Previous comment
AVB is doing it all again at Spurs. Gareth Bale's goals carried the team through last season. AVB has spent a fortune building his team. They're not doing well.
Spurs and Chelsea should have paid me for my opinion back in 2011.
The Emperor's New Clothes.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
Saturday, 14 December 2013
Movie scenes
The Valet - French comedy.
Elderly man in a book shop walks to cash desk carrying a book. He's known to the assistant.
"Is this any good?"
"Yes, you bought it last month and you told me you read it in one sitting."
"Did I really? How strange. I still have all my marbles but I have no recollection of that at all. Oh well, Just give me a lamb chop then."
* * *
The Extraordinary Adventures Of Adele Blanc-Sec.
Ramses and other mummies have come to life and are outside The Louvre of the early 1900s. Impressed with the courtyard, Ramses quips "We should build a pyramid here. It would be a fine addition."
"Is this any good?"
"Yes, you bought it last month and you told me you read it in one sitting."
"Did I really? How strange. I still have all my marbles but I have no recollection of that at all. Oh well, Just give me a lamb chop then."
* * *
The Extraordinary Adventures Of Adele Blanc-Sec.
Ramses and other mummies have come to life and are outside The Louvre of the early 1900s. Impressed with the courtyard, Ramses quips "We should build a pyramid here. It would be a fine addition."
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Spoilers
I read an article on when Spoilers 'expire'
The first part I took issue with was “If the ending is really atrocious, like ‘Lost,’ then you’re probably doing people a favour by letting them know.”
I have no idea if Lost was any good but who is the critic to judge for the viewer? It's a tad arrogant. Or snobbish.
As for when the time should be up, 48 hours? Nope.
There's a TV channel in Newfoundland that routinely shows episodes of different series a week behind the rest of Canada. Recording to watch later is common.
But if the critic's review is to avoid spoilers and it's decided the rule is 48 hours, does this mean the critic's review will appear 48 hours later rather than the next day?
But what about movie reviews? Movies are at the cinema for weeks after release. A good reviewer can critique the movie without spoilers. Perhaps TV critics are not that good.
About a week seems reasonable; after all the next episode is on then and people will likely have caught up.
At the same time, it can be frustrating not seeing a review or blog when one has seen the episode and would like to discuss or read a review.
The obvious answer would be to have the review soon after but keep any 'reveals' out of the headings.
That shouldn't be hard.
The first part I took issue with was “If the ending is really atrocious, like ‘Lost,’ then you’re probably doing people a favour by letting them know.”
I have no idea if Lost was any good but who is the critic to judge for the viewer? It's a tad arrogant. Or snobbish.
As for when the time should be up, 48 hours? Nope.
There's a TV channel in Newfoundland that routinely shows episodes of different series a week behind the rest of Canada. Recording to watch later is common.
But if the critic's review is to avoid spoilers and it's decided the rule is 48 hours, does this mean the critic's review will appear 48 hours later rather than the next day?
But what about movie reviews? Movies are at the cinema for weeks after release. A good reviewer can critique the movie without spoilers. Perhaps TV critics are not that good.
About a week seems reasonable; after all the next episode is on then and people will likely have caught up.
At the same time, it can be frustrating not seeing a review or blog when one has seen the episode and would like to discuss or read a review.
The obvious answer would be to have the review soon after but keep any 'reveals' out of the headings.
That shouldn't be hard.
Sunday, 4 August 2013
Naked Salad
Isn't it rather pathetic when you read or hear someone saying that salad dressing contains more calories than you think.
It's a salad. I'm having a salad. That means I'm not having Burger and Chips.
I'm pretty sure a salad, with dressing, is somewhat healthier than burger&chips.
It's a salad. I'm having a salad. That means I'm not having Burger and Chips.
I'm pretty sure a salad, with dressing, is somewhat healthier than burger&chips.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Continuing the football theme
World Cup qualifying.
Some Americans (one in particular in the Guardian today, although he's Canadian) have long been critical of UEFA and the format used for qualifying games for world cup and European Championships. This is because 'minnows' such as San Marino and Faroe Islands are included.
They appear to forget that their own qualification process includes the Virgin Islands 'derby' or Montserrat. Or Turks and Caicos Islands with their 10-0 aggregate defeat to 'giants' Bahamas.
Or El Salvador v Cayman Islands; Canada v Saint Lucia; USA v Antigua and Barbuda.
For some reason it's seen as different because they have an earlier round of games to eliminate their minnows. Well, most of them anyway. I'm not quite sure why they don't see the Cayman Islands (196 in world), Saint Lucia (140) or Antigua and Barbuda (118) and others as minnows while Northern Ireland (119) Cyprus (123) and Luxembourg (148) are considered less worthy.
Most bizarrely of all they think European qualification is easy because there are games to play against minnows. They brag about their 'Hex' stage as being 2 very good teams and 4 decent ones.
Last time these teams were the USA, Mexico (both always guaranteed a WC place, such is the competitive nature of qualifying - sarcasm off) Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Trinidad & Tobago.
Current world ranking positions are 29,16, 50,48, 85 and 82.
Half qualify and a fourth gets a play off opportunity. So a world cup place guaranteed for the 29th best team right down to 50th.
Meanwhile, in Europe, three top 20 teams are in the same qualifying group with just the one automatic place available and a possible play-off for another. Not even a guaranteed play-off.
Sweden fight Germany for the one place. Russia and Portugal, Spain and France. All three pairs going for the one place. In another group, there's England, Poland and Ukraine with surprise package Montenegro - ranked 27.
As things stand right now Denmark, Czech Rep, Sweden, Russia, Portugal, England, Poland, Ukraine, France are teams who will "do well" to come second in their groups. At least three of them will not get a play off spot. It's impossible.
The 4 play off matches are generally seeded. But there are still 6 teams in that group to be added by two others. Quite likely to be Greece and Croatia. Ranked 13 and 4.
So we'll get half a dozen teams ranked higher than the USA and as high as 4th NOT qualifying for the WC because 3 into 1 just won't go.
But European qualifying is "easy" because they'll all have played a minnow.
Just what kind of 'thinking' is this?
Some Americans (one in particular in the Guardian today, although he's Canadian) have long been critical of UEFA and the format used for qualifying games for world cup and European Championships. This is because 'minnows' such as San Marino and Faroe Islands are included.
They appear to forget that their own qualification process includes the Virgin Islands 'derby' or Montserrat. Or Turks and Caicos Islands with their 10-0 aggregate defeat to 'giants' Bahamas.
Or El Salvador v Cayman Islands; Canada v Saint Lucia; USA v Antigua and Barbuda.
For some reason it's seen as different because they have an earlier round of games to eliminate their minnows. Well, most of them anyway. I'm not quite sure why they don't see the Cayman Islands (196 in world), Saint Lucia (140) or Antigua and Barbuda (118) and others as minnows while Northern Ireland (119) Cyprus (123) and Luxembourg (148) are considered less worthy.
Most bizarrely of all they think European qualification is easy because there are games to play against minnows. They brag about their 'Hex' stage as being 2 very good teams and 4 decent ones.
Last time these teams were the USA, Mexico (both always guaranteed a WC place, such is the competitive nature of qualifying - sarcasm off) Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Trinidad & Tobago.
Current world ranking positions are 29,16, 50,48, 85 and 82.
Half qualify and a fourth gets a play off opportunity. So a world cup place guaranteed for the 29th best team right down to 50th.
Meanwhile, in Europe, three top 20 teams are in the same qualifying group with just the one automatic place available and a possible play-off for another. Not even a guaranteed play-off.
Sweden fight Germany for the one place. Russia and Portugal, Spain and France. All three pairs going for the one place. In another group, there's England, Poland and Ukraine with surprise package Montenegro - ranked 27.
As things stand right now Denmark, Czech Rep, Sweden, Russia, Portugal, England, Poland, Ukraine, France are teams who will "do well" to come second in their groups. At least three of them will not get a play off spot. It's impossible.
The 4 play off matches are generally seeded. But there are still 6 teams in that group to be added by two others. Quite likely to be Greece and Croatia. Ranked 13 and 4.
So we'll get half a dozen teams ranked higher than the USA and as high as 4th NOT qualifying for the WC because 3 into 1 just won't go.
But European qualifying is "easy" because they'll all have played a minnow.
Just what kind of 'thinking' is this?
Monday, 13 May 2013
Europa part 2
I saw something the other day about how the Europa is "thought" to be a good guide to league strengths in Europe. That may be true for the more minor leagues and was once true of all leagues in the past. But the top ones now get more Champs League places than Europa which is a complete reversal.
Back in the 80s, there was just one champs place while as many as 4 or 5 in the old UEFA competition.
Now it's 4 CL places and only 3 Europa ones.
It's also wrong to judge the strength of the English league on the UEFA/Europa record.
Unlike other leagues, England has two domestic cups and 2 of the 3 Europa places are awarded to the teams winning (or losing) those competitions. It means that 2 of the 3 English reps are not actually among England's best teams.
Recently we have seen Portsmouth competing for the Europa while being relegated, Birmingham competing for it having just been relegated and it appears Wigan are about to copy that. Stoke finished 13th, lost an FA Cup final but qualified as runners up and then, when competing, had actually finished lower.
So England is often sending teams from the lower half of its top division and sometimes teams from the second tier.
In the meantime, other leagues' champion teams are in that competition. Of course, they are more minor leagues but there are plenty of good leagues like Holland, Portugal, Belgium and France whose 2nd and 3rd best teams are there. Sometimes, even their champions may parachute into the Europa if they fail at the group stage, something that the English teams have (until recently) been avoiding because they've been successful in the Champions competition.
So what you have is one English team from 5th place and two from much lower competing with higher teams, including champions and runners up, from the other leagues.
It's no great surprise that teams like Birmingham, Stoke, Portsmouth, Villa etc have lost out to teams such as Valencia, Porto, Benfica, Bayern Munich.
Had England entered its next genuinely best teams from places 5, 6, 7 and even 8 where cup winners had qualified for CL this would have included Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and a rising Man City.
The Europa record would most likely have been better. And who knows, maybe it wouldn't have lost appeal for the English teams.
Back in the 80s, there was just one champs place while as many as 4 or 5 in the old UEFA competition.
Now it's 4 CL places and only 3 Europa ones.
It's also wrong to judge the strength of the English league on the UEFA/Europa record.
Unlike other leagues, England has two domestic cups and 2 of the 3 Europa places are awarded to the teams winning (or losing) those competitions. It means that 2 of the 3 English reps are not actually among England's best teams.
Recently we have seen Portsmouth competing for the Europa while being relegated, Birmingham competing for it having just been relegated and it appears Wigan are about to copy that. Stoke finished 13th, lost an FA Cup final but qualified as runners up and then, when competing, had actually finished lower.
So England is often sending teams from the lower half of its top division and sometimes teams from the second tier.
In the meantime, other leagues' champion teams are in that competition. Of course, they are more minor leagues but there are plenty of good leagues like Holland, Portugal, Belgium and France whose 2nd and 3rd best teams are there. Sometimes, even their champions may parachute into the Europa if they fail at the group stage, something that the English teams have (until recently) been avoiding because they've been successful in the Champions competition.
So what you have is one English team from 5th place and two from much lower competing with higher teams, including champions and runners up, from the other leagues.
It's no great surprise that teams like Birmingham, Stoke, Portsmouth, Villa etc have lost out to teams such as Valencia, Porto, Benfica, Bayern Munich.
Had England entered its next genuinely best teams from places 5, 6, 7 and even 8 where cup winners had qualified for CL this would have included Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and a rising Man City.
The Europa record would most likely have been better. And who knows, maybe it wouldn't have lost appeal for the English teams.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Europa League prize money
People often wonder why so little is thought of the Europa League by English teams.
Look at the prize money. Piddling amounts for the earlier rounds - probably don't cover expenses in playing. Then
Going into this weekend there were two premier league games left for the English clubs. I was looking at Stoke's position to see what they had to play for. We all know that clubs with nothing to play for - usually mid table sides - don't always put the effort in.
But now there's nearly £1m at stake for each league position. The last I saw was £800,000 per place. This doesn't happen in other European leagues.
Anyway, this is not just mathematically possible scenarios I'm looking at but easily possible ones.
Winning one game could put Stoke one place higher in the league. Even if they don't do badly and, say, they drew their last two games just a single win by three teams behind them could see them overtaken. So with just two games left, their final league position could differ by 4 places.
So that's potential prize money of £3.2m and the Europa will only beat that for reaching the final.
And that's when there's only 6 points to play for. When there are several league games left you could be looking realistically at £5m as the difference between, say, 8th and 14th and you're not going to risk that for an outside chance of making the Europa final. Common sense means you'll keep your best players for league games.
And then imagine the differences are even greater above 8 and below 14 when you're looking at potential loss of Premier League income with relegation or untold riches of Champions League qualification.
Follow the money.
Look at the prize money. Piddling amounts for the earlier rounds - probably don't cover expenses in playing. Then
- Round of 32: €200,000
- Round of 16: €350,000
- Quarter-finals: €450,000
- Semi-finals: €1,000,000
- Losing finalist: €2,500,000
- Winners: €5,000,000
Going into this weekend there were two premier league games left for the English clubs. I was looking at Stoke's position to see what they had to play for. We all know that clubs with nothing to play for - usually mid table sides - don't always put the effort in.
But now there's nearly £1m at stake for each league position. The last I saw was £800,000 per place. This doesn't happen in other European leagues.
Anyway, this is not just mathematically possible scenarios I'm looking at but easily possible ones.
Winning one game could put Stoke one place higher in the league. Even if they don't do badly and, say, they drew their last two games just a single win by three teams behind them could see them overtaken. So with just two games left, their final league position could differ by 4 places.
So that's potential prize money of £3.2m and the Europa will only beat that for reaching the final.
And that's when there's only 6 points to play for. When there are several league games left you could be looking realistically at £5m as the difference between, say, 8th and 14th and you're not going to risk that for an outside chance of making the Europa final. Common sense means you'll keep your best players for league games.
And then imagine the differences are even greater above 8 and below 14 when you're looking at potential loss of Premier League income with relegation or untold riches of Champions League qualification.
Follow the money.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Class obsession
I'm sick of reading that Brits are obsessed with class; the implication that other people - usually North Americans - aren't the least bit concerned about it.
Perhaps someone could explain the use of expressions such as blue collar; white collar; soccer mom; preppy; wrong side of the tracks; ivy league type etc if not to denote class.
Perhaps someone could explain the use of expressions such as blue collar; white collar; soccer mom; preppy; wrong side of the tracks; ivy league type etc if not to denote class.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Poverty: a reversal
A couple of years ago I wrote:
benefit rates for children have seen big increases over the last few years to the point that people already receiving benefits saw increases in their income and more people became entitled to the benefits than previously and their incomes rose too.
So now we have reports that more children of more households than ever before "have to rely" on these benefits but the real effect of this is that the poorest parents of children actually have more money for their kids. That's good isn't it?
The gap between rich and poor may widen but that doesn't mean the poor are poorer.
Now I see a reversal of this with the announcement that 300,000 kids have been taken out of poverty. Not, of course, by making them and their families better off, oh no.
The economy has got so bad that people are losing money by reduced hours at work. Maybe losing a job and just having the single income coming in resulting in lower incomes for many people and, thus, reducing median income. So now the income of those previously in poverty is not as small as it was in relation to median income and, therefore, they are no longer officially defined as poor.
It's a strange world where extra money puts you in poverty while reducing other people's money takes you out of it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)