During a recent procrastination session, I was amazed at the number of places selling burritos near to UCL. Given this and in part inspired by my new favourite TV programme Man vs Food, I decided to pay each one a visit and establish once and for all, which place sold the best burrito near to UCL.
It’s worth pointing out that I’ve adopted quite strict selection criteria for my test. I’ve only selected food outlets that make burritos on site (be it eat-in or take-away) thereby ruling out any supermarket ready meals that might be available near campus. Additionally, all premises must be within a fifteen minute walk of the SPP Rubin Building where I often tend to be based. That therefore rules out places such as Chilango (in Holborn), Tortilla (in Angel), and Wahaca (in Soho). This has left me with five places to assess against each other. Results are below, with each having been visited at least once since May 2012.
El Burrito (Charlotte Place – W1T 1SF)
Pros:
El Burrito has a special place in my heart given that it was the first (and only) burrito place that I would go to when I first came to London four years ago. Standards then began to decline but I am pleased to say they have returned to their past glories. A lovely place that has really friendly staff and a certain charm not seen in some of the chain outlets. Furthermore, their food is more authentic, serving both molé and tinga – both of which are exquisite.
Cons:
On occasions the fillings haven’t necessarily been warm and with only two people serving customers, service can be a little slow at times.
Score: 8/10 – I’m very fond of El Burrito. Criticisms of it are relatively minor. It does amazing food and that’s the most important thing.
Benito’s Hat (Goodge Street – W1T 4NB)
Pros:
For a long time, this was my burrito place of choice and has recently opened up more stores in London. Service has always been unbelievably quick and efficient. You can usually get a seat here as well. Also sells these amazing Mexican soft drinks which taste like a liquid version of Haribo.
Cons:
They’ve recently changed the menu which sadly isn’t as good as their old one. I used to be huge fan of the Ben’s chicken burrito but the new menu has toned down the flavours: producing a simpler to understand menu but ultimately a less exciting meal.
Score: 6/10 – used to be something special but has now just become bog standard. Will satisfy a burrito craving but isn’t a place to shout about.
Mestizo (Euston – NW1 3EL)
Pros:
Mestizo has a very similar menu to El Burrito with whom it shares owners. Again, the quality of food is outstanding and is packed full of authentic flavours. Additionally, you can choose to have your burrito as a quesadilla or chimichanga which El Burrito doesn’t offer.
Although you can get a take away burrito, it’s worth eating in the restaurant upstairs which offers a waiter service and a great lunch time drinks deal. This makes Mestizo the perfect place to go to if you want a long relaxing lunch break that gives you plenty of time to catch up with friends.
Cons:
The burritos aren’t made in front of you, making it difficult have it tailored to your own specific tastes. Eating in the restaurant although being very enjoyable, does make it a more expensive meal.
Score: 9/10 – amazing food and a nice place to hang out. Many will cite this as their favourite and it’s not difficult to see why.
Freebird (Goodge Place – W1T 4LZ)
Pros
Street food as it’s meant to be. Ingredients appear to be fresh and of very good quality. I’m a particular fan of their salsa – I’m yet to find any better in London. There’s always a long queue by the Freebird cart yet it always seems to move relatively quickly.
Cons
Two major problems. Firstly, there’s no seating whatsoever. Not surprising given that it’s a mobile food outlet but they could really do with being allowed to put out a couple of chairs or tables at least. My burrito starts to get cold by the time I reach campus! Secondly, they don’t serve food in the evening.
Score: 7/10 – serves an above average burrito but a couple of major issues prevent me from scoring it even higher.
Chipotle (Charing Cross Road – W1T 2PR)
Pros:
The food is absolutely incredible here. May not be authentic Mexican food (if burritos can be) but certainly doesn’t lack in flavour. Portion sizes are incredibly generous and offer a wide range of filling choices. Aside from the food, there are plenty of major positive points as well. Service is very quick, staff and very helpful and friendly, and there’s tonnes of seating available.
Cons:
One of the more expensive places to grab a burrito. The price of guacamole is especially extortionate - £1.50 for a large tablespoon! Where are they sourcing their avocados from?! Also, of the places listed here, Chipotle is by some margin the furthest away from campus. It is reachable in 15 minutes but it’s a brisk walk.
Score: 9.5/10 – It’s very difficult to criticise Chipotle. It works equally well as place for a very quick bite during a night out, or as a place to have a leisurely meal while nattering away with friends. Above all, the food is epic. Only the price of guacamole prevents it from getting full marks.
Thursday, 23 August 2012
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Analysing the analysts – a review of the BBC’s Olympics coverage
It’s day four since the Olympics ended and I’m still suffering from Olympics Withdrawal Syndrome. There’s a sizeable gap in my daily schedule which I’ve now decided to fill by joining others in conducting a post-mortem of the Games.
My inability to get hold of any tickets in the second week meant that I landed up catching a lot of the Olympics on the telly. In this article I look at some of the hits and misses of the BBC’s coverage.
Hits
Jake Humphrey
As some of you’ll know, I’m a big fan of his F1 coverage. However, I was unsure that he’d be able to transfer his skills over to sports so different to F1. I was hugely surprised though. He came across as well-prepared, enthusiastic and genuinely interested in all the sports he covered. He didn’t claim to be an expert at sports he was new to, being happy to play second fiddle to professionals at each event.
Matt Baker
I remember Matt Baker from his Blue Peter days but never thought he was a presenter who especially stood out. I was very surprised to see him so heavily involved in the Olympics coverage but I'm glad he was. His gymnastics coverage was especially good – providing helpful comments to newcomers to the sport like myself.
Gabby Logan
Although high profile, I still think Gabby Logan’s hugely underrated. She hasn’t been universally praised for her Olympics coverage but I thought she brought bags of enthusiasm, knowledge, and good banter.
Clare Balding
Not being a huge horse racing or rugby league fan, I’d not really seen much of her prior to the Olympics. I’ve really enjoyed watching her light-hearted coverage and her unashamed enthusiasm for all things Team GB. Apparently she’s leading the Paralympics coverage on Channel 4 which is great news and will really help their coverage.
Michael Johnson
Amazing voice and his comments as always were really informative and well-balanced.
Barry Davies
Broadcasting legend. Good to have him back on prime-time TV again. Made hockey even more entertaining than it should have been.
Misses
Trevor Nelson
Made several annoying and pointless comments during the ceremonies. At one point during the opening ceremony he commented on how it was so much better watching it in the stadium than on the TV. Thanks for making the 25 million people stuck a home (who you’re meant to be cheering up) feel so much better….
Gary Lineker
Controversial choice perhaps. Big fan of his football punditry but he seemed a little lost talking about sports he knew nothing about.
John Inverdale
I always enjoy his tennis and rugby coverage whenever I watch them. However, I thought he looked uncomfortable hosting athletics and felt he was an odd choice given that Hazel Irvine and Sue Barker are both experienced in the area.
Denise Lewis
Again, possibly a little harsh – it takes a lot to look even average when you’re working alongside Michael Johnson. Just thought many of her points were clichéd and not especially informative.
My inability to get hold of any tickets in the second week meant that I landed up catching a lot of the Olympics on the telly. In this article I look at some of the hits and misses of the BBC’s coverage.
Hits
Jake Humphrey
As some of you’ll know, I’m a big fan of his F1 coverage. However, I was unsure that he’d be able to transfer his skills over to sports so different to F1. I was hugely surprised though. He came across as well-prepared, enthusiastic and genuinely interested in all the sports he covered. He didn’t claim to be an expert at sports he was new to, being happy to play second fiddle to professionals at each event.
Matt Baker
I remember Matt Baker from his Blue Peter days but never thought he was a presenter who especially stood out. I was very surprised to see him so heavily involved in the Olympics coverage but I'm glad he was. His gymnastics coverage was especially good – providing helpful comments to newcomers to the sport like myself.
Gabby Logan
Although high profile, I still think Gabby Logan’s hugely underrated. She hasn’t been universally praised for her Olympics coverage but I thought she brought bags of enthusiasm, knowledge, and good banter.
Clare Balding
Not being a huge horse racing or rugby league fan, I’d not really seen much of her prior to the Olympics. I’ve really enjoyed watching her light-hearted coverage and her unashamed enthusiasm for all things Team GB. Apparently she’s leading the Paralympics coverage on Channel 4 which is great news and will really help their coverage.
Michael Johnson
Amazing voice and his comments as always were really informative and well-balanced.
Barry Davies
Broadcasting legend. Good to have him back on prime-time TV again. Made hockey even more entertaining than it should have been.
Misses
Trevor Nelson
Made several annoying and pointless comments during the ceremonies. At one point during the opening ceremony he commented on how it was so much better watching it in the stadium than on the TV. Thanks for making the 25 million people stuck a home (who you’re meant to be cheering up) feel so much better….
Gary Lineker
Controversial choice perhaps. Big fan of his football punditry but he seemed a little lost talking about sports he knew nothing about.
John Inverdale
I always enjoy his tennis and rugby coverage whenever I watch them. However, I thought he looked uncomfortable hosting athletics and felt he was an odd choice given that Hazel Irvine and Sue Barker are both experienced in the area.
Denise Lewis
Again, possibly a little harsh – it takes a lot to look even average when you’re working alongside Michael Johnson. Just thought many of her points were clichéd and not especially informative.
Thursday, 2 August 2012
A defence of women’s football
Over the past week, I’ve had one friend of mine rave about women’s football after seeing GB’s women during the Olympics. Others I have spoken to however, have remained somewhat dismissive of it which I still find difficult to understand. Here, I’m going to try and show that women’s football is in its own way as entertaining as the men’s game and worth giving a chance to.
I should point out that I’m no expert when it comes to women’s football. I saw several matches of Euro 2005 and the 2007 World Cup but since then, I’ve only seen bits of the odd FA Cup Final as well as the GB-Brazil Olympic game earlier this week. My knowledge is therefore limited and a little dated but hopefully sufficient enough to reach a sound judgement (of sorts at least).
Myth 1: “The women’s game isn’t any fun as it’s too slow”
It goes without saying that that the men’s game will be quicker than the women’s. However, I’m not sure it’s fair to call the women’s game slow, especially as I’m certain that the likes of Eni Oluko are much quicker than many men I know.
But even if the women’s game is ‘slow,’ is that a problem? Most football fans I know are British and are therefore used to a diet of unbelievably fast paced Premiership football. However, that doesn’t stop us from eulogising about the Spanish and Italian national teams, both of whom play at a slower pace than Premiership teams, relying more on technique, control and possession. So, if we find ‘slow’ teams like Spain entertaining, then surely the perceived lack of pace in the women’s game shouldn’t be a problem? And women players have technique aplenty (see below)…
Myth 2: “Women footballers aren’t very skilful”
Once you see a handful of games you'll quickly see this is far from true. The standard of technical skill and positional play in the women’s football is equal to that of the men’s. In certain areas, I’d say the England women are better than their male counterparts. Since Gazza, England have lacked a world-class, technically skilled footballer with the ability to beat a defender (with the possible exception of Wayne Rooney). England women on the other hand have had Kelly Smith doing just this for the past 17 years. Some of friends are bored of me saying this but I maintain that she’s by some margin one of the best footballers this country has produced over the past couple of decades.
Also, until her recent retirement Faye White had always shown herself to be defender equal in ability to any of her male counterparts. Plus she’s set a better example of being England captain than John Terry has been.
Myth 3: “There’s no point in watching women’s football as it’s an inferior form of the game”
I’ve already argued that the women’s game is not inferior to the men’s game, simply different. However, if for argument’s sake we do say that women’s football isn’t as good as the men’s, that’s still no reason for football fans to neglect the women’s game.
Let’s face it, the quality of men’s matches is very patchy. Bar the odd World Cup or Champions League game, you can’t say that most football games are actually enjoyable to watch. Many fans though will still continue to watch football throughout the year, either out of habit or because they like the wider social side of it. Why else do you get people holding season tickets for non-league teams? In my case, why do I continue to watch so many Blackburn games given their terrible brand of football? Football fans regularly put up with lower-tier football, finding other qualities in it that can be enjoyed. Therefore, how can we claim that the women’s game can’t be entertaining when we give non-league football a chance?
I can’t claim to be an avid follower of women’s football but I won’t dismiss the possibility of watching it again in the future. All I know is that the women’s game can genuinely be enjoyable to watch and hopefully I’ve shown that there are plenty of reasons for its critics to take a more open-minded approach to the game.
I should point out that I’m no expert when it comes to women’s football. I saw several matches of Euro 2005 and the 2007 World Cup but since then, I’ve only seen bits of the odd FA Cup Final as well as the GB-Brazil Olympic game earlier this week. My knowledge is therefore limited and a little dated but hopefully sufficient enough to reach a sound judgement (of sorts at least).
Myth 1: “The women’s game isn’t any fun as it’s too slow”
It goes without saying that that the men’s game will be quicker than the women’s. However, I’m not sure it’s fair to call the women’s game slow, especially as I’m certain that the likes of Eni Oluko are much quicker than many men I know.
But even if the women’s game is ‘slow,’ is that a problem? Most football fans I know are British and are therefore used to a diet of unbelievably fast paced Premiership football. However, that doesn’t stop us from eulogising about the Spanish and Italian national teams, both of whom play at a slower pace than Premiership teams, relying more on technique, control and possession. So, if we find ‘slow’ teams like Spain entertaining, then surely the perceived lack of pace in the women’s game shouldn’t be a problem? And women players have technique aplenty (see below)…
Myth 2: “Women footballers aren’t very skilful”
Once you see a handful of games you'll quickly see this is far from true. The standard of technical skill and positional play in the women’s football is equal to that of the men’s. In certain areas, I’d say the England women are better than their male counterparts. Since Gazza, England have lacked a world-class, technically skilled footballer with the ability to beat a defender (with the possible exception of Wayne Rooney). England women on the other hand have had Kelly Smith doing just this for the past 17 years. Some of friends are bored of me saying this but I maintain that she’s by some margin one of the best footballers this country has produced over the past couple of decades.
Also, until her recent retirement Faye White had always shown herself to be defender equal in ability to any of her male counterparts. Plus she’s set a better example of being England captain than John Terry has been.
Myth 3: “There’s no point in watching women’s football as it’s an inferior form of the game”
I’ve already argued that the women’s game is not inferior to the men’s game, simply different. However, if for argument’s sake we do say that women’s football isn’t as good as the men’s, that’s still no reason for football fans to neglect the women’s game.
Let’s face it, the quality of men’s matches is very patchy. Bar the odd World Cup or Champions League game, you can’t say that most football games are actually enjoyable to watch. Many fans though will still continue to watch football throughout the year, either out of habit or because they like the wider social side of it. Why else do you get people holding season tickets for non-league teams? In my case, why do I continue to watch so many Blackburn games given their terrible brand of football? Football fans regularly put up with lower-tier football, finding other qualities in it that can be enjoyed. Therefore, how can we claim that the women’s game can’t be entertaining when we give non-league football a chance?
I can’t claim to be an avid follower of women’s football but I won’t dismiss the possibility of watching it again in the future. All I know is that the women’s game can genuinely be enjoyable to watch and hopefully I’ve shown that there are plenty of reasons for its critics to take a more open-minded approach to the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)