2012 has been a vintage year for British sport. Think of Andy Murray’s first Grand Slam victory, Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour de France, and the outstanding performances of British athletes at the Olympics and Paralympics. But, we must not forget that this is not normal. British sport and English football in particular is traditionally associated with mediocrity and under-achievement. This article celebrates and embraces this, outlining what might be the weakest XI that England has produced over the last 20 years.
Goalkeeper: Scott Carson
Was once tipped to be an international goalkeeping superstar. However, it’s fair to say that it never materialised... After showing early promise at Leeds and Liverpool things didn’t really go to plan with England. Instead, he is most renowned for an uncomfortable performance for England against Croatia, including that fumble.
Right-back: Luke Young
Must admit that this was a problem position given Gary Neville’s dominance over much of the period. Micah Richards and Glen Johnson have also proved reliable. Luke Young is chosen largely because he was so anonymous during his England career – so much so that when his international retirement was announced it barely featured in the headlines or entered the consciousness of England fans.
Centre-back: Neil Ruddock
Competent defender but hardly one of the stand-out players from Liverpool’s Spice Boys generation. To say that he was international class would be dubious in the extreme (especially when you think that Steve Bruce never played for England). Only capped the once by England – clearly didn’t take Terry Venables long to work out that Razor wouldn’t win Euro 96 for England.
Centre-back: John Terry (c)
Perhaps my most controversial choice. Chosen primarily as he’s clearly been the worst England captain over the last 20 years. Sacked twice from the job and a huge nuisance at the 2010 World Cup. Plus, I still maintain that had either Jonathan Woodgate or Ledley King had any fitness whatsoever, Terry would only have been capped a few times.
Left-back: Phil Neville
Again, perhaps an odd choice, especially as it’s worth considering that Steve Guppy has an England cap. However, there is some method to my madness. Phil Neville’s been a decent player, especially so in central midfield. He’s dreadful at left-back though and his performance against Romania in Euro 2000 is enough to earn him a place in my XI.
Right midfield: Kieron Dyer
Always had bags of ability but again is another one of those who couldn’t translate club form for England. His debut aside, most of his performances for England were ineffective and unmemorable. Apparently he has 33 international caps. And no, that’s not a typo.
Central midfield: Gavin McCann
Another one of those unmemorable players who was solid but unspectacular at domestic level. Much like Ruddock though, he clearly wasn’t international class. His only cap came during Sven’s first game in charge for England. Worth pointing out that he was chosen ahead of Steven Gerrard for this match…
Central midfield: Jordan Henderson
Even worse value for money for Liverpool than Andy Carroll has been so far (and that takes some doing). This makes it all the more incredible that Jordan Henderson has played tournament football for England. Still time for him to deliver on his full potential but surely Hodgson will have the sense to give Wilshere and Rodwell a chance first?
Left midfield: Lee Hendrie
Had established a decent reputation for himself at England U-21 level but it’s fair to say that this was not sustained. His time at Aston Villa showed that he had real potential but his career is more renowned for disciplinary issues and off-the-field problems. Little wonder then that his England career lasted less than 20 minutes. Aged 35, he currently plays for the world-renowned Tamworth FC.
Striker: David Nugent
Based on stats alone, you’d think I was being very harsh. One cap, one goal. However, let’s remember that his goal came against Andorra, and from about two inches out. When leaving Preston he tried to engineer a move to Everton. David Moyes said no. At Portsmouth, Harry Redknapp tried to sell him soon after buying him. Not good enough for mid-table Premiership teams yet deemed good enough for England…
Michael Ricketts
Called up to the England team off the back of scoring 15 goals for Bolton in the first half of the 2001/02 season. Looked horribly out of his depth though during his first and only match for England. Also worth bearing in mind that the 01/02 season is the only one where scored 10 or more goals. Prolific indeed.
Subs
Rob Green, Steve Guppy, John Scales, Seth Johnson, Fraizer Campbell, Kevin Davies
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Why regeneration may not always be effective in tackling deprivation
Regeneration is a term that’s been heavily used in the popular media over recent weeks. In particular, it’s been used in the context of the Olympic legacy – transforming an area of East London that was previously derelict and run-down into a thriving area that’s attractive to people. However, much of the coverage given to regeneration seems to assume that it’ll automatically tackle deprivation. This article however argues that we should not have such blind faith in the power of regeneration – if it’s not properly thought out it’s a policy goal that can exacerbate the problems it is trying to solve.
For me at least, regeneration means taking an area with run-down housing, stark social divisions, and lacking in businesses; and turning it into an area that is attractive, economically vibrant, and less socially divided. There are a number of ways that this can be achieved but traditionally regeneration involves overhauling local infrastructure, bringing in private sector investment and building new homes. However, in bringing about regeneration in such a manner, other issues spring up:
Very often when we talk about regenerating an area, we’re in reality talking about trying to gentrify it– improving the physical and economic landscape of a given place to encourage more affluent individuals to move there. This however, ignores the needs of residents that currently live there. In particular, building new homes exclusively for working professionals can raise local property prices so far that it drives locals out. Rather than revitalising an area for its current residents by tackling the root social and economic causes of deprivation, poorly thought out regeneration may simply look to increase the number of middle class inhabitants. Worse still, by driving locals out, you might just be shifting the original problem onto another area.
A second danger is brought by the fact that regeneration initiatives are often run top-down – led and controlled by large centralised organisations. This is hardly surprising given that regeneration requires the co-ordination of some many resources simultaneously that only large corporations and/or central government are capable of doing it. However, top-down regeneration risks producing facilities and buildings that the local population can’t use. In the case of public sector-led regeneration, we may get buildings or venues which local residents have little interest in. In the case of private sector-led regeneration, we may see the creation of jobs which locals aren’t suitable for or insufficiently trained to fill. In both cases, a top-down approach may mean that outsiders (who may already come from more affluent regions) see all the benefits from regeneration whilst the locals see little overall improvement in their lot.
Before I end, it’s worth pointing out that regeneration shouldn’t be disregarded as a policy option. Clearly there’s nothing inherently wrong in trying to improve an area and tackle deprivation. Indeed, there are examples where regeneration has widely been regarded as having been effective (e.g. Glasgow since the early 1990s and Liverpool over the past decade). However, as this article has argued, regeneration isn’t the silver bullet to addressing deprivation that it is often made out to be. Too often it is more concerned about attracting the affluent to a region as a short-to-medium term fix. To be really effective, regeneration needs to improve the root social and economic conditions that cause deprivation in the first place. This means placing the needs of an area’s current residents at the heart of policy.
For me at least, regeneration means taking an area with run-down housing, stark social divisions, and lacking in businesses; and turning it into an area that is attractive, economically vibrant, and less socially divided. There are a number of ways that this can be achieved but traditionally regeneration involves overhauling local infrastructure, bringing in private sector investment and building new homes. However, in bringing about regeneration in such a manner, other issues spring up:
Very often when we talk about regenerating an area, we’re in reality talking about trying to gentrify it– improving the physical and economic landscape of a given place to encourage more affluent individuals to move there. This however, ignores the needs of residents that currently live there. In particular, building new homes exclusively for working professionals can raise local property prices so far that it drives locals out. Rather than revitalising an area for its current residents by tackling the root social and economic causes of deprivation, poorly thought out regeneration may simply look to increase the number of middle class inhabitants. Worse still, by driving locals out, you might just be shifting the original problem onto another area.
A second danger is brought by the fact that regeneration initiatives are often run top-down – led and controlled by large centralised organisations. This is hardly surprising given that regeneration requires the co-ordination of some many resources simultaneously that only large corporations and/or central government are capable of doing it. However, top-down regeneration risks producing facilities and buildings that the local population can’t use. In the case of public sector-led regeneration, we may get buildings or venues which local residents have little interest in. In the case of private sector-led regeneration, we may see the creation of jobs which locals aren’t suitable for or insufficiently trained to fill. In both cases, a top-down approach may mean that outsiders (who may already come from more affluent regions) see all the benefits from regeneration whilst the locals see little overall improvement in their lot.
Before I end, it’s worth pointing out that regeneration shouldn’t be disregarded as a policy option. Clearly there’s nothing inherently wrong in trying to improve an area and tackle deprivation. Indeed, there are examples where regeneration has widely been regarded as having been effective (e.g. Glasgow since the early 1990s and Liverpool over the past decade). However, as this article has argued, regeneration isn’t the silver bullet to addressing deprivation that it is often made out to be. Too often it is more concerned about attracting the affluent to a region as a short-to-medium term fix. To be really effective, regeneration needs to improve the root social and economic conditions that cause deprivation in the first place. This means placing the needs of an area’s current residents at the heart of policy.
Monday, 10 September 2012
Why Ferrari should consider Kamui Kobayashi for 2013
There’s lots of speculation right now as to what the Formula 1 driver line-ups will be in 2013. Ferrari are at the centre of much of the gossip. Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Mark Webber, Sergio Perez, Robert Kubica and seemingly most of the grid has been linked with the Ferrari seat currently occupied by Felipe Massa. However, there’s one man who’s not been talked about and who to my mind at least, would be the perfect choice – Kamui Kobayashi.
The main thing Ferrari will be looking for is someone who’ll be a regular podium contender but who won’t be quick enough to challenge Fernando Alonso for the championship. In Kobayashi, Ferrari would have someone who regularly qualifies in the top 10 and has demonstrated overtaking skills to match the very best on the grid. With the right equipment, he clearly has the potential to win multiple grand prix but probably not championships – an ideal scenario for Ferrari.
Linked to this is a second factor, Ferrari’s system of having designated No.1 and No.2 drivers. Many drivers won’t put up with this and it certainly caused issues in Ferrari’s recent talks with Button and Webber. However, it might well be easier to get someone like Kobayashi on board as a No.2 driver. Under normal circumstances he wouldn’t come close to getting a seat with Ferrari and might be more receptive to playing second fiddle to Alonso in return for a competitive car. Furthermore, there’s the added incentive that a solid year at Ferrari will put him in the frame for a more prolonged stay at either Red Bull or Mercedes who should have seats available from 2014. The longer term rewards might make Kobayashi more willing to put up with the short-term inconveniences he could face at Ferrari.
Even if Ferrari can offer prospective drivers an equal standing with Alonso, there’s an additional issue that the Ferrari seat is only likely to be available for one year given the rumours of a contract with Sebastian Vettel for 2014. For that reason, Ferrari won’t be able to attract the top tier of drivers: the likes of Hamilton and Raikkonen will feel they are worthy of multi-year contracts. Ferrari therefore will have a limited pool of drivers then can pick from. The likes of Paul di Resta or Sergio Perez might be options here but Kobayashi has more experience than the pair which helps his case.
There’s an added bonus of the marketing benefits that having Kobayashi would have. Traditionally, Japan’s always shown huge support to McLaren given their previous links with Honda. Kobayashi, however is by some margin the best driver Japan has had in recent years. As a country that seemingly loves it motorsport, Ferrari might be able to use Kobayashi as a way to help further their presence in Japan.
All things considered, I think Ferrari could do far worse than taking on Kobayashi for 2013. Doubt it will happen though, I’m expecting Felipe Massa to be around for another year…
The main thing Ferrari will be looking for is someone who’ll be a regular podium contender but who won’t be quick enough to challenge Fernando Alonso for the championship. In Kobayashi, Ferrari would have someone who regularly qualifies in the top 10 and has demonstrated overtaking skills to match the very best on the grid. With the right equipment, he clearly has the potential to win multiple grand prix but probably not championships – an ideal scenario for Ferrari.
Linked to this is a second factor, Ferrari’s system of having designated No.1 and No.2 drivers. Many drivers won’t put up with this and it certainly caused issues in Ferrari’s recent talks with Button and Webber. However, it might well be easier to get someone like Kobayashi on board as a No.2 driver. Under normal circumstances he wouldn’t come close to getting a seat with Ferrari and might be more receptive to playing second fiddle to Alonso in return for a competitive car. Furthermore, there’s the added incentive that a solid year at Ferrari will put him in the frame for a more prolonged stay at either Red Bull or Mercedes who should have seats available from 2014. The longer term rewards might make Kobayashi more willing to put up with the short-term inconveniences he could face at Ferrari.
Even if Ferrari can offer prospective drivers an equal standing with Alonso, there’s an additional issue that the Ferrari seat is only likely to be available for one year given the rumours of a contract with Sebastian Vettel for 2014. For that reason, Ferrari won’t be able to attract the top tier of drivers: the likes of Hamilton and Raikkonen will feel they are worthy of multi-year contracts. Ferrari therefore will have a limited pool of drivers then can pick from. The likes of Paul di Resta or Sergio Perez might be options here but Kobayashi has more experience than the pair which helps his case.
There’s an added bonus of the marketing benefits that having Kobayashi would have. Traditionally, Japan’s always shown huge support to McLaren given their previous links with Honda. Kobayashi, however is by some margin the best driver Japan has had in recent years. As a country that seemingly loves it motorsport, Ferrari might be able to use Kobayashi as a way to help further their presence in Japan.
All things considered, I think Ferrari could do far worse than taking on Kobayashi for 2013. Doubt it will happen though, I’m expecting Felipe Massa to be around for another year…
Thursday, 23 August 2012
Bentham’s Best Burrito – Where’s the best burrito place near to UCL?
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, 15 July 2012
Is the Coalition simply enforcing the Labour 2010 election manifesto?
While working on my dissertation I’ve spent some time reading the party manifestos from the 2010 election. It really is as thrilling as it sounds… One thing however, did catch my interest – the uncanny resemblances between Labour manifesto pledges and actual economic policy introduced by the Coalition since coming to office.
Below, I’ve put in bold some of the notable manifesto pledges from Labour in 2010 together with the Coalition’s policy response in the same area. As you’ll see, there are some remarkable similarities:
Cuts to lower priority spending
In 2010, Labour claimed that tough choices had to be made with regards to public spending. Money was only pledged in areas deemed to be of high priority. The Coalition instead has said they are only prepared to fund projects if they offer high added value. Isn’t this what Labour were saying albeit using slightly different language? Surely high priority projects in reality are those with the highest added value?
Rebuilding the banking system
The Labour manifesto refers to making deals with banks to increase lending, changing boardroom culture, curbing executive pay, and breaking up banks. We’ve seen the Coalition advocate each of these with ‘Project Merlin’ to increase lending, Osborne and Cameron’s recent stance on the Barclays Libor fixing shenanigans, and Vince Cable’s push for wholesale reforms of the state-owned banks.
Investment in infrastructure
The two main infrastructure projects that Labour are looking to push in their manifesto are the roll-out of high speed broadband across the UK, and an upgrade of the national transport network, especially with the HS2 rail network. The past couple of Budget statements from George Osborne have clearly stated the Coalition’s desire to push through infrastructure upgrades in both these areas too.
Capping of public sector pay
Unions have been heavily critical of the lack of public sector pay increases together with pension reforms brought in by the Coalition. However, the Labour manifesto itself calls for “action to control public-sector pay including a one per cent cap on basic pay uplifts for 2011-12 and 2012-13” and for “tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the taxpayers’ liability.”
Deficit reduction
This is probably the big difference that everybody likes to talk about. In reality though, Labour manifesto pledges and current Coalition policies are not that far apart from one another. Although clearly stating that they would not “put the recovery at risk by reckless cuts to public spending this year” Labour nevertheless pledges to “halve the fiscal deficit over four years.” They even state “Once the recovery is secure, we will rapidly reduce the budget deficit.” To me, this says that Labour spending cuts would have started only a year or so after the Coalition began theirs, would have only been marginally shallower, and would have taken only slightly longer than under the Coalition’s current plans.
The similarities in attitudes don’t just end here either. Labour promises to cut red-tape and regulation, and to support SMEs are cornerstones of current Coalition economic policy. Furthermore, Labour’s proposed “Finance for Growth Fund” sounds remarkably similar to the Coalition’s current Regional Growth Fund. And there are plenty of other uncanny resemblances that I can also pull out.
I have my own theory on this. In terms of economic policy, the ideological differences between New Labour (even under Brown & Darling) and Cameron & Osborne’s brand of Conservatism were always limited. Both put forward centrist and minimally interventionist policies although inevitably both camps adopted different rhetoric. The introduction of the Lib Dems into government has forced the Conservatives to blunt their approach somewhat and adopt the more conciliatory rhetoric and policy that you’d naturally expect from New Labour.
The main thing to take away from this article however, is that the Coalition since coming to office has basically followed the same economic approach that Labour was willing to back in 2010…
Below, I’ve put in bold some of the notable manifesto pledges from Labour in 2010 together with the Coalition’s policy response in the same area. As you’ll see, there are some remarkable similarities:
Cuts to lower priority spending
In 2010, Labour claimed that tough choices had to be made with regards to public spending. Money was only pledged in areas deemed to be of high priority. The Coalition instead has said they are only prepared to fund projects if they offer high added value. Isn’t this what Labour were saying albeit using slightly different language? Surely high priority projects in reality are those with the highest added value?
Rebuilding the banking system
The Labour manifesto refers to making deals with banks to increase lending, changing boardroom culture, curbing executive pay, and breaking up banks. We’ve seen the Coalition advocate each of these with ‘Project Merlin’ to increase lending, Osborne and Cameron’s recent stance on the Barclays Libor fixing shenanigans, and Vince Cable’s push for wholesale reforms of the state-owned banks.
Investment in infrastructure
The two main infrastructure projects that Labour are looking to push in their manifesto are the roll-out of high speed broadband across the UK, and an upgrade of the national transport network, especially with the HS2 rail network. The past couple of Budget statements from George Osborne have clearly stated the Coalition’s desire to push through infrastructure upgrades in both these areas too.
Capping of public sector pay
Unions have been heavily critical of the lack of public sector pay increases together with pension reforms brought in by the Coalition. However, the Labour manifesto itself calls for “action to control public-sector pay including a one per cent cap on basic pay uplifts for 2011-12 and 2012-13” and for “tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the taxpayers’ liability.”
Deficit reduction
This is probably the big difference that everybody likes to talk about. In reality though, Labour manifesto pledges and current Coalition policies are not that far apart from one another. Although clearly stating that they would not “put the recovery at risk by reckless cuts to public spending this year” Labour nevertheless pledges to “halve the fiscal deficit over four years.” They even state “Once the recovery is secure, we will rapidly reduce the budget deficit.” To me, this says that Labour spending cuts would have started only a year or so after the Coalition began theirs, would have only been marginally shallower, and would have taken only slightly longer than under the Coalition’s current plans.
The similarities in attitudes don’t just end here either. Labour promises to cut red-tape and regulation, and to support SMEs are cornerstones of current Coalition economic policy. Furthermore, Labour’s proposed “Finance for Growth Fund” sounds remarkably similar to the Coalition’s current Regional Growth Fund. And there are plenty of other uncanny resemblances that I can also pull out.
I have my own theory on this. In terms of economic policy, the ideological differences between New Labour (even under Brown & Darling) and Cameron & Osborne’s brand of Conservatism were always limited. Both put forward centrist and minimally interventionist policies although inevitably both camps adopted different rhetoric. The introduction of the Lib Dems into government has forced the Conservatives to blunt their approach somewhat and adopt the more conciliatory rhetoric and policy that you’d naturally expect from New Labour.
The main thing to take away from this article however, is that the Coalition since coming to office has basically followed the same economic approach that Labour was willing to back in 2010…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)