Best season ever?

Cor! 8-2! Blimey! 6-1! Wowzers! 5-3! Swizzle! 4-3!

Just some of the sounds you will have no doubt heard during this year’s Premier League season. And there’s no question such unrepressed emotion about the football so far is justified. Defences seem to have gone to sleep whilst attackers are running riot. The top teams are collapsing against one another leaving the title race gaping, whilst the bottom teams battle on in promise of a gutsy relegation fight.

This year was perfectly poised to be an absolute classic. Manchester United’s rather uninspiring summer signings looked like it would put them in difficult stead for the year. In contrast, their rivals Man City could boast a gamut of new recruits that gave them the potential to really tough it out with the big boys. Meanwhile, Chelsea would have to deal with another new manager, Arsenal seemed to be crumbling, Liverpool were resurgent. It was going to be amazing.

And by God, has it delivered, but perhaps not in the way we expected. United remained relatively firm up until their hammering at the hands of Man City. Their transfer deals looked to be working a treat with Jones holding firm in defence and Young adding a classy creative spark up front. Furthermore, youngsters such as Cleverley and Welbeck began to look the finished article, integrating themselves into the first eleven seamlessly.

However, the aforementioned thrashing by Manchester City has certainly rubber stamped a more-than-worthy challenge from United’s pesky rivals. City’s potential was really up in the air until that first whistle was blown – nobody knew if the team was truly going to hack it at the top following their FA Cup victory. Also, with so many fresh faces thrown into the side, it was not impossible for the team to become unbalanced.

Despite this, they have absolutely flourished in the league this year. The team looks strong in every department and certain players, such as David Silva and Edin Dzeko, ooze quality. Few would doubt the title credentials of City, who are having a season that speaks parallels with Chelsea first EPL title win in 2005. That said, if they are the best side in the league it’s not by a huge margin, and with this in mind it’s all setting up for an epic Battle of Manchester this year.

But what of Chelsea? The team who often threaten to dominate during the early stages of the year? With Andre Villas-Boas in charge it could be said, with due fairness, that this is a transitional season for Chelsea. A manager so young will need time to develop his own team and style, but this is not to say Chelsea are definitely out of the title race this year. So far they have played some impressive football, with Mata looking all the £24m that was paid for him. However, the defence looks jaded, as evidenced by the 5-3 thriller that saw Chelsea defeated. Furthermore, Torres still isn’t back to form and it looks like Drogba and Anelka are starting to wane.

The other contenders would normally be Arsenal; however they have been through a real crisis at the start of this season. An uninspiring start was followed by the stupendously tragic 8-2 defeat to Man United. Since then they have been inconsistent and haven’t looked at all like title challengers. Only Robin van Persie’s extraordinary form has kept heads above water in North London, and his influence has been enough to see the team win a few games and rise to 7^th. It’s perhaps not a complete disaster, but it’s certainly not encouraging for The Gunners.

And how about Liverpool, the team who spent big money to establish themselves as a successful team once more? It’s been on and off for them. Their form has been solidly Europa-League standard, but they are lacking the spark that will make them potential championship winners once more. Suarez has had a funny year, looking classy but not so effective. Gerrard has returned from his long injury, which is a big boost, but again it seems as if Liverpool’s season will be one of consolidation.

All this, combined with the excellent form of Tottenham and Newcastle, and the trials and tribulations of the promoted teams, balances the season in a spectacular way. I can’t remember a time where I’ve felt more excited about the possibilities of the year. We’re going to have an incredible title race, the chase for Europe will be superb, and the relegation fight will include unbearable tension. More to the point though, the games themselves have been excellent examples of interesting, attacking and incident-filled football.

No season have I ever, so often, come away from watching a game and remained on that high for days after. Long may that last.

A bit of a Ricky Situation

Ohh, what's he done now?


You've probably heard all about the current 'Mong-gate' involving comedian Ricky Gervais. Since his return to Twitter, he's used the word 'mong' 728 times in 450 tweets (that may be an exaggeration), and consequently certain factions of the media have begun to kick up a storm about it.


Stand-up comic and writer Richard Herring weighed in most heavily on the issue, posting a blog piece about how he felt Ricky was using a touchy insult in a far too casual manner. "I think many comics are guilty of using mong as convenient and humourless punchlines. I don't think any of them would do the same with the word 'n***er' or 'p**i'" Herring wrote.

Furthermore, MENCAP and other disability charities have begun to express dismay at Ricky's use of the words. Francesca Martinez, an actress with Cerebral Palsy who appeared in Extras, also added to the criticism, saying "If you're in the public eye and you're saying [the word mong] is now fine, you're ignoring the reality that disability discrimination exists".

It all seems a bit of a pickle for Ricky, who for a long time has done some of the finest comedy that challenges the faux pas we have over things like race and disability. How has he got himself into this situation, and who's right?

To get to the bottom of it requires a good deal of thinking. Firstly, the word 'mong'. This shouldn't be a difficult debate really, as while definitions are fluid and in a constant state of change, there clearly still exists the derogatory insult for people with Downs Syndrome. Therefore, people are starting to take offence.

Now Ricky would say "Just because they're offended doesn't mean they're right". That's true, and we have to consider this further, but he must realise that they have a right to be offended no matter how meager the offensiveness appears to be. It may be a simple case of misunderstanding, but that doesn't discredit their right to take issue with a joke.

In either case though, 'mong' obviously does carry a weight behind it that renders it an offensive term to people with disabilities, and this is probably what the whole thing boils down to. Is it an derogatory insult or not? Well, I think you'd be best off asking the people who are actually handicapped or part of a disability group. If you're worried about whether a term is offensive or not, surely the easiest way to find out is to ask the people whom you're referring to (or not referring to as the case may be). After all, it's one thing getting offended on their behalf, but the real point is whether it actually does offend the handicapped and the families who care for them.

Intentions are more important when it comes to deciding if a joke is offensive or not, so this would be another thing to look at. Many of Ricky's tweets have used the word 'mong' as a jokey description of one of the horrifying faces he's pulled, or just a collective term for a bunch of idiots. I would find it incredible if Ricky was using this term to mean Down's Syndrome, so I think we can write off bad intentions for these jokes.

Context is also an issue. As Charlie Brooker pointed out on Twitter: "The word 'mong' appears in Dead Set script, where it's spoken by a character who's a) a twat and b) uses it to mean 'handicapped'." Clearly that isn't offensive, because it's an illustration of a character's persona and the word 'mong' is not played for laughs at the disabled. If it was also the case that Ricky was playing a bit of a persona on Twitter, then he'd have extra grounds for defence. However, the way he's taken to the defensive suggests this is definitely not the case. It is Ricky using these words.

The trouble Ricky has is he often goes on about his comedy 'coming from a good place', and therefore he can 'justify everything he does'. I believe he's right on the first quote, and the second, but that's not to say he's not making a mistake with these 'mong' jokes. Personally I'm not taking offence to them at all, but that's not to say other people aren't, and that's certainly not to say they are in the right.

My only issue with this whole saga is that it's making Ricky act very different to his usual self. The way he talks about the 'PC brigade' without irony. That really hurts to see, it's a term you'd expect a 47-year old jobless skinhead racist to use. The way he talks about 'haters' with seriousness. The way he's angrily defending himself constantly on Twitter, and using quite petulant means to do so (retweeting the odd 'I'm a mother of a Downs Syndrome child and I don't find it offensive' or a quote from a spurious online dictionary).

Someone mentioned that Ricky Gervais was becoming the new Jim Davidson. I don't think this could be further from the case, but Ricky's pride in being a shock comedian is pointing him in the wrong direction at the moment. The old him used to touch on tricky subjects with clever humour and the tongue firmly implanted in the cheek throughout. Now it seems the shock value has to come first and the joke later, and the obsession with 'mong' is possibly the very embodiment of this .

I mean, that's still a stretch from Jim Davidson, but look how well he's fitting into the jokes written for Jim: "Ricky Gervais: £25 - Strictly no mongs".

I'm still a massive fan of Ricky Gervais, and I look forward to his new series Life's Too Short. However, I wish he'd just use Twitter to post pictures of Karl Pilkington eating things with the odd insult about his head thrown in for good measure. Whether it's right or wrong to use 'mong' so casually, it certainly hasn't been much fun. It should be dropped by everyone now.

Shouting at myself.

Congratulations! If you’re reading this, you’re one of eighty people who have ever gazed upon my blog.

That’s right. Eighty people - in about a year. I’d get more reads if I put a big sign up on the University campus with ‘SEX’ written in big letters followed by a ‘now I’ve got your attention’ gag.

But why do I carry on with this method of communication when it so clearly garners no views, no interest and is simply the equivalent of muttering under one’s breath…

Um…

Ahhh….

Answers on a postcard?

In honesty though, I’m quite happy to have this as my own little space where I can mess about and play with things, and I think I’ve forgotten that over the past months. Not having the interest or feedback is something that may be a good thing. There’s no pressure to make things any good here (thank God), and there’s nothing stopping me from messing about with the writing.

This is almost like falling into solipsism in my own blog. With no-one to watch, you may ask why I address this to you (if you were there (which you aren’t (so I don’t need to make that digression to explain anyway))).

Well, I guess it’s writing for me now, but there’s always the off chance that once a week somebody will take a look at the blog, so I might as well be prepared for that.
Until then though, I’m just going to talk to myself. How are you JB? I’m pretty good thanks, how are you?

Etc. Existential ego-rant over.

Deja Who?

Here we go again…

Ahh, there’s nothing more comforting than the assurance that every few years Pompey fans have at least one managerial merry-go-round to look forward to. Steve Cotterill’s oddly sideways departure from Portsmouth to Nottingham Forest has once again left that hotseat vacant, and it’s time to find a new occupier.

The names that have been linked with us so far have been very encouraging. Dave Jones, Sean O’Driscoll, Karl Robinson… not the usual plethora of iffy and potentially disastrous names that seem to pepper the odds lists for this situation. However these are just rumours. There’s nothing stopping someone like Barry Fry sneaking (well, waddling) into the job, so we have to tiptoe around being too presumptuous yet.

But let’s look at the current favourites. Dave Jones is someone who has a very impressive track record at second-tier level. He has a bit of experience in getting sides to the Premier League, and he has worked in a variety of circumstances and situations. Putting to one side his connections with the club-whom-shall-not-be-mentioned, he would be an ideal choice as someone who can keep the ship steady and slowly build towards making Portsmouth into a possible candidate for promotion.

The only trouble is whether or not Dave Jones would be interested. Certainly Portsmouth is a good place to be as a manager, save for the lack of a substantial transfer kitty. However, you do get the sense that if Jones was to hold on for a bit, he could get a job where the potential of the club could be more immediately reached. It’s definitely possible that Jones won’t quite be ready to jump for this one.

What about Sean O’Driscoll? He’s definitely someone with a very credible background and would again be ideal for the club. Albeit he maybe lacks much experience, he has still shown his credentials through success at both Bournemouth and Doncaster, where he achieved promotions for each. He’s clearly a manager with good potential and someone we can rely on for decent results.

I see O’Driscoll as a more likely appointment due to the fact that he would probably require lower wages, and in honesty would probably be more willing to manage Portsmouth. He’s never had a club with the stature that Pompey possess, and furthermore he’s already worked on the South Coast through his position at Bournemouth (and yes, that is a big factor – encouraging people to move to Portsmouth is no mean feat).

I’m going to ignore the fact that Alan McLoughlin is the next manager on the odds list. I like him as a person, a radio presenter, a player. But I’d be very worried if this was the direction we went through. I’m not saying he couldn’t do the job (although his match commentary would sometimes lead you to this conclusion), but to give someone with no managerial experience the job would be a risk and a sad indictment on the direction we are taking.

So moving beyond him, next we have a few decent names. Aidy Boothroyd, Steve Coppell, Alan Curbishley, Brian Laws, Billy Davies. All seem like decent shouts, although I’d perhaps suggest that Curbishley has been out of management for a bit too long now. In either case, the point I’m making is that it’s very reassuring that the signs coming out of the club are that we want to keep pressing forwards, and if that involves spending money, so be it.

I’m still unsatisfied by the relative silence of the owners at this point, but there have been indications that things are running smoothly in the background and that the finances are in nowhere near such dire straits as during the Chainrai period. However, whilst there’s little being said from the men behind the scenes, the inklings of worry continue and David Lampitt alone is not going to quell that.

Perhaps an ambitious choice of manager will. If we get Dave Jones, then it’s a bit of evidence that there’s enough in the way of structure at the club that it’s attractive to good managers. That alone is worth something.

My Hairpin Over Vettel

Say ‘Vettel’ out loud. Did you hear that echo? That echo that seemed to say ‘Schumacher’? It was a metaphor anyway. Don’t read too much into it if you didn’t. If you literally did though, then be careful, because you sound a bit mental. I was just sort of pointing out that there domination of the sport seemed similar. Go see a doctor, mate.

Anyway, Sebastian Vettel is just one point away from crowning himself World Champion for the second year running. Without doubt, absolute congratulations are in order for the German, who regardless of his advantages, has capitalised to etch himself into the annals of Formula One history. Well done Seba.

Now that’s over with, let’s be more brutally honest. There’s a good reason why some people, me included are still very lukewarm to the idea of Vettel as a Formula One great. It’s not because I don’t think he’s good enough, but rather because he’s never proved it to me. I’m not saying he won’t one day show me he is a truly skilful driver deserving of a place alongside the likes of Clark, Senna and Fittipaldi, but he’s not shown the signs of being so yet. That sounds odd to say about a man who has won 19 races in 76, but there’s a lot more to it than this.

My first point is rather obvious. Vettel has had the best car for two, maybe even three seasons running now. The Red Bull is an incredibly quick machine thanks to the crazy brains of Adrian Newey and Christian Horner, both of whom deserve unrelenting credit for their contribution to two big championship wins. They have produced a car that is capable of being about half a second quicker than any other on a hot lap, and that sort of advantage for a driver is an absolute dream.

I should point out that the above sentence is an estimate rather than a fact. It’s tricky to say how much the Red Bull’s advantage is down to driver and how much is down to the car, but I find it difficult to believe that Vettel is half a second quicker than the likes of Hamilton and Alonso purely through his own ability. You can accuse me of confirmation bias here but I think we have to be honest. Webber’s a great driver but he’s not particularly fast overall, and even he has found it fairly easy to outpace the others in qualifying.

My second point is that Vettel’s luck this year has been beyond belief. He has managed to dodge every single bit of misfortune that could’ve possibly befallen him. Not one pitstop has gone wrong, not one mechanical problem, not one set of tyres misjudged, not one safety car at the wrong time, not one first corner incident, not one car causing trouble when being overtaken, not one change of weather that didn’t suit him. It’s been absolutely crazy.

This may be down to the fact that Vettel is always leading into the first corner, I suppose, but even Schumacher in the dreary early noughties of F1 had a few mishaps to deal with during races. Vettel’s only struggles have been of his own making, such as when he fell off the track in Canada to allow Button the victory. With this in mind, it would have been absolutely criminal had Vettel not taken the title this season, given his blessings throughout the season.

Now I look upon the above seven paragraphs I must pause. I feel like I’m being overly harsh on a young man who has only taken his every chance in front of him, and seized them with a ferociously clinical style. Perhaps this is a totally pointless speculation when you consider the difficulties in judging the ability of a Formula One driver at any given time. I mean, what do we judge? Is it their ability in the best car? The worst car? At this point in time? Ten seasons ago? How do we do it?

I suppose the fact of the matter is Vettel has probably got the car of his dreams right now, but if we are to take in every attribute of a driver’s ability, then surely being in the right place at the right time is just as valuable? Perhaps Vettel isn’t as quick as Hamilton or Alonso. Maybe he would struggle with either of them as a team-mate, but in any case neither of them had the foresight to place themselves in Red Bull’s hands when it mattered.

Vettel’s patience with the Toro Rosso team is probably what has bought him this huge opportunity to win titles, and he’s taking them. Regardless of speed, judgement and everything else that a Formula One driver requires, if they aren’t putting themselves in the right places at the right times, then they won’t succeed. Schumacher may not have had the legacy he has today where it not for his faith in the Ferrari team. Hamilton would probably not be a former champion if he hadn’t cheekily told Ron Dennis he would drive for McLaren one day.

God, James Hunt probably could’ve given up about 30 times before he’d even made it to Formula One given his struggles in Formula 3000, but he persevered and that was a big part in his championship. We shouldn’t write Vettel off just because he has it easy now. It’s a long journey to get into the winning car, and Vettel has made it. Consequently, he deserves all the opportunities he gets.

Well, that was a strange writing process. There was no editorialising here (I’m too lazy for that shit), I genuinely thought I was going to decry Vettel’s championship merits in this one. But as I came to the halfway point I suddenly realised it was meaningless to him, his team and his supporters to make that case at all. Whether or not he’s up there with Clark, Senna and the rest is totally unimportant. Vettel can only play to his potential and that he is doing.

It’s fun to discuss what drivers would be like competing on a level playing field, and it’s easy to make educated guesses based on whether they overperformed or underperformed in their cars, but this sort of thing is facile when we talk about what a ‘great champion’ is. All you need to be a great champion is to be a champion. If you’ve done that, you deserved it. That’s what the system is there for.

There are great drivers who were never champions, and there were champions that were never great drivers, but the two entities don’t always aim towards the same thing. Maybe Vettel is a great driver. Maybe he isn’t. But he’ll always be a brilliant champion.

Strife in the Fast Lane

The word ‘tumultuous’ was invented for people like Lewis Hamilton. He’s the sort of sportsman who cannot go through a season in his career without a heap of controversy and incident being levelled upon his shoulders, but despite this he is still considered one of the best Formula One drivers on the grid. How does such a star lend himself to such inconsistency, you might ask (if you were talking to him)?

There’s been much written about Lewis’ recent chequered form. A lot of people say it’s a problem with his attitude, some say he lacks support, some say he’s just not that good a driver. Whatever the reasons for his lack of consistency, I think the truth is his dip has been marginal, at worst. This year was never going to be his year with the fantastically quick Red Bulls tearing up the field, but Lewis has consolidated a decent 168 points thus far, with a solitary win in China to his name.

As people point out though, he’s been outclassed this season by his team-mate Jenson Button, a perhaps less fancied driver amongst the Formula One ranks up until this season. I don’t think this would be a fair reflection on Button though, as in my opinion he’s a driver that just defines quality in each department. He’s pacy, a fighter, a tactician. To be behind Button is no disgrace at all.

Besides, Jenson has much more experience than Hamilton. His many years in fairly average cars such as the BAR and the Renault were a steep learning curve for Button, but going through such a school of hard knocks has clearly worked wonders for him. When his chance came in a competitive car, he was far readier than his team-mate at the time Rubens Barrichello, who had spent quite a few years playing the safe understudy role to Michael Schumacher. Still, this perhaps doesn’t explain why Hamilton has fallen behind his team-mate.

Whatever the reason, it’s clear that Lewis is currently going through a school of much harder knocks. It’s true that he’s never had to participate in a useless car for more than a few races at a time, but he’s always been in a fight for something, no matter what season it was, and he’s always been making mistakes along the way. It’s easy to forget though, that Hamilton’s career is still in relative infancy, and these mistakes will continue for a few years yet.

But that will come to be his advantage in the near future. If we look at Sebastian Vettel at the moment, he is enjoying the benefits of an absolutely amazing car. There’s nothing wrong with that particularly, but it’s quite incredible that practically no misfortune has befallen Vettel throughout the whole season.

You could say that’s great; that he isn’t making mistakes and he’s matured from his more petulant 2010, but I feel that he’s missing the sort of fight that characterizes Hamilton and Button. It’s rare that he isn’t leading races into the first corner, it’s rare that he gets overtaken and it’s rare that he has to deal with any problems during the race. The Red Bull won’t always be the best car on the field, rather like the McLaren wasn’t in 2008. But whereas Hamilton created the opportunity for the title that year, I have my doubts that Vettel will be able to do the same in the future.

So what about these many incidents that Hamilton’s been having? Why is his style reminiscent of bumper-karts at the moment? I think that this is just the nature of the beast. Hamilton’s style is to absolutely hammer every chance to overtake, and when he gets this right it’s completely spectacular. Nothing compares to it in modern day F1. However, when he’s off-form, this sort of style will take the unfortunate appearance of Hamilton just getting one thing wrong and thumping someone off the road.

That’s why I say Lewis’ dip in form is marginal – He’s only making the odd mistake when you consider how often he gets himself into a scrap on track. Just look at Monza. He spent 27 laps trying every trick in the book to get past Schumacher, and only our old German friend’s brilliant defending snuffed the opportunities out. If Hamilton had really lost his head, he would have ended up going into the back of Schumi’s Mercedes at some point.

So although it’s difficult to know why Hamilton is struggling at the moment, I think there’s no need to fear for him. He’s had a difficult year but he’ll have learned a lot. There was never really an inkling of hope that he’d win the title thanks to Christian Horner and Adrian Newey being Gods amongst men, but next year he’ll be more prepared than ever.

Rise of the Machines

It’s finally happening. Sense has been seen. During March next year, FIFA will finally be discussing potentially introducing goal-line technology, where it seems likely that measures will be put in place to implement it, or at least trial it, for the 2012-2013 season. A nation still thwarting from the wounds of World Cup injustice weeps with relief.

In contrast, until quite recently I was one of those fusty conservative stalwarts who opposed any plans to introduce technology into football, even following Lampard’s disallowed goal against Germany in the World Cup. Perhaps it’s pure nostalgia and emotion that speaks these words, but I do feel that football’s simplicity is its key, and should be preserved at all costs.

That said, I’m not a backwards yokel and I’m willing to accept that, as one of the few objective decisions a referee has to make, goal-line technology can earn its place in the game if it’s used in the correct way. As a result I’ve come up with a few guidelines I’d want to see followed if FIFA are going to push the proposal through. Not that I have any authority or reverence that would make FIFA listen to me, but nonetheless, here is the criteria I believe it is imperative the technology follows:

1. Goal-line technology must be 99.9% accurate: This seems a rather obvious one, but still extremely important. If the technology shows itself to be at all erroneous, then I can see it conjuring up more controversy than 1000 Graham Polls could ever hope to amass. If it doesn’t work practically every time, it’s not worth considering.

2. Goal-line technology should not be simply a replay system: During the 2010 FA Cup Final, Drogba took a shot that bounced onto the line, and after seeing a replay, Clive Tyldesley was shouting “Look, we can see that’s in, why aren’t video replays being used?”. Then they showed the incident from another angle, clarifying the incident as not being a goal, and Tyldesley said “Well, maybe it wasn’t a goal. Still, it’s a good point isn’t it?” No actually Clive. You just blew your point out the water.

3. The notification as to whether or not a goal has been scored should be instantaneous: There’s been a lot of scenarios banded about on the internet about how one team could have a goal-line scramble, and then the other team goes up the other end and scores, causing a confusion for the rule if a decision takes time to be made. While these situations are pretty unlikely, referees have to be prepared for any event, and such possible ambiguities could cause all sorts of problems. This wouldn’t happen if referees were instantly informed as to whether a goal has been scored or not, so I think that’s important.

4. The technology should not affect the flight of the ball: I saw an image on the internet of a potential goal-line technology system that involved having what looked like an electrocuted spider spanning the whole inside of the ball. There’s absolutely no way something like that wouldn’t have an effect on the way the ball runs, which would be a compromise too far for the clarity technology provides.

5. This is not the thin end of the wedge: This is the crux of my point, and my biggest fear over this movement. I know it’s easy to fall down the old slippery slope fallacy, but I still think that accepting goal-line technology could well lead to more equipment being used for other decisions, such as penalty calls, fouls, offsides, etc. I’d hate this to happen. Hate it.

As I mentioned earlier, goals are one of the simplest, most objective entities in football. It’s either over the line or it isn’t. That can be worked into the game. But for things like penalties, not only are we relying on a wholly unnecessary video ref to make a decision that could just as conceivably be idiotic, we also get the game breaking up as everything gets appealed, the match barely moves, the on-field referee seldom has say on anything anymore, and the game stagnates as a result.

The reason why football is so exciting is because of its pace, and simplicity. It’s the ball, two teams, and two goals. Don’t use your hands, don’t hit each other. Let’s play. If you tune into a football match halfway into the game, it’s very likely that the ball will be in play; Do that with cricket, or rugby, or baseball, or many other sports, and the chances of that are largely inferior. As I say, goal-line technology is fine, but if football becomes infused with an insufferable amount of technology, then I can see the game losing a lot of its attraction.