Otherwise, Silva's performance is at least par for the course when Everton are going ok:
Roberto Martinez, 2013-16; 42.9%
Colin Harvey, 1987-1990, 42.4%
David Moyes, 2002-2013, 42.1%
Ronald Koeman, 2016-17, 41.4%
Joe Royle, 1994-97, 39.0%
Howard Kendall, 1990-1993, 38.9%
Sam Allardyce, 2017-18, 38.5%
When things are really bad the figure is much worse:
Walter Smith 1998-2002, 32.4%
Howard Kendall , 1997-98, 26.2%
Mike Walker, 1994, 17.1%
And yet, I was still shocked to see Silva so high on that list. Ah, but Everton's current trajectory is worrying, isn't it? It's disappointing after the investment that has been made in the team, but the Premier League form table over the last 6 games has Everton in mid-table at 11th, with 2 wins and a draw from the last 6 games.
As always the mid-table is very congested: one more win and Everton would have been ahead of Manchester United in the top half. I know, being ahead of Man U doesn't say much at the moment, but surely it would be hasty to go with the Goodison crowd: many Everton fans joined in with the visitors when they sang "you're getting sacked in the morning.."
There are two ways of looking at this. One is that Silva's performance is entirely typical for a decent manager at Everton, chopping and changing never does any good, better to give him more time. The other is that the players currently look flat and disorganised, bereft of any ideas or sparkle and generally lacking in any passion or fight.
From my perspective I've always been a Silva sceptic. I saw nothing in his record at Hull or Watford to make me believe he was a top manager in prospect. I know football has changed and modern managers have to be empathetic coaches rather than hair dryer disciplinarians. But Silva's personality seems feeble and, unless the players can understand what he's getting at better than I do watching his interviews, no wonder they seem to be lacking in direction.
The questions I expect Everton's board will be debating are who should replace Silva and when to make the change. Everton's upcoming fixture list is terrifying: Leicester away, Liverpool away, Chelsea home and Man United away. After that there is a home Haribo Cup quarter final against Leicester and then Arsenal at home. The last of these would traditionally be viewed as a hard fixture but this is probably the least scary Arsenal team in 3 decades. However, by then, Arsenal might well have changed their manager.
There is a case for not subjecting a new manager to that fixture list, risking condemning him to a poor start. And if Everton were to scrape a draw in the derby and win their quarter final, things might start to feel better for a while.
But also there is also a case for getting your man when you can. That is if they have a man lined up. Who are the candidates?
The outstanding available candidate is Max Allegri who Juve decided to ditch after he'd won them four consecutive Italian league and cup doubles without cracking the Champions League. He is apparently learning English but would probably wait for Manchester United to come up, if Arsenal don't bag him now. Mauricio Pocchettino might also sound fanciful but it doesn't look like he's going to Real Madrid or Man United anytime soon. If you think back to 2014 when he went to Spurs, Everton had just finished 5th - ahead of Spurs, as they tended to be then. It would be another Spurs type project (including a new stadium project!) but maybe that's is all Poch can hope for. For most of the time at Spurs he did well and he would be a good bet if Everton could get him.
More prosaically there is Sean Dyche, whose Burnley team nearly always look organised and committed. But I've come to the view that, while David Moyes was as pragmatic as necessary, his heart was in trying to play football - how could you say otherwise when his team evolved to a midfield containing Mikel Arteta, Steven Pienaar and Leon Osman? I'm not sure Dyche is like that and I've gone cold on the idea of him at Everton.
Eddie Howe may never get the chance of a top job, unless he waits for England after Gareth Southgate. He might view Everton as a route forward for his career. His teams are organised and do play with passion. Everton took a risk with David Moyes in 2002 and it worked well. Howe is far more experienced than Moyes was and shouldn't represent as big a risk. But is he, as Bill Kenwright saw in Moyes, a winner? Howe is a maybe. I'm sceptical but not as sceptical as I was about Silva.
The other obvious thing to do is bring back Moyes. That feels like a backwards step to me now, only to be done if there is no other attractive option. The bookies fancy Mark Hughes - not me. And of course there is a top, Champions League winning manager who lives a short car journey from Goodison: Rafa Benitez, who I've said before I would love to see at Goodison. Surely the Liverpool connection is long enough ago now?
If Rafa would come I'd take him every time, even though Everton did manage to finish ahead of his Liverpool team in 2005. If not, Poch, then Howe would be my choices. And then Moyes if none of them can be landed.
The statistics say that it doesn't matter too much who the Everton manager is, unless they are useless the win percentage will be about 40. But damn the statistics, they have no heart and I can't stand much more of this clueless football from my team!
Howard Kendall had a win rate of 54.1% in his first spell which lasted from 1981to 1987. This was only the second time that an Everton manager in charge for more than one game achieved a figure over 50%. The other was Dick Molyneux in 1889-1901. Kendall is therefore head and shoulders above even the other great Everton manager of my lifetime, Harry Catterick, whose win rate between 1961 and 1973 was 46.5%, though Everton and Catterick were on the slide for some time at the end of that period and he would have had to step aside much sooner in the modern game. Otherwise, Silva's performance is at least par for the course when Everton are going ok:
Roberto Martinez, 2013-16; 42.9%
Colin Harvey, 1987-1990, 42.4%
David Moyes, 2002-2013, 42.1%
Ronald Koeman, 2016-17, 41.4%
Joe Royle, 1994-97, 39.0%
Howard Kendall, 1990-1993, 38.9%
Sam Allardyce, 2017-18, 38.5%
When things are really bad the figure is much worse:
Walter Smith 1998-2002, 32.4%
Howard Kendall , 1997-98, 26.2%
Mike Walker, 1994, 17.1%
And yet, I was still shocked to see Silva so high on that list. Ah, but Everton's current trajectory is worrying, isn't it? It's disappointing after the investment that has been made in the team, but the Premier League form table over the last 6 games has Everton in mid-table at 11th, with 2 wins and a draw from the last 6 games.
As always the mid-table is very congested: one more win and Everton would have been ahead of Manchester United in the top half. I know, being ahead of Man U doesn't say much at the moment, but surely it would be hasty to go with the Goodison crowd: many Everton fans joined in with the visitors when they sang "you're getting sacked in the morning.."
There are two ways of looking at this. One is that Silva's performance is entirely typical for a decent manager at Everton, chopping and changing never does any good, better to give him more time. The other is that the players currently look flat and disorganised, bereft of any ideas or sparkle and generally lacking in any passion or fight.
From my perspective I've always been a Silva sceptic. I saw nothing in his record at Hull or Watford to make me believe he was a top manager in prospect. I know football has changed and modern managers have to be empathetic coaches rather than hair dryer disciplinarians. But Silva's personality seems feeble and, unless the players can understand what he's getting at better than I do watching his interviews, no wonder they seem to be lacking in direction.
The questions I expect Everton's board will be debating are who should replace Silva and when to make the change. Everton's upcoming fixture list is terrifying: Leicester away, Liverpool away, Chelsea home and Man United away. After that there is a home Haribo Cup quarter final against Leicester and then Arsenal at home. The last of these would traditionally be viewed as a hard fixture but this is probably the least scary Arsenal team in 3 decades. However, by then, Arsenal might well have changed their manager.
There is a case for not subjecting a new manager to that fixture list, risking condemning him to a poor start. And if Everton were to scrape a draw in the derby and win their quarter final, things might start to feel better for a while.
But also there is also a case for getting your man when you can. That is if they have a man lined up. Who are the candidates?
The outstanding available candidate is Max Allegri who Juve decided to ditch after he'd won them four consecutive Italian league and cup doubles without cracking the Champions League. He is apparently learning English but would probably wait for Manchester United to come up, if Arsenal don't bag him now. Mauricio Pocchettino might also sound fanciful but it doesn't look like he's going to Real Madrid or Man United anytime soon. If you think back to 2014 when he went to Spurs, Everton had just finished 5th - ahead of Spurs, as they tended to be then. It would be another Spurs type project (including a new stadium project!) but maybe that's is all Poch can hope for. For most of the time at Spurs he did well and he would be a good bet if Everton could get him.
More prosaically there is Sean Dyche, whose Burnley team nearly always look organised and committed. But I've come to the view that, while David Moyes was as pragmatic as necessary, his heart was in trying to play football - how could you say otherwise when his team evolved to a midfield containing Mikel Arteta, Steven Pienaar and Leon Osman? I'm not sure Dyche is like that and I've gone cold on the idea of him at Everton.
Eddie Howe may never get the chance of a top job, unless he waits for England after Gareth Southgate. He might view Everton as a route forward for his career. His teams are organised and do play with passion. Everton took a risk with David Moyes in 2002 and it worked well. Howe is far more experienced than Moyes was and shouldn't represent as big a risk. But is he, as Bill Kenwright saw in Moyes, a winner? Howe is a maybe. I'm sceptical but not as sceptical as I was about Silva.
The other obvious thing to do is bring back Moyes. That feels like a backwards step to me now, only to be done if there is no other attractive option. The bookies fancy Mark Hughes - not me. And of course there is a top, Champions League winning manager who lives a short car journey from Goodison: Rafa Benitez, who I've said before I would love to see at Goodison. Surely the Liverpool connection is long enough ago now?
If Rafa would come I'd take him every time, even though Everton did manage to finish ahead of his Liverpool team in 2005. If not, Poch, then Howe would be my choices. And then Moyes if none of them can be landed.
The statistics say that it doesn't matter too much who the Everton manager is, unless they are useless the win percentage will be about 40. But damn the statistics, they have no heart and I can't stand much more of this clueless football from my team!
Monday, 11 November 2019
VAR is flaky but Pep should look at himself
For defeated football managers it was generally blame the ref. To that we can now add blame the other ref, i.e. VAR. To be fair, VAR is a long way from working smoothly. Why anyone would think that decisions would become totally clear and uncontroversial - or indeed quick - because you can see a replay I can't imagine. After all, pundits have often disagreed after looking at interminable replays. And it has always been the case that, where one person sees a foul, another sees a defender "being strong", for example.
Rugby's TMO system has got a better handle on this, with the referee asking "is there any reason why I can't allow the try?" It seems this question lends itself to a clearer and quicker interpretation of what football is calling "clear and obvious". Or maybe it's just that football hasn't got it's mind round the issues yet. Maybe they should give it a maximum of one minute then stick by the on field decision because, by definition, it can't be clear and obvious by then can it? But still there will always be the judgement call about whether there was "enough" contact or what actually constitutes an "unnatural body shape". So, unlike Pep Guardiola, I can see why two people will look at the same replay and reach a different conclusion.
What I'm finding difficult about VAR is the spurious precision of the offside line. It seems daft to say that someone was offside by the size of their big toe, as happened when a Sheffield United goal was disallowed at the weekend. I realise that your toe is part of a bit of your body that you can score a goal with, so it "counts" when they draw the line. But by any sensible definition that's "level". Level was once offside, but it was changed years ago to give a bit of benefit to the attacker. Now they can draw that infernal line on a screen, "level" seems to have no meaning, you're either offside or onside. If the football authorities want to keep the advantage with the attacker of being level not behind the defender then maybe the guidance should be that the attacker needs to be "clearly" beyond the defender to be offside. After all, that's the way the game was pretty much played before VAR. But wait - how many millimetres is "clearly"?
However, my real problem with the way it's being done at the moment is that the technology can't currently be precise about when the ball has been kicked, so the accuracy with which the line is being drawn is completely spurious. Indeed, since the ball compresses when kicked should it be when foot strikes ball, or when ball leaves foot? Logic would say the latter. This may seem pedantic but remember we are talking about millimetres with people running at speeds which can be close to ten metres a second.
I always found it harder running the line than refereeing in junior football. That is because you have to look at two things at the same time: watch for when the ball is kicked while also looking at the position of the attacker, who is often sprinting forward, relative to the defenders, who might be moving in the other direction. Given the player playing the ball forward can be 50 yards away from the position of the receiver, to use an American Football term, this is physically impossible. You have to glance at the defensive line and quickly look back to the ball and make the best judgement you can. If the action is close enough, you can watch the line and listen for the sound of boot on ball. (No, I didn't try to factor in the difference between the speed of sound and light.....) It always impresses me how good the top assistant referees are at doing these things. And it's why the best assistant refs aren't necessarily good refs; they are different skill sets to some extent. Assistant refs don't need to be people managers, for example.
Maybe it's just that the rugby TMO has it easy: checking for forward passes can be fraught but the distances and relative movement aren't as large.
What causes me to muse about VAR was Pep Guardiola's childish behaviour during and after Manchester City's resounding defeat at Liverpool yesterday. (Incidentally, I thought both managers should have been sent to the stands). Yes there was VAR controversy - when isn't there? Many pundits thought City should have been awarded a penalty just before Liverpool opened the scoring. Many others didn't. Former Premier League ref Mark Clattenburg thought the decision was right, but not for the reason given. I agreed with him that, as the ball had ricocheted against Trent Alexander-Arnold's red sleeved arm from the hand at the end of Bernardo Silva's blue sleeve, it would have been perverse to award the penalty. Neither "handball" looked deliberate to me but, even if Alexander-Arnold was making himself "bigger" with his arm position (for me he wasn't) why should City benefit when the ball had hit their player's hand first? That would go against any idea of natural justice.
More materially, as Martin Samuel pointed out, it wasn't VAR's fault that, 22 seconds later, Liverpool scored a cracking goal. The fact that City couldn't contain Liverpool's counter attacks for most of the game had more to do with it. As did Gundogan's weak clearance to the scorer, Fabinho. And also the fact that City's number 2 goalkeeper, Claudio Bravo, isn't an adequate standby for Ederson. A fact which is proved by the remarkable stat that Bravo has conceded 22 goals out of the last 41 shots he has faced.
Being a good goalkeeper in a great side isn't easy as there are long periods with little to do. Pulling off a world class save after standing around for an hour is much harder than making a great save when your team is under the cosh and you've been making a series of saves. Coming in as a rarely used number 2 goalkeeper isn't easy either. But Bravo obviously isn't up to it. He's an insurance policy that's not worth the premium.
I felt Liverpool's win was much more comprehensive than the scoreline suggests. City's strongest players didn't perform on the day. I was bemused by my newspaper giving Kevin de Bruyne 8 out of 10 for his performance. He saw plenty of the ball but didn't use it particularly well. De Bruyne has hit some killer passes and crosses this season but looked ordinary yesterday; the killer balls came from Robertson and Henderson. Sergio Aguero had chances to break his Anfield scoring duck but bizarrely seemed to pull his foot away from the most dangerous cross towards him.
All of City's players can look outstanding on their day, but I'm not convinced by some of them. Ikay Gundogan can do some nice things in a good team playing well but, for me, he fails the Lee Sharpe test. Sharpe looked a good player for Manchester United and won several England caps but when Alex Ferguson tired of his attitude and moved him on he never looked the same player. This may be unfair - Sharpe did have an injury at Leeds which might have been material. But I doubt I'm being unfair to Gudogan, who is one of those "big lightweight" players, like Everton's Morgan Schneiderlin: a big guy who plays with all the physical presence of a midget. Gundogan is 5 ft 11 in in old money but plays like he is several inches shorter. Yesterday both Claudio Bravo and Kyle Walker came in for criticism for not defending Henderson's cross for Mane to score Liverpool's third. But it was a cross that was every bit as good as a de Bruyne classic. And the problem started with Henderson, who had been suffering from flu in the week and didn't see out the match, bursting past Gundogan on the touchline as if he just wasn't there. To take the Lee Sharpe analogy further, I don't think Gundogan would justify a place in the midfield of any top half Premier League team. Not only would I not swap him for any of Liverpool's midfield squad, I wouldn't swap him for any of Everton's (apart, maybe from Schneiderlin - tough call that) including Fabian Delph who City sold to Everton on the summer. Delph would have done a better job for City at Anfield than Gundogan.
As for their coach, I laughed when he took off his leading goalscorer at 3-0 down, making a like for like change in bringing on the talented but lightweight Gabriel Jesus. That's not what most people would do in that situation, Pep! But City's team selection was curious anyway. Guardiola trusted Angelino at left back and the £10M summer re-signing spent most of the game looking like a startled rabbit. Meanwhile Guardiola had over £100M worth of full backs kicking their heels. Cancelo was on the bench and Mendy, who always looks eccentric at best when he does play, didn't even make the squad. Guardiola preferred to keep midfielder Fernandinho in the back four, leaving centre-back Otamendi on the bench. Fernandinho tried to clear Robertson's cross for Salah's headed goal with his foot when a natural back four player would surely have attempted to head it and probably succeeded, or at least blocked Salah's vision, which is often all a centre back needs to do (spoken from experience). In his place in centre midfield Rodri looked as ineffective as he has all season.
Guardiola can only look at himself for these shortcomings. He has spent a fortune - more than £200 million - on full backs while not getting anyone as good as the ones he inherited (Zabaleta and Kolarov). He has also spent hugely on centre backs with patchy results. Admittedly, the injured Laporte was a success. John Stones should have been but has gone backwards under the mentoring of his famous manager. In contrast, Raheem Sterling has come on hugely over the last two seasons, so maybe it's just that Guardiola and his style of play don't work as well for defenders. Other doubtful but expensive signings like Otamendi and Mangala preceeded Pep's time at City, so this is a recruitment problem for the club that predates him. Nevertheless, it was puzzling that Vincent Kompany, who retired in the summer, wasn't replaced, meaning City went into the season with three experienced centre backs, four being the normal complement.
It seems strange to criticise someone with such a stellar record as Guardiola, especially in view of his back to back Premier League titles. But before that, let's face it, he had no-one to beat in Germany and only one and a half teams in Spain (Real and Atletico Madrid). One wonders, if Pep had gone to Manchester United or Chelsea in 2016, where would they be now and where would Man City be? United would have been a difficult rebuilding job for anyone.
In contrast, Liverpool's recruitment has been far more targeted and successful. When pretty boy man-mountain Virgil Van Dijk signed for Liverpool rather than City nearly two years ago he said he wanted to play for Klopp, and was impressed by the passion of the Liverpool fans. I was a little surprised as City seemed the better bet to me at the time. Klopp was sure he had the right man and I can now see why van Dijk made his choice.
I'd much rather play for Klopp than Guardiola and I'm an Everton fan.......
Rugby's TMO system has got a better handle on this, with the referee asking "is there any reason why I can't allow the try?" It seems this question lends itself to a clearer and quicker interpretation of what football is calling "clear and obvious". Or maybe it's just that football hasn't got it's mind round the issues yet. Maybe they should give it a maximum of one minute then stick by the on field decision because, by definition, it can't be clear and obvious by then can it? But still there will always be the judgement call about whether there was "enough" contact or what actually constitutes an "unnatural body shape". So, unlike Pep Guardiola, I can see why two people will look at the same replay and reach a different conclusion.
What I'm finding difficult about VAR is the spurious precision of the offside line. It seems daft to say that someone was offside by the size of their big toe, as happened when a Sheffield United goal was disallowed at the weekend. I realise that your toe is part of a bit of your body that you can score a goal with, so it "counts" when they draw the line. But by any sensible definition that's "level". Level was once offside, but it was changed years ago to give a bit of benefit to the attacker. Now they can draw that infernal line on a screen, "level" seems to have no meaning, you're either offside or onside. If the football authorities want to keep the advantage with the attacker of being level not behind the defender then maybe the guidance should be that the attacker needs to be "clearly" beyond the defender to be offside. After all, that's the way the game was pretty much played before VAR. But wait - how many millimetres is "clearly"?
However, my real problem with the way it's being done at the moment is that the technology can't currently be precise about when the ball has been kicked, so the accuracy with which the line is being drawn is completely spurious. Indeed, since the ball compresses when kicked should it be when foot strikes ball, or when ball leaves foot? Logic would say the latter. This may seem pedantic but remember we are talking about millimetres with people running at speeds which can be close to ten metres a second.
I always found it harder running the line than refereeing in junior football. That is because you have to look at two things at the same time: watch for when the ball is kicked while also looking at the position of the attacker, who is often sprinting forward, relative to the defenders, who might be moving in the other direction. Given the player playing the ball forward can be 50 yards away from the position of the receiver, to use an American Football term, this is physically impossible. You have to glance at the defensive line and quickly look back to the ball and make the best judgement you can. If the action is close enough, you can watch the line and listen for the sound of boot on ball. (No, I didn't try to factor in the difference between the speed of sound and light.....) It always impresses me how good the top assistant referees are at doing these things. And it's why the best assistant refs aren't necessarily good refs; they are different skill sets to some extent. Assistant refs don't need to be people managers, for example.
Maybe it's just that the rugby TMO has it easy: checking for forward passes can be fraught but the distances and relative movement aren't as large.
What causes me to muse about VAR was Pep Guardiola's childish behaviour during and after Manchester City's resounding defeat at Liverpool yesterday. (Incidentally, I thought both managers should have been sent to the stands). Yes there was VAR controversy - when isn't there? Many pundits thought City should have been awarded a penalty just before Liverpool opened the scoring. Many others didn't. Former Premier League ref Mark Clattenburg thought the decision was right, but not for the reason given. I agreed with him that, as the ball had ricocheted against Trent Alexander-Arnold's red sleeved arm from the hand at the end of Bernardo Silva's blue sleeve, it would have been perverse to award the penalty. Neither "handball" looked deliberate to me but, even if Alexander-Arnold was making himself "bigger" with his arm position (for me he wasn't) why should City benefit when the ball had hit their player's hand first? That would go against any idea of natural justice.
More materially, as Martin Samuel pointed out, it wasn't VAR's fault that, 22 seconds later, Liverpool scored a cracking goal. The fact that City couldn't contain Liverpool's counter attacks for most of the game had more to do with it. As did Gundogan's weak clearance to the scorer, Fabinho. And also the fact that City's number 2 goalkeeper, Claudio Bravo, isn't an adequate standby for Ederson. A fact which is proved by the remarkable stat that Bravo has conceded 22 goals out of the last 41 shots he has faced.
Being a good goalkeeper in a great side isn't easy as there are long periods with little to do. Pulling off a world class save after standing around for an hour is much harder than making a great save when your team is under the cosh and you've been making a series of saves. Coming in as a rarely used number 2 goalkeeper isn't easy either. But Bravo obviously isn't up to it. He's an insurance policy that's not worth the premium.
I felt Liverpool's win was much more comprehensive than the scoreline suggests. City's strongest players didn't perform on the day. I was bemused by my newspaper giving Kevin de Bruyne 8 out of 10 for his performance. He saw plenty of the ball but didn't use it particularly well. De Bruyne has hit some killer passes and crosses this season but looked ordinary yesterday; the killer balls came from Robertson and Henderson. Sergio Aguero had chances to break his Anfield scoring duck but bizarrely seemed to pull his foot away from the most dangerous cross towards him.
All of City's players can look outstanding on their day, but I'm not convinced by some of them. Ikay Gundogan can do some nice things in a good team playing well but, for me, he fails the Lee Sharpe test. Sharpe looked a good player for Manchester United and won several England caps but when Alex Ferguson tired of his attitude and moved him on he never looked the same player. This may be unfair - Sharpe did have an injury at Leeds which might have been material. But I doubt I'm being unfair to Gudogan, who is one of those "big lightweight" players, like Everton's Morgan Schneiderlin: a big guy who plays with all the physical presence of a midget. Gundogan is 5 ft 11 in in old money but plays like he is several inches shorter. Yesterday both Claudio Bravo and Kyle Walker came in for criticism for not defending Henderson's cross for Mane to score Liverpool's third. But it was a cross that was every bit as good as a de Bruyne classic. And the problem started with Henderson, who had been suffering from flu in the week and didn't see out the match, bursting past Gundogan on the touchline as if he just wasn't there. To take the Lee Sharpe analogy further, I don't think Gundogan would justify a place in the midfield of any top half Premier League team. Not only would I not swap him for any of Liverpool's midfield squad, I wouldn't swap him for any of Everton's (apart, maybe from Schneiderlin - tough call that) including Fabian Delph who City sold to Everton on the summer. Delph would have done a better job for City at Anfield than Gundogan.
As for their coach, I laughed when he took off his leading goalscorer at 3-0 down, making a like for like change in bringing on the talented but lightweight Gabriel Jesus. That's not what most people would do in that situation, Pep! But City's team selection was curious anyway. Guardiola trusted Angelino at left back and the £10M summer re-signing spent most of the game looking like a startled rabbit. Meanwhile Guardiola had over £100M worth of full backs kicking their heels. Cancelo was on the bench and Mendy, who always looks eccentric at best when he does play, didn't even make the squad. Guardiola preferred to keep midfielder Fernandinho in the back four, leaving centre-back Otamendi on the bench. Fernandinho tried to clear Robertson's cross for Salah's headed goal with his foot when a natural back four player would surely have attempted to head it and probably succeeded, or at least blocked Salah's vision, which is often all a centre back needs to do (spoken from experience). In his place in centre midfield Rodri looked as ineffective as he has all season.
Guardiola can only look at himself for these shortcomings. He has spent a fortune - more than £200 million - on full backs while not getting anyone as good as the ones he inherited (Zabaleta and Kolarov). He has also spent hugely on centre backs with patchy results. Admittedly, the injured Laporte was a success. John Stones should have been but has gone backwards under the mentoring of his famous manager. In contrast, Raheem Sterling has come on hugely over the last two seasons, so maybe it's just that Guardiola and his style of play don't work as well for defenders. Other doubtful but expensive signings like Otamendi and Mangala preceeded Pep's time at City, so this is a recruitment problem for the club that predates him. Nevertheless, it was puzzling that Vincent Kompany, who retired in the summer, wasn't replaced, meaning City went into the season with three experienced centre backs, four being the normal complement.
It seems strange to criticise someone with such a stellar record as Guardiola, especially in view of his back to back Premier League titles. But before that, let's face it, he had no-one to beat in Germany and only one and a half teams in Spain (Real and Atletico Madrid). One wonders, if Pep had gone to Manchester United or Chelsea in 2016, where would they be now and where would Man City be? United would have been a difficult rebuilding job for anyone.
In contrast, Liverpool's recruitment has been far more targeted and successful. When pretty boy man-mountain Virgil Van Dijk signed for Liverpool rather than City nearly two years ago he said he wanted to play for Klopp, and was impressed by the passion of the Liverpool fans. I was a little surprised as City seemed the better bet to me at the time. Klopp was sure he had the right man and I can now see why van Dijk made his choice.
I'd much rather play for Klopp than Guardiola and I'm an Everton fan.......
Thursday, 7 November 2019
The analogue enemy strikes
Roy Harper recorded his tour de force album Man and Myth in 2013. I'm still dumbfounded that a man who, despite my admiration for him, made many patchy albums could make one of his best and most consistently high quality albums in his eighth decade. His song The Enemy recalls the bad guys we traditionally feared, the muggers, pickpockets and highwaymen:
We are soldiers from a different world, both her and I
We fight the shadow doppelganger
Of the shady passer-by
The lads go out drinking
While the girls try to keep an eye
But no one's on duty this side of the sky
The song is saying that, while we are genetically programmed to be suspicious of strangers lurking in the shadows, these days it's the hackers and scammers who are more likely to rip you off.
Not always though. After more than 40 years of travelling, while the antivirus and firewall software was guarding the other half of the sky, Mrs H had her purse taken from her handbag by a doppelganger from the shadows while we were on holiday in Tenerife. Yes we'd been drinking - a nice bottle of Albarino with dinner and we weren't on high alert in a smart resort. Sure, the damage is limited: not much more than a hundred euros, two cards that we blocked within half an hour* without them being used and, most hurtful, a purse that had sentimental as well as material value. Scammers can do harm on a far larger scale.
We didn't see this traditional enemy while we stood at the side of a busy promenade waiting to book a restaurant table for the following evening. But a concerned Belgian tourist saw something suspicious and suggested Mrs H check her bag. And he then legged off in pursuit of a small group of youths with me a few strides behind. At least we made them run for a bit.
We've been in many so much dodgier places over the years. In our street market drill I stand behind the shoulder she has her bag on, which is a decoy anyway as there's nothing much in it. I scan nearby faces rather than looking at the goods on display and scowl suspiciously at anyone who comes too close. Basically looking like a psychopathic bodyguard, which would generally make most villains choose a softer, or at least less crazy, target.
Which is what they did this time. What upset her most was the fact that, recovering from a broken ankle, she was using a walking stick. So they picked on someone who looked old(ish) and vulnerable.
Mrs H takes an Old Testament view of this kind of crime and the appropriate sanction. No tough on the causes of crime for her! She would gladly go round and trash the villain's mother's (or preferably granny's) dwelling in retaliation in order to make them all see the errors of their ways. Any liberal leftie who tries to suggest this might not be quite the best way to handle such things had best keep their counsel in her presence or they will probably get quite an earful.
For me the intrusion of an old analogue type of foe is unwelcome - and reminds me I can't react or run as fast as I used to. But Harper is right - the main enemy is on the other side of the sky. While it's our own responsibility to be careful, the more I read about the scams people have fallen victim to the more I find myself incredulous at the pathetic processes and systems banks and other companies seem to have in place. In particular, I seethe about banks that won't co-operate with victims who aren't their customer, protecting criminals who have been allowed to open accounts with flaky ID to funnel away proceeds of crime with impunity. I'm sure there are all sorts of angles on this - after all folk might quite like to retract transactions they regret. But surely banks could cooperate to track fraudulent transfers. And phone companies who allow scammers to make it look like a bank or other instutution is in the line, just do something will you!
The banks deservedly got a bad press over the financial crisis. You wouldn't think their reputation could go lower. But it has. If they are giving these issues any thought at all they are making a very good job of concealing it. They're like one of Roy's shadow doppelgangers, effectively collaborating with crooks on the other side of the sky.
* at least we thought we had. I keep a list of up to date emergency phone numbers separately from cards and cash - calling the number on the back of the card is ok if you have the card. But I don't write down the card numbers and if you don't have the card.... The bank that used to like to give you a little eXtra managed to get in a total tangle and cancel the wrong card as we realised when we got home and a replacement had arrived for a card that wasn't stolen. Which meant the stolen card hadn't been blocked. When we phoned again they didn't seem to understand why we were agitated, given that I had already checked there were no transactions on the card. "Because you're obviously not as good as the other bank we had to call". Aaaaarghhh!
We are soldiers from a different world, both her and I
We fight the shadow doppelganger
Of the shady passer-by
The lads go out drinking
While the girls try to keep an eye
But no one's on duty this side of the sky
The song is saying that, while we are genetically programmed to be suspicious of strangers lurking in the shadows, these days it's the hackers and scammers who are more likely to rip you off.
Not always though. After more than 40 years of travelling, while the antivirus and firewall software was guarding the other half of the sky, Mrs H had her purse taken from her handbag by a doppelganger from the shadows while we were on holiday in Tenerife. Yes we'd been drinking - a nice bottle of Albarino with dinner and we weren't on high alert in a smart resort. Sure, the damage is limited: not much more than a hundred euros, two cards that we blocked within half an hour* without them being used and, most hurtful, a purse that had sentimental as well as material value. Scammers can do harm on a far larger scale.
We didn't see this traditional enemy while we stood at the side of a busy promenade waiting to book a restaurant table for the following evening. But a concerned Belgian tourist saw something suspicious and suggested Mrs H check her bag. And he then legged off in pursuit of a small group of youths with me a few strides behind. At least we made them run for a bit.
We've been in many so much dodgier places over the years. In our street market drill I stand behind the shoulder she has her bag on, which is a decoy anyway as there's nothing much in it. I scan nearby faces rather than looking at the goods on display and scowl suspiciously at anyone who comes too close. Basically looking like a psychopathic bodyguard, which would generally make most villains choose a softer, or at least less crazy, target.
Which is what they did this time. What upset her most was the fact that, recovering from a broken ankle, she was using a walking stick. So they picked on someone who looked old(ish) and vulnerable.
Mrs H takes an Old Testament view of this kind of crime and the appropriate sanction. No tough on the causes of crime for her! She would gladly go round and trash the villain's mother's (or preferably granny's) dwelling in retaliation in order to make them all see the errors of their ways. Any liberal leftie who tries to suggest this might not be quite the best way to handle such things had best keep their counsel in her presence or they will probably get quite an earful.
For me the intrusion of an old analogue type of foe is unwelcome - and reminds me I can't react or run as fast as I used to. But Harper is right - the main enemy is on the other side of the sky. While it's our own responsibility to be careful, the more I read about the scams people have fallen victim to the more I find myself incredulous at the pathetic processes and systems banks and other companies seem to have in place. In particular, I seethe about banks that won't co-operate with victims who aren't their customer, protecting criminals who have been allowed to open accounts with flaky ID to funnel away proceeds of crime with impunity. I'm sure there are all sorts of angles on this - after all folk might quite like to retract transactions they regret. But surely banks could cooperate to track fraudulent transfers. And phone companies who allow scammers to make it look like a bank or other instutution is in the line, just do something will you!
The banks deservedly got a bad press over the financial crisis. You wouldn't think their reputation could go lower. But it has. If they are giving these issues any thought at all they are making a very good job of concealing it. They're like one of Roy's shadow doppelgangers, effectively collaborating with crooks on the other side of the sky.
* at least we thought we had. I keep a list of up to date emergency phone numbers separately from cards and cash - calling the number on the back of the card is ok if you have the card. But I don't write down the card numbers and if you don't have the card.... The bank that used to like to give you a little eXtra managed to get in a total tangle and cancel the wrong card as we realised when we got home and a replacement had arrived for a card that wasn't stolen. Which meant the stolen card hadn't been blocked. When we phoned again they didn't seem to understand why we were agitated, given that I had already checked there were no transactions on the card. "Because you're obviously not as good as the other bank we had to call". Aaaaarghhh!
Thursday, 31 October 2019
Grenfell victimisation
The first stage of the Grenfell Inquiry confirmed much of what we knew already: that the building refurbishment breached fire regulations which themselves are probably lax compared with countries such as the USA and the emergency response was brave but lacking in common sense. So nothing much surprising, even though it took over 2 years. Indeed, the fact that the second stage may not report until 2022 is depressing, not surprising. No wonder it takes us so long to build a railway or a nuclear power station.
Much ordure has been heaped on the head of the London Fire Brigade commissioner Dany Cotton, mainly for the "remarkable insensitivity" of her evidence, saying she would not change anything done on the night and comparing the incident with a spacecraft landing on the Shard, even though cladding fires have happened before including one at Lakanal House in south London which killed six people in 2009. One wonders why she didn't say that, in hindsight, more people might have been saved by changing from "stay put" much earlier, though that wasn't necessarily obvious at the time. Some have speculated that Cotton's stonewalling approach might have flowed from legal advice to try to avoid liability for the fire brigade. But it doesn't take the forensic legal mind of a retired judge to point out that, as the fire brigade belatedly switched from "stay put" to "evacuate" that doing so earlier might have helped.
Ms Cotton was also criticised for her "apparent lack of curiosity" when she arrived on site at 3am. Now I made a whole management career out of asking simple questions - the most revealing responses often flowed from questions I had thought almost too dumb to ask - but the situation on the ground at that time at Grenfell didn't really lend itself to detailed quizzing of her subordinates about what they were doing and why.
The issue of building regulations, practice, checking and inspection will surely prove to be more substantive and to hold out the prospect of saving lives in the future without resorting to last ditch efforts by emergency services working in life threatening conditions. But in the meantime the resentful cry has gone up about Ms Cotton's remuneration. "Grenfell fury at £234,000 boss's plan to retire at 50 with pension pot of £2M" said the Daily Mail, for example.
Now I'm not sure why the LFB commissioner earns £234k, a lot more than the prime minister. The job has scale, but limited complexity - there are a lot of fire stations and folk in them all charged with doing the same things. But she does earn £234k. "She should not get any pay off" said one Grenfell survivor, arguing that Ms Cotton should be stripped of her pension. Another described Ms Cotton's pension as "like winning the lottery".
Now one can argue that some public sector pension schemes are wildly generous, wholly unaffordable in the private sector. (Hypocrisy alert - I benefited through being a member of such a scheme for most of the first half of my career....) Ms Cotton can retire aged 50 on a full pension with 32 years service, 3 years of it as commissioner. And in the nature of final salary schemes folk like Ms Cotton who complete their career with a stratospheric salary get their whole pension based on that salary, even though their contributions were based on a much lower average salary across tgeir career. This form of subsidy by the people who stay in the same grade all their career has always struck me as a Robin Hood in reverse kind of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. ("Yes, but don't tell them" said one company pension manager when I made that remark many years ago). And I don't know whether Ms Cotton is benefiting from any added years enhancement if she retires early - I suspect not given the way I understand the fire brigade and police pensions schemes are set up. But if she is not, it's ever so simple. Pensions are just deferred pay. Ms Cotton has earned this benefit through her career and is entitled to now claim it. There appears to be no case that she has not done her job - she hasn't been suspended or investigated to my knowledge. If she was sacked I feel sure she would successfully claim unfair dismissal at an industrial tribunal. But even if she was culpable, she had worked through all her career to that point and earned her pay doing it.
So Dany Cotton should be allowed to retire in peace and reflect on her lack of sensitivity at her leisure while I reflect on just how unforgiving and vengeful our society has become, always looking for someone to blame, even if they were just doing their job.
In the meantime there are more important things to address. Building regulations and how we check compliance certainly. Public sector pension schemes - yes to that too, though politically difficult the current apartheid like divide with the private sector is unjustifiable.
I am left with one other uncomfortable and currently almost unsayable thought. How did such an apparently limited individual as Dany Cotton come to be commissioner of the London Fire Brigade? I accept that the Inquiry might not have revealed all her management competencies. But on what we saw? We need more women in high profile jobs throughout our society but maybe this one was over promoted - a comment that obviously you could equally make had she been male, but there is pressure to appoint women these days.
But she was put in the role and, if she wasn't up to it the LFB should look at its appointment process. As she was put in the role and presumably up to Grenfell was performing satisfactorily she is entitled to her pay, including the deferred pensionable element. After all there are plenty of women arguing currently that if you do the job the pay should be the same, however well you do it (though mostly these are female employees at the BBC.....)
Leave Dany Cotton alone with her no doubt uncomfortable thoughts and let's move on to the more important issues. Can someone give Sir Martin Moore-Bick a prod to hurry up? There I go, looking for someone to blame....
Much ordure has been heaped on the head of the London Fire Brigade commissioner Dany Cotton, mainly for the "remarkable insensitivity" of her evidence, saying she would not change anything done on the night and comparing the incident with a spacecraft landing on the Shard, even though cladding fires have happened before including one at Lakanal House in south London which killed six people in 2009. One wonders why she didn't say that, in hindsight, more people might have been saved by changing from "stay put" much earlier, though that wasn't necessarily obvious at the time. Some have speculated that Cotton's stonewalling approach might have flowed from legal advice to try to avoid liability for the fire brigade. But it doesn't take the forensic legal mind of a retired judge to point out that, as the fire brigade belatedly switched from "stay put" to "evacuate" that doing so earlier might have helped.
Ms Cotton was also criticised for her "apparent lack of curiosity" when she arrived on site at 3am. Now I made a whole management career out of asking simple questions - the most revealing responses often flowed from questions I had thought almost too dumb to ask - but the situation on the ground at that time at Grenfell didn't really lend itself to detailed quizzing of her subordinates about what they were doing and why.
The issue of building regulations, practice, checking and inspection will surely prove to be more substantive and to hold out the prospect of saving lives in the future without resorting to last ditch efforts by emergency services working in life threatening conditions. But in the meantime the resentful cry has gone up about Ms Cotton's remuneration. "Grenfell fury at £234,000 boss's plan to retire at 50 with pension pot of £2M" said the Daily Mail, for example.
Now I'm not sure why the LFB commissioner earns £234k, a lot more than the prime minister. The job has scale, but limited complexity - there are a lot of fire stations and folk in them all charged with doing the same things. But she does earn £234k. "She should not get any pay off" said one Grenfell survivor, arguing that Ms Cotton should be stripped of her pension. Another described Ms Cotton's pension as "like winning the lottery".
Now one can argue that some public sector pension schemes are wildly generous, wholly unaffordable in the private sector. (Hypocrisy alert - I benefited through being a member of such a scheme for most of the first half of my career....) Ms Cotton can retire aged 50 on a full pension with 32 years service, 3 years of it as commissioner. And in the nature of final salary schemes folk like Ms Cotton who complete their career with a stratospheric salary get their whole pension based on that salary, even though their contributions were based on a much lower average salary across tgeir career. This form of subsidy by the people who stay in the same grade all their career has always struck me as a Robin Hood in reverse kind of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. ("Yes, but don't tell them" said one company pension manager when I made that remark many years ago). And I don't know whether Ms Cotton is benefiting from any added years enhancement if she retires early - I suspect not given the way I understand the fire brigade and police pensions schemes are set up. But if she is not, it's ever so simple. Pensions are just deferred pay. Ms Cotton has earned this benefit through her career and is entitled to now claim it. There appears to be no case that she has not done her job - she hasn't been suspended or investigated to my knowledge. If she was sacked I feel sure she would successfully claim unfair dismissal at an industrial tribunal. But even if she was culpable, she had worked through all her career to that point and earned her pay doing it.
So Dany Cotton should be allowed to retire in peace and reflect on her lack of sensitivity at her leisure while I reflect on just how unforgiving and vengeful our society has become, always looking for someone to blame, even if they were just doing their job.
In the meantime there are more important things to address. Building regulations and how we check compliance certainly. Public sector pension schemes - yes to that too, though politically difficult the current apartheid like divide with the private sector is unjustifiable.
I am left with one other uncomfortable and currently almost unsayable thought. How did such an apparently limited individual as Dany Cotton come to be commissioner of the London Fire Brigade? I accept that the Inquiry might not have revealed all her management competencies. But on what we saw? We need more women in high profile jobs throughout our society but maybe this one was over promoted - a comment that obviously you could equally make had she been male, but there is pressure to appoint women these days.
But she was put in the role and, if she wasn't up to it the LFB should look at its appointment process. As she was put in the role and presumably up to Grenfell was performing satisfactorily she is entitled to her pay, including the deferred pensionable element. After all there are plenty of women arguing currently that if you do the job the pay should be the same, however well you do it (though mostly these are female employees at the BBC.....)
Leave Dany Cotton alone with her no doubt uncomfortable thoughts and let's move on to the more important issues. Can someone give Sir Martin Moore-Bick a prod to hurry up? There I go, looking for someone to blame....
Friday, 25 October 2019
Hacked off by the Haka
The rugby world cup has been a great success, typhoons notwithstanding, particularly because of the Japanese hosts: both their organisation and their joyous, fast, entertaining play. But now we move on to the business end of the tournament with the expected big guns in the semi-finals.
I am hoping Wales and England will play well and win. I am rather more confident about Wales, though they haven't played that well yet. As ever, England will have to play a solid game through the whole match to beat the All Blacks who, not unreasonably, have been described as the most outstanding team in world sport in recent decades.
England's first problem with the All Blacks is one I share: what to do about the haka, their pre-match ritual inspired by Maori culture. I don't care for the haka, partly because it is clearly ridiculous - it must be almost demeaning to perform. It's not so much that the All Blacks perform their ritual, which is clearly intended to be not only motivational but also confrontational and intimidating, more the range of problems that it has thrown up in terms of how opposition teams respond.
I'm not the only one who feels this way, though I admit I'm in a minority. I've been reading two interesting histories of the haka. One you can read at https://deadspin.com/a-brief-history-of-rugby-teams-trying-to-respond-to-the-1796680563 gives a history of recent responses by other teams which have included teams going nose to nose with the All Blacks and the Tongans performing a kind of rival ritual at the same time. These pranks have usually not ended well as they seem to have motivated the All Blacks to even higher levels of performance. For example, in 1997 hooker Richard Cockerill, making his test debut for England, crossed the halfway line to go nose to nose with his opposite number during the haka. There was some pushing and shoving before the referee intervened. As the teams took their positions England captain Martin Johnson asked Cockerill "what the *** have you done?". New Zealand won 25-8. There are many other examples of teams confronting or ignoring the haka, only to motivate the All Blacks performing it.
During the Lions tour of 2005, coach Sir Clive Woodward did some research and formulated a response which was intended to both respect the haka and show the All Blacks his team were ready for battle. “It was based on getting an email from a Māori,” said Woodward. “It said the chief (O’Driscoll) should go out with one of the youngest players and he should then accept the challenge after the haka is done by picking up and throwing a piece of grass in the air as a mark of respect and friendship. That’s why we did it. We thought it was a nice idea.” He perhaps should have shared this idea with his opposite number, since the it is possible that the Kiwis did not think it was such a nice idea: this was the match in which, after less than one minute's play, O'Driscoll was picked up and slammed down on his neck by two New Zealand players. I hadn't been aware of this possible connection.
The haka does have a long history - when Wales played New Zealand for the first time in Cardiff in 1905 it was performed between the two national anthems, rather than immediately before the kick off. In a match to mark the centenary of the first game Wales persuaded New Zealand to recreate the original sequence. (It didn't change much, the All Blacks won 41-3). Wales asked for the same change in 2006, citing consultation with two Maori chiefs that their national anthem was an appropriate response to the haka. Despite six weeks notice the New Zealanders resisted and, after a stand off, decided to perform their routine in their dressing room. The crowd, puzzled by the absence of the haka, booed and New Zealand won 45-10.
Before the 1991 World Cup semi final, Australian David Campese ignored the haka by practicing his kicking before going on to produce a great individual performance as the Aussies won 16-6. Other teams have gone into a pre-game huddle to blot out the noise and gurning. But this option seems to have been squashed as I understand World Rugby has decreed that opposition teams must "respect" the haka. This seems to me to be handing an instiutionalised advantage to the Kiwis.
But in an interesting rugby blog called blitzdefence (sounds more gridiron, know) I came across at https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/its-time-to-end-the-haka/ the writers said "It's time to end the haka" arguing that, while the haka has been performed for over a hundred years, a look at old videos shows it changed beyond recognition in the 1980s. For example, take a look at this rather comical you tube clip of the haka in 1973:
By 2005 it's a lot more aggressive: https://youtu.be/dGazxnFhPH4
Moreover, until 1986 it was performed exclusively overseas, not in New Zealand. So much for tradition.
The problem is it leaves opponents, under instruction to "respect" the haka, a dilemma. Stand there and watch? Or turn your backs on them, risk censure and motivating the opposition further?
Blitzdefence argue that, in an era of professional sport, it is wrong to give the All Blacks special treatment by allowing them to perform their ritual immediately before kick off and not other teams whatever the supposed cultural significance. Oh yes, it is special treatment: the Aussies had Waltzing Matilda blasted out for a while before kick off until the 2003 World Cup where it was decreed teams could have only one song, i.e. their national anthem, apart from songs that are culturally important. Which turned out to just be the haka. (OK, so just sing it and stand still then!)
Blitzdefence suggest it's time to give opposing teams the choice of whether the All Blacks can perform the haka before kick off or whether, if they want to perform it on the pitch, they must do so well before the national anthems, perhaps 20 minutes before kick off, i.e. while the teams are doing their warm up. I would add, if it's done while both teams are on the pitch, let them perform it at one end, facing the crowd, not adjacent to the half way line.
The crowd can, of course, intervene: in 2012 the Twickenham crowd blotted out the haka with Swing Low Sweet Chariot.
That option isn't open to England tomorrow. Their best response will be to simply go out and win the game. At least I can't see Owen Farrell being intimidated.
But the haka has become a distraction. Shift it away from kick off and let's concentrate on the game.
P.S. England's "V" formation, boxing in the All Black's haka and making them look rather like a bunch of snooker reds waiting to be scattered, was perhaps the most effective opposition response to date. And I loved Owen Farrell's wry smirk. But I enjoyed the England performance in the match far more. This England team was confident enough to not be intimidated by the All Blacks reputation. It was one of the best English rugby performances I've seen. A shame the Welsh couldn't produce a good enough performance against South Africa.
P.S. England's "V" formation, boxing in the All Black's haka and making them look rather like a bunch of snooker reds waiting to be scattered, was perhaps the most effective opposition response to date. And I loved Owen Farrell's wry smirk. But I enjoyed the England performance in the match far more. This England team was confident enough to not be intimidated by the All Blacks reputation. It was one of the best English rugby performances I've seen. A shame the Welsh couldn't produce a good enough performance against South Africa.
Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Which useful idiot will win my prize?
There is a new candidate for my useful idiot of the decade award, which I had thought was a walkover for Margaret Beckett, the self confessed moron.
Mags, bless her, nominated Jeremy Corbyn even though she didn't want him as Labour leader because she thought there should be a candidate from the left in the leadership election even though he didn't have enough support to even get on the ballot paper. "At no point did I intend to vote for Jeremy myself.....nor advise anyone else to do it," she said. When MPs who "lent" their nominations to Mr Corbyn to "broaden the debate" were described as "morons" she didn't demur*. Beckett is one of the touted candidates for caretaker prime minister in the risible GNU (Government of National Unity) idea.
How could that be beaten?
Well Sir Oliver Letwin has stepped forward with his successful amendment to the Commons motion which allowed MPs to defer the decision on Brexit, even tough he supports Johnson's deal and subsequently voted for it.
Letwin, of course, has form: he was the brains behind the poll tax which did for Margaret Thatcher and also behind the fixed term Parliament Act which means we can't get an election even though the current Parliament is moribund and discredited. Apparently when he was a teenager he was branded a "nice boy, but no common sense"**.
I guess which idiot wins my prize depends on whether Corbyn ever gets to be PM or whether Letwin's intervention proves fatal for Brexit. The latter seems somewhat more likely at the moment, though on current public mood even if this Parliament can't get Brexit done I think the bookies would favour Leave to win a second referendum (the EU seem to think that's what would happen) and Johnson would probably win a majority in a General election on a platform of getting the deal implemented. While Corbyn is long odds to be PM at the moment things can change and I hate to think how much damage he and his ilk would do to the economy in a 5 year term. Probably far more than any hit from Brexit, which I am currently feeling could be smaller than the musings of the dismal scientists that are economists.
* BBC website: Maraget Beckett: I was moron to nominate Jeremy Corbyn
** Dominic Lawson's account in the Daily Mail.
Mags, bless her, nominated Jeremy Corbyn even though she didn't want him as Labour leader because she thought there should be a candidate from the left in the leadership election even though he didn't have enough support to even get on the ballot paper. "At no point did I intend to vote for Jeremy myself.....nor advise anyone else to do it," she said. When MPs who "lent" their nominations to Mr Corbyn to "broaden the debate" were described as "morons" she didn't demur*. Beckett is one of the touted candidates for caretaker prime minister in the risible GNU (Government of National Unity) idea.
How could that be beaten?
Well Sir Oliver Letwin has stepped forward with his successful amendment to the Commons motion which allowed MPs to defer the decision on Brexit, even tough he supports Johnson's deal and subsequently voted for it.
Letwin, of course, has form: he was the brains behind the poll tax which did for Margaret Thatcher and also behind the fixed term Parliament Act which means we can't get an election even though the current Parliament is moribund and discredited. Apparently when he was a teenager he was branded a "nice boy, but no common sense"**.
I guess which idiot wins my prize depends on whether Corbyn ever gets to be PM or whether Letwin's intervention proves fatal for Brexit. The latter seems somewhat more likely at the moment, though on current public mood even if this Parliament can't get Brexit done I think the bookies would favour Leave to win a second referendum (the EU seem to think that's what would happen) and Johnson would probably win a majority in a General election on a platform of getting the deal implemented. While Corbyn is long odds to be PM at the moment things can change and I hate to think how much damage he and his ilk would do to the economy in a 5 year term. Probably far more than any hit from Brexit, which I am currently feeling could be smaller than the musings of the dismal scientists that are economists.
* BBC website: Maraget Beckett: I was moron to nominate Jeremy Corbyn
** Dominic Lawson's account in the Daily Mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)