So here I am in sunny Germany, doing another German course. I seem to remember that one of my more recent flurries of activity on this blog came when I did my first course in 2009 - I guess when you're in a strange city learning verbs and tenses, a man will turn to his old blog for a diversion. I can't imagine that there's many people that will read this now given that I post much more regularly on my professional website, but this won't go anywhere near to approaching the sort of subject material that I write about on there, so here I am.
I have been a little dismayed over the past few days with the behaviour of a few members of the fairer sex. That's not to say that I'm in any way weeping into my dacquiri about it, but it's fair to say that I'm annoyed - and more particularly, annoyed in principle, which is often the sort of annoyed that gets me writing stuff.
I've been doing this course of mine, and it's been going quite well. The people are nice, the verbs and tenses have been learning themselves, I'm making a few professional contacts, the beer and the food and the coffee are good. Hooray for me. As ever with Goethe Institut courses, there are plenty of opportunities to socialise - structured activities, city trips, parties, that sort of thing. It's been a bit of fun. I had fallen in with a group from a mixture of my class and the class above me too - largely because they all live in the same Wohnung-dormitory thing.
There's a pretty girl amongst our group who I'd been seeing quite a lot of. Just my type. Petite, smart, attractive, interesting, a little bit exotic (she's Turkish) mid-ish twenties. We'd been having good chats about all sorts of things, eating lunch in the canteen, going to the odd museum, that sort of thing. Always in our small-ish group though, and never alone. The thought did cross my mind that maybe that was by design on her part, but it wasn't like I'd really gone out of my way to hammer the point home - my kamikaze days are behind me, thank God. I did take a slightly more direct approach the other day though - I was planning on going into town for a sandwich and a coffee, and on a whim I asked her if she wanted to come. She knew what I was about, and graciously declined. We chatted a bit more, said our goodbyes and that was that - shrug shoulders, oh well, better luck next time with someone else. I gave her some space for the next day or so, too - a smile and a nod here and there but not much else, one doesn't want to be too over-bearing in these situations.
As far as I could tell, I hadn't done much wrong. Liked the girl, got to know the girl, asked her out, got rebuffed, no big deal, move on. In a way I was pleased to have the question answered as I sometimes am in these situations - you don't want to die wondering.
But no. Apparently I DID do something wrong. The next time I spoke to her I was treated with complete and utter contempt - by her and one of her friends. There's a thing that women do when they want you to get out of their face, and it usually manifests in treating you like you're some sort of hell-bent psychopathic rapist stalker with bad breath and B.O. - and I got all of that and more. She even turned tail and fled the other day when she walked into a café and found me in it, as though I couldn't be trusted not to flash her or something. What this has now resulted in is that I have essentially been ejected from our little group as well, on account of the fact that her and Bitchy Friend make up about thirty percent of it.
But seriously - what the fuck? Why is this necessary? Since when is asking someone out for a sandwich a sex crime? Why the childishness and closing of ranks? Why the little power games and bitchiness? I'm a perfectly reasonable human being, and through the above bitter experience I've learnt the right and wrong way to handle these situations. Surely if anyone is to feel scorned and slighted it's me anyway - isn't it? Don't get me wrong, it would be pretty stupid for me to take offence at being turned down over something like this, but if anyone's pride has been hurt here, surely it's mine? Apparently not.
The thing is that this is nothing new for me. Going right back to when I was a spotty teenager through early adulthood and beyond, this has been a recurring theme. Regardless of whether or not I've taken rejection well or not there is the recurring pattern of ..... general unpleasantness being aimed in my direction whenever I've gone for a target and missed. It hasn't happened EVERY time mind you, but when it has it has always smacked of "I've got something over you and now I'm going to go out of my way to make you feel small just because I can."
What has happened to compound the situation since is that after several days of being rude she has decided to come back to Planet Earth and actually acknowledge my presence. Which, I have to say, is ALSO a recurring theme. "Sorry little man, you needed your time in purgatory. It was for your own good. Now the time has come for me to bring you back to the fold. You may speak to me again - only on my terms though, of course." The vanity, the self-centredness, the childishness, the bare-faced sense of entitlement - when you break it down it really does beggar belief. This has happened to me many times in the past too, with or without the romantic ovetures, and quite often things have gone backwards and forwards like this for months - years even, whilst I, playing the fool and the ill-advised gentleman and appeaser have swallowed it like some sort of grinning idiot. My entire management career was conducted like this.
Well bollocks to it, it's not happening this time. She can go fuck herself in chocolate - her and her bitchy mate. Part of me thinks that I should be the Bigger Person and just run with it, but I'm not one for making racks for my own back anymore. I fail to see why I should deliberately choose to spend time with people who are rude and manipulative. The irony of this of course is that she will almost certainly now decide that I'm the dickhead in this situation because I'm ignoring her. I can't imagine she'll even for one solitary second consider whether her behaviour as been in any way lacking. Whatever - I've thought my thoughts and written them down, now I couldn't care less.
Women! You can't live with them - you can't live with them. And other variations on that theme.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Monday, November 22, 2010
I Am Not Irish
True story. I'm not. Neither am I Scottish. English is PERHAPS a better guess - I try to speak more clearly in Holland - but equally wrong. I am, however, British - but that's because Liz let me join her gang a little while ago, and I achieved that by jumping through bureaucratic hoops, not by being born.
I do have red hair, though. As Nick Earls writes of Richard Derrington's doctor in Zigzag Street, one of my favourite books, I am "profoundly ginger". Quite how this means that people should mistake me for being from Ireland I have no idea, though - it's not as though I SOUND Irish. At all!
Lately however, people have begun conversations with me by saying "are you Irish?", or even "what part of Scotland are you from?", and I have to admit that it's beginning to give me the shits. Yes, I live in the Netherlands where everyone speaks English as a second or third language so I can't expect people to be good at picking accents, but you'd think that they might know that, too. Ask me to tell the difference between a Belgian or Dutch accent, or a German, Austrian or Swiss one, and I wouldn't be at all confident that I'd get it right. I might have a GO at it, but I wouldn't just plow in there and say "you must be Bavarian!", because 1) they'd probably be freakin' Antarctican for all I know, and 2) people can get offended when you get it wrong, so it's best not to tempt fate.
Being mistaken for an Irishman or Scot is not the worst thing in the world of course - but that doesn't mean it's not ignorant. There are more places in the world that breed the occasional red-head than Ireland and Scotland! The thinking that goes with "he's got red hair, he must be Irish" is pretty much the same line of thinking as assuming that if someone's black they must be from Africa. Try that in the East End and see how far you get!
The correct question is, of course, "where are you from?" and then you can go from there. Otherwise you just end up looking like a prize pillock. Or worse, annoying me!
I do have red hair, though. As Nick Earls writes of Richard Derrington's doctor in Zigzag Street, one of my favourite books, I am "profoundly ginger". Quite how this means that people should mistake me for being from Ireland I have no idea, though - it's not as though I SOUND Irish. At all!
Lately however, people have begun conversations with me by saying "are you Irish?", or even "what part of Scotland are you from?", and I have to admit that it's beginning to give me the shits. Yes, I live in the Netherlands where everyone speaks English as a second or third language so I can't expect people to be good at picking accents, but you'd think that they might know that, too. Ask me to tell the difference between a Belgian or Dutch accent, or a German, Austrian or Swiss one, and I wouldn't be at all confident that I'd get it right. I might have a GO at it, but I wouldn't just plow in there and say "you must be Bavarian!", because 1) they'd probably be freakin' Antarctican for all I know, and 2) people can get offended when you get it wrong, so it's best not to tempt fate.
Being mistaken for an Irishman or Scot is not the worst thing in the world of course - but that doesn't mean it's not ignorant. There are more places in the world that breed the occasional red-head than Ireland and Scotland! The thinking that goes with "he's got red hair, he must be Irish" is pretty much the same line of thinking as assuming that if someone's black they must be from Africa. Try that in the East End and see how far you get!
The correct question is, of course, "where are you from?" and then you can go from there. Otherwise you just end up looking like a prize pillock. Or worse, annoying me!
Starting again
Well, it's been awhile. Over a year, in fact! Thanks to Carl, though - see comments here, my attention has been drawn back to this blog, and I think I'll try to make more of an effort with it.
Part of my problem with being a regular blogger was running out of ideas. I wanted my blog to be a semi-regular opinion column in a vaguely journalistic way, but after a decent enough start I began to lack the discipline to put together anything really meaningful, and ended up with a bunch of half-written articles that started out ok but sort of meandered off into nothing. I didn't want to post bad material, so didn't, and then got out of the habit of writing things in the first place. After that I had the idea that I would only post things when I really felt inspired, but just.... didn't end up doing it. Perhaps I only liked the IDEA of being a writer, as opposed to actually enjoying writing. I know a lot of singers like that. It makes me realise how difficult being a full-time columnist must be from time-to-time - you've got to produce something interesting and readable every time, no matter how mundane your life seems to be on that given day or week. I suppose, like most things, money makes a difference. With all of the artistic integrity in the world (and I'd like to think that I have a fair amount), I'm sure I wouldn't work as hard on my singing if I wasn't being paid for it - I can crap on about art with a capital "A" all I like, but one of the real incentives to work hard and be the best singer I can be is so that I can pay the rent!
Anyway. We'll see what I come up with.
We apologise for this short delay in transmission, and will be with you shortly. Do not adjust your set.
Part of my problem with being a regular blogger was running out of ideas. I wanted my blog to be a semi-regular opinion column in a vaguely journalistic way, but after a decent enough start I began to lack the discipline to put together anything really meaningful, and ended up with a bunch of half-written articles that started out ok but sort of meandered off into nothing. I didn't want to post bad material, so didn't, and then got out of the habit of writing things in the first place. After that I had the idea that I would only post things when I really felt inspired, but just.... didn't end up doing it. Perhaps I only liked the IDEA of being a writer, as opposed to actually enjoying writing. I know a lot of singers like that. It makes me realise how difficult being a full-time columnist must be from time-to-time - you've got to produce something interesting and readable every time, no matter how mundane your life seems to be on that given day or week. I suppose, like most things, money makes a difference. With all of the artistic integrity in the world (and I'd like to think that I have a fair amount), I'm sure I wouldn't work as hard on my singing if I wasn't being paid for it - I can crap on about art with a capital "A" all I like, but one of the real incentives to work hard and be the best singer I can be is so that I can pay the rent!
Anyway. We'll see what I come up with.
We apologise for this short delay in transmission, and will be with you shortly. Do not adjust your set.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
It's A-gas.
So the world's sporting headlines are bursting at the seams because Andre Agassi took crystal meth. Quelle horreur.
Can someone explain to me why crystal meth is a banned substance in sport, and why it's tested for in the first place? Same questions for any drugs that fall under the category of "recreational"? Why should the various anti-doping agencies, who came into being purely to make sure that athletes are not cheating by taking performance enhancing drugs, give a damn about whether they're taking something that actually has the opposite effect? If Tony Adams can play for Arsenal as an alcoholic, then why shouldn't Adrian Mutu do the odd line, or Andre Agassi hoover garbage up his snout if he wants to?
The hypocrisy of it all, and dare I say it the invasion of athletes' civil liberties when it comes to it, is astounding. Because the obvious answer to my questions is the tired old "because it sets a bad example for the kiddies back home". Which is balls! Nothing gives me the shits more than the idea that because some idiot is overpaid to kick a bit of leather around a field that he has some sort of moral obligation to be Mother Theresa as well. What's worse is when we don't just expect it, we ASSUME it, usually through some sort of ridiculous idea (and I'm talking particularly to the Australians amongst us) that if you're good enough to play sport professionally then you're obviously a better grade of person. It's made all the more ridiculous when in many, many cases - witness various of the drug scandals in AFL, the sex scandals in the NRL, the sort of reputations that Premier League footballers have - the truth is far from that anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the highly-paid, ultra-professional, hugely-competitive-by-nature industry that modern sport has become, being an entirely dislikable bastard is probably not a bad attribute for an athlete to have! As soon as the world stops expecting athletes to be 1st-class citizens, the better.
All that said, I think most sport fans know this anyway. Go up to some guy in a pub and say "Ricky Ponting's a hard-nosed, ruthless bastard. He probably wouldn't have time for you or me", their response would be "Yeah? And?"
So why the moral judgements on drugs? Why are sporting agencies so obsessed with maintaining a squeaky-clean image? It's self-defeating. The more stringent the standards are, the more scandals there will be, and the more cynical we'll get. Andre Agassi taking crystal meth when he was at a low point of his career should not be any cause for alarm, and you and I don't need to know about it. Have YOU ever taken recreational drugs? Statistics tell us that it's probably quite likely. Why should we expect Agassi to be any different? Are you going to turn up to the office on Monday only to be told that because you smoked some weed on Friday night that you're going to be banned from working for a set period? Of course not - and your reaction, quite rightly, will be that smoking a joint the other night has no effect whatsoever on your ability to do your job, and until such time as it does, management can mind their own business.
And if you're going to say that athletes are in the public eye and that increases reponsibility, then you're just being naive. Politicians, anyone?
The only people that athletes should be answerable to if they take recreational drugs is the police if they get caught. Anything else is a whole lot of hot air - or in this case, publicity for book sales.
Can someone explain to me why crystal meth is a banned substance in sport, and why it's tested for in the first place? Same questions for any drugs that fall under the category of "recreational"? Why should the various anti-doping agencies, who came into being purely to make sure that athletes are not cheating by taking performance enhancing drugs, give a damn about whether they're taking something that actually has the opposite effect? If Tony Adams can play for Arsenal as an alcoholic, then why shouldn't Adrian Mutu do the odd line, or Andre Agassi hoover garbage up his snout if he wants to?
The hypocrisy of it all, and dare I say it the invasion of athletes' civil liberties when it comes to it, is astounding. Because the obvious answer to my questions is the tired old "because it sets a bad example for the kiddies back home". Which is balls! Nothing gives me the shits more than the idea that because some idiot is overpaid to kick a bit of leather around a field that he has some sort of moral obligation to be Mother Theresa as well. What's worse is when we don't just expect it, we ASSUME it, usually through some sort of ridiculous idea (and I'm talking particularly to the Australians amongst us) that if you're good enough to play sport professionally then you're obviously a better grade of person. It's made all the more ridiculous when in many, many cases - witness various of the drug scandals in AFL, the sex scandals in the NRL, the sort of reputations that Premier League footballers have - the truth is far from that anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the highly-paid, ultra-professional, hugely-competitive-by-nature industry that modern sport has become, being an entirely dislikable bastard is probably not a bad attribute for an athlete to have! As soon as the world stops expecting athletes to be 1st-class citizens, the better.
All that said, I think most sport fans know this anyway. Go up to some guy in a pub and say "Ricky Ponting's a hard-nosed, ruthless bastard. He probably wouldn't have time for you or me", their response would be "Yeah? And?"
So why the moral judgements on drugs? Why are sporting agencies so obsessed with maintaining a squeaky-clean image? It's self-defeating. The more stringent the standards are, the more scandals there will be, and the more cynical we'll get. Andre Agassi taking crystal meth when he was at a low point of his career should not be any cause for alarm, and you and I don't need to know about it. Have YOU ever taken recreational drugs? Statistics tell us that it's probably quite likely. Why should we expect Agassi to be any different? Are you going to turn up to the office on Monday only to be told that because you smoked some weed on Friday night that you're going to be banned from working for a set period? Of course not - and your reaction, quite rightly, will be that smoking a joint the other night has no effect whatsoever on your ability to do your job, and until such time as it does, management can mind their own business.
And if you're going to say that athletes are in the public eye and that increases reponsibility, then you're just being naive. Politicians, anyone?
The only people that athletes should be answerable to if they take recreational drugs is the police if they get caught. Anything else is a whole lot of hot air - or in this case, publicity for book sales.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Death of a Salesman
On July 25th 2008, exactly one year ago, I left my job to take up full-time singing. It's a decision that I haven't regretted for one, solitary moment. Since that time, several things have happened.
- I've lost weight
- I've stopped biting my fingernails
- My hair has gone curly again
- I no longer have habitual diarrhoea
- It's rare that I don't sleep well
- I no longer walk into rooms feeling like I have to apologise before I've even said anything
- My hands don't shake anymore.
There's a lot of it that is still with me that I wish would go away. I still think of it much more than I should. I still re-live arguments that I had with people years ago. I still think about friends that I lost, and wish that things had been different. I still deal with any sort of political subterfuge and betrayal very badly. It's only quite recently that I stopped having bad dreams about people having a go at me.
I will remember the two and a half years that spenned March 2006 to July 2008 as the unhappiest and most stressful period of my life to date. I cannot remember a time when I felt so alone, and I cannot remember a time when I was ever more disappointed with the world and those in it. I spoke to a friend about it awhile ago, and talked about how it's only now that I feel so much more happy and whole that I can appreciate how awful the situation was, and that I feel like I've woken up from a long and restless sleep. She had been through a similar situation herself, and said "yes - it's like being dead'. I couldn't have agreed more.
This post probably breaks the house rules. But I can think of no better way to put down a permanent marker that I'll be able to re-visit easily to remind myself of what it was like. Something that will be able to tell me years later that yes, it really was as bad as all that, and that I shouldn't allow time to rose-tint any of it.
I'm never, ever, ever allowing myself to feel that way again. Not under any circumstances.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Best day's play ever?
No matter what happens tomorrow, Day 4 of the 2nd Ashes Test at Lord's, 19th July 2009 will go down as one of the best day's cricket I have ever seen. I wish I was there to see it live.
This is why the Ashes is such a great spectacle. Ever since 2005, when England breathed life back into Ashes cricket with their famous 2-1 win, I have followed every ball I can of England-Australia series. Unlike the previous seventeen years when England looked beaten before they even set foot on the field, since 2005 there has been a belief to their game that has made each test well worth watching. Even the 2006/7 series in Australia was a fantastic series in my book - despite the fact that Australia won 5-0, England were "in" every game except for Brisbane, but just couldn't land the killer blows when they counted. None more so than in Adelaide which they came oh-so-close to winning, but somehow contrived to lose.
As I type, Adelaide is on my mind, for more than one reason. First and foremost is the result, with Australia winning from a seemingly unwinnable position. The other is because of what I can remember as possibly the greatest partnership I've ever seen, in the form of the 192-run stand between Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey, that took Australia from the absolute brink at 3/65 to the relative comfort of 4/257. I watched nearly all of it before I couldn't keep my eyes open - I was watching it in England - but can remember watching every ball, completely riveted, and marvelling at both players' powers of concentration. Even though good batting was still to come in the form of Clarke and Gilchrist, you knew that if another partnership failed Australia were surely doomed, and so every single ball counted. Both players played within themselves and scored runs when they were available - the only thing that disappointed me was that Hussey didn't reach the ton he so deserved. Ponting said afterwards that his innings was "not one of his best" or similar, and that it was more about occupation than anything else - for the very reason that he had to play against his natural attacking instincts and still succeeded, I thought it was an absolute masterclass and his best innings to date.
There was similar feel to today's 185-run stand between Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, although there was no sense of Australia being doomed if this partnership failed - it was clear that they were already doomed, and any sort of a resistance was only going to delay the inevitable. Clarke started brightly and dominated the strike, and when he saw the ball Haddin played well - but the talk was still about poor umpiring and how Australia were going to bounce back from what was obviously going to be a humiliating defeat. Mike Atherton, who has recently shed his dry impartiality for a one-eyedness that I'm finding very disappointing, even started talking about Ricky Ponting's future as captain.
And yet the partnership carried on, and seemingly without anyone noticing, started to become quite significant. 50 runs were brought up in 58 balls. 100 in 157. 150 in 242, until finally when bad light was called, 185 had been racked up in 47.2 overs at a rate of 3.90 an over. Utterly phenomenal when you consider that next-highest Australian partnership for the entire match was 93, and that the entire Australian team could only manage 215 for the first innings. Michael Clarke, not my favourite player and someone who I've thought has underachieved in his career to date, seemed not to put a foot wrong and played brilliantly for his 125 n.o., and Haddin, some late risk-taking aside, was equally impressive with his 80. They have now batted Australia into a situation whereby victory is not inconceivable - unthinkable when they came to the crease at 128/5.
Naturally, the day wasn't all about Clarke and Haddin, even though they played together for more than half of it. You can't talk about Day 4 without bringing up Katich, Hughes and Hussey, and the diabolical luck they had. Hughes in particular has got to be wondering what he can do in England so far this series - a bottom-edge in Cardiff, the unluckiest of dismissals down the legside in the first innings at Lord's, and now the catch that wasn't in the second. I've posted it below - I don't know how long it will be before someone takes it down, but here it is in glorious technicolour. The title is not mine, nor are the speech bubbles.
I for one don't happen to think that Andrew Strauss cheated anyone. I think you can see why he thought it was out. Essentially, the ball met the ground at the same time his hands did, and to him it felt like a catch. The other, and more obvious reason I don't think he cheated is because he's not that stupid - just the same as any international cricketer worth his salt. Why would you claim a catch like that when there are cameras everywhere, unless you really thought it was a clean catch? You'd get run out of town - and he still might. I doubt it, though - his name isn't Ricky Ponting (more on that in a later post).
All of that said, I don't think it was out. There's no way a third umpire would gave given it, and as Shane Warne says in the clip, how can Billy Doctrove, from 40 metres away, POSSIBLY say it was out? The umpiring has been shocking all match, and this is the worst example of it. It's so disappointing when things like this happen, and for three bad decisions to go against the Australians in what was a fantastic day's play was hugely frustrating. I'll be the first to stick my hand up and say that with or without Haddin and Clarke's partnership, England have been the best team in this match and daylight has been second - but that doesn't mean that things like this should happen. The only thing to say apart from "arse" or similar, is that in pressure situations, umpiring decisions will tend go with the run of play. 2005 taught us that if nothing else.
What I loved about today though was that it was ALL on a knife-edge, and every ball mattered. Even the above controversies contributed to that. I was enthralled when Katich and Hughes started the innings, I was enthralled when Ponting came to the wicket, I was enthralled (and incensed) when Hughes was dismissed, and.... well, you make up the rest. And when Clarke and Haddin batted so well in the last session, I can't remember being as excited watching a game of cricket in a long time. Maybe Langer and Gilchrist's partnership against Pakistan at Hobart comes close.
I'm actually seldom more interested in a game of (Test) cricket unless Australia is losing. I take no pleasure from it you understand - but its purely because of the occasional bolt of brilliance like these partnerships that make me want to watch it more. When Australia lost to South Africa in Australia late last year I was in the UK and watched nearly every ball. As it was, South Africa won easily. But they might not have. Something INCREDIBLE could have happened to turn around the game - and I never want to miss that.
And the best thing about the current situation is that it's not finished!! Anything could happen from here - it could still rain, and we'll get a draw! I really hope it doesn't rain, though - I want to see this to the bitter end. I just hate to think what will happen if we lose a wicket with about 150 runs to go, and then someone has to bat with Johnson, and then the tail. What if we need, say, 40 runs, and it's Johnson and Hilfenhaus at the crease? Will we see another Edgbaston?
Anyone got a spare defibrillator?
This is why the Ashes is such a great spectacle. Ever since 2005, when England breathed life back into Ashes cricket with their famous 2-1 win, I have followed every ball I can of England-Australia series. Unlike the previous seventeen years when England looked beaten before they even set foot on the field, since 2005 there has been a belief to their game that has made each test well worth watching. Even the 2006/7 series in Australia was a fantastic series in my book - despite the fact that Australia won 5-0, England were "in" every game except for Brisbane, but just couldn't land the killer blows when they counted. None more so than in Adelaide which they came oh-so-close to winning, but somehow contrived to lose.
As I type, Adelaide is on my mind, for more than one reason. First and foremost is the result, with Australia winning from a seemingly unwinnable position. The other is because of what I can remember as possibly the greatest partnership I've ever seen, in the form of the 192-run stand between Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey, that took Australia from the absolute brink at 3/65 to the relative comfort of 4/257. I watched nearly all of it before I couldn't keep my eyes open - I was watching it in England - but can remember watching every ball, completely riveted, and marvelling at both players' powers of concentration. Even though good batting was still to come in the form of Clarke and Gilchrist, you knew that if another partnership failed Australia were surely doomed, and so every single ball counted. Both players played within themselves and scored runs when they were available - the only thing that disappointed me was that Hussey didn't reach the ton he so deserved. Ponting said afterwards that his innings was "not one of his best" or similar, and that it was more about occupation than anything else - for the very reason that he had to play against his natural attacking instincts and still succeeded, I thought it was an absolute masterclass and his best innings to date.
There was similar feel to today's 185-run stand between Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, although there was no sense of Australia being doomed if this partnership failed - it was clear that they were already doomed, and any sort of a resistance was only going to delay the inevitable. Clarke started brightly and dominated the strike, and when he saw the ball Haddin played well - but the talk was still about poor umpiring and how Australia were going to bounce back from what was obviously going to be a humiliating defeat. Mike Atherton, who has recently shed his dry impartiality for a one-eyedness that I'm finding very disappointing, even started talking about Ricky Ponting's future as captain.
And yet the partnership carried on, and seemingly without anyone noticing, started to become quite significant. 50 runs were brought up in 58 balls. 100 in 157. 150 in 242, until finally when bad light was called, 185 had been racked up in 47.2 overs at a rate of 3.90 an over. Utterly phenomenal when you consider that next-highest Australian partnership for the entire match was 93, and that the entire Australian team could only manage 215 for the first innings. Michael Clarke, not my favourite player and someone who I've thought has underachieved in his career to date, seemed not to put a foot wrong and played brilliantly for his 125 n.o., and Haddin, some late risk-taking aside, was equally impressive with his 80. They have now batted Australia into a situation whereby victory is not inconceivable - unthinkable when they came to the crease at 128/5.
Naturally, the day wasn't all about Clarke and Haddin, even though they played together for more than half of it. You can't talk about Day 4 without bringing up Katich, Hughes and Hussey, and the diabolical luck they had. Hughes in particular has got to be wondering what he can do in England so far this series - a bottom-edge in Cardiff, the unluckiest of dismissals down the legside in the first innings at Lord's, and now the catch that wasn't in the second. I've posted it below - I don't know how long it will be before someone takes it down, but here it is in glorious technicolour. The title is not mine, nor are the speech bubbles.
I for one don't happen to think that Andrew Strauss cheated anyone. I think you can see why he thought it was out. Essentially, the ball met the ground at the same time his hands did, and to him it felt like a catch. The other, and more obvious reason I don't think he cheated is because he's not that stupid - just the same as any international cricketer worth his salt. Why would you claim a catch like that when there are cameras everywhere, unless you really thought it was a clean catch? You'd get run out of town - and he still might. I doubt it, though - his name isn't Ricky Ponting (more on that in a later post).
All of that said, I don't think it was out. There's no way a third umpire would gave given it, and as Shane Warne says in the clip, how can Billy Doctrove, from 40 metres away, POSSIBLY say it was out? The umpiring has been shocking all match, and this is the worst example of it. It's so disappointing when things like this happen, and for three bad decisions to go against the Australians in what was a fantastic day's play was hugely frustrating. I'll be the first to stick my hand up and say that with or without Haddin and Clarke's partnership, England have been the best team in this match and daylight has been second - but that doesn't mean that things like this should happen. The only thing to say apart from "arse" or similar, is that in pressure situations, umpiring decisions will tend go with the run of play. 2005 taught us that if nothing else.
What I loved about today though was that it was ALL on a knife-edge, and every ball mattered. Even the above controversies contributed to that. I was enthralled when Katich and Hughes started the innings, I was enthralled when Ponting came to the wicket, I was enthralled (and incensed) when Hughes was dismissed, and.... well, you make up the rest. And when Clarke and Haddin batted so well in the last session, I can't remember being as excited watching a game of cricket in a long time. Maybe Langer and Gilchrist's partnership against Pakistan at Hobart comes close.
I'm actually seldom more interested in a game of (Test) cricket unless Australia is losing. I take no pleasure from it you understand - but its purely because of the occasional bolt of brilliance like these partnerships that make me want to watch it more. When Australia lost to South Africa in Australia late last year I was in the UK and watched nearly every ball. As it was, South Africa won easily. But they might not have. Something INCREDIBLE could have happened to turn around the game - and I never want to miss that.
And the best thing about the current situation is that it's not finished!! Anything could happen from here - it could still rain, and we'll get a draw! I really hope it doesn't rain, though - I want to see this to the bitter end. I just hate to think what will happen if we lose a wicket with about 150 runs to go, and then someone has to bat with Johnson, and then the tail. What if we need, say, 40 runs, and it's Johnson and Hilfenhaus at the crease? Will we see another Edgbaston?
Anyone got a spare defibrillator?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
1st Test Reflections
Right, well - the most obvious point - the English team are lucky, lucky boys. Australia did nearly everything they could have possibly done to win that test, but somehow ended up walking away, on the wrong side of a 0-0 scoreline. Although possibly not as much on the wrong side as England were. Although England will be VERY relieved that it's still 0-0 - which might mean that they're not really on the wrong side of it at all. Errr - ok then.
So. I'm not going to go into a blow-by-blow description of what actually happened - there are more prolific bloggers than me that have already done that - but the salient facts are that Australia outplayed England by just about the greatest margin you would ever see in a match without winning the match. With the bat, Ponting and Haddin were impressive, as were Katich and North if unspectacular. With the ball Hilfenhaus was very good, Siddle was very good (the spell to Swann on the 5th day was great stuff), Hauritz was much better than expected, and Johnson was bloody ordinary but somehow ended up with four wickets.
England looked largely listless and underdone. I'll start with the bowling because that's what we saw the most of - Broad in particular was rubbish all match. Anderson looked like the Anderson of old - i.e. crap. Flintoff impressed at times but was a work-horse at best for the rest of it. Monty- crap. Swann - crap. It's quite remarkable how Haruitz's match figures of 61 overs 6/158 compare to Penesar's and Swann's - a combined tally of 73 overs, 1/253. Ouch - and EVERYONE was queuing up to say how crap Hauritz was before the match started. With the bat they looked ok in the first innings but basically pretty woeful in the second, and have a lot to thank Collingwood for. I think it's amazing how he seems to be playing for his spot every third or fourth match and yet still does ok. He's actually got a pretty good record now - 49 matches, 9 hundreds, 15 fifties, 3453 runs at an average of almost 45 is pretty good going for someone so allegedly lacking in talent.
The one thing that particularly struck me though, was the teams' attitudes to the game. Australia bossed nearly all of it - and looked psychologically strong for its entirety, even during the few patches that England did well in the first innings. England were very, very ordinary in that department however, and particularly on the fourth day when Australia were piling on the runs. Everyone was talking about the likelihood of rain, it was supposed to arrive at lunchtime, and it was palpable that England were playing for the weather from ball one. It didn't arrive until tea by which time Australia had declared 239 runs in front and taken two English wickets - which served England right as far as I'm concerned. I'll say this about the English team - I have seen Australia lose, I have seen Australia play badly, but I have NEVER seen them play like that - nor seen an Australian captain allow it. How a team of highly-paid international cricketers can be allowed to go through the motions on account of a few clouds on the horizon I will never know. I think it speaks of a poor set-up in the team, and if they do that again this series it will come back to bite them. The first session of Day 4 is where England "lost" the match as far as I'm concerned, and they were very lucky it didn't actually happen properly.
I still think this series will be close, though - and I'm still going with my 2-1 margin. For all England's poor cricket and poor attitude, their tail-end batting showed a lot of application on Day 5, and it's just great to see players playing as though their lives count on it again - you only get that in the Ashes these days. Graeme Swann in particular batted very well, even in the face of one of the more frightening overs I have seen for a long time from Peter Siddle, and I really hope we get to see more of that as the series goes on. I also have the sneaking suspicion that Australia won't have it all their own way all the time - you're not going to have four of your top six scoring hundreds in the same innings every time, for starters. Unless England really are that ordinary. Which, after all, they might be.
Hope not, though.
So. I'm not going to go into a blow-by-blow description of what actually happened - there are more prolific bloggers than me that have already done that - but the salient facts are that Australia outplayed England by just about the greatest margin you would ever see in a match without winning the match. With the bat, Ponting and Haddin were impressive, as were Katich and North if unspectacular. With the ball Hilfenhaus was very good, Siddle was very good (the spell to Swann on the 5th day was great stuff), Hauritz was much better than expected, and Johnson was bloody ordinary but somehow ended up with four wickets.
England looked largely listless and underdone. I'll start with the bowling because that's what we saw the most of - Broad in particular was rubbish all match. Anderson looked like the Anderson of old - i.e. crap. Flintoff impressed at times but was a work-horse at best for the rest of it. Monty- crap. Swann - crap. It's quite remarkable how Haruitz's match figures of 61 overs 6/158 compare to Penesar's and Swann's - a combined tally of 73 overs, 1/253. Ouch - and EVERYONE was queuing up to say how crap Hauritz was before the match started. With the bat they looked ok in the first innings but basically pretty woeful in the second, and have a lot to thank Collingwood for. I think it's amazing how he seems to be playing for his spot every third or fourth match and yet still does ok. He's actually got a pretty good record now - 49 matches, 9 hundreds, 15 fifties, 3453 runs at an average of almost 45 is pretty good going for someone so allegedly lacking in talent.
The one thing that particularly struck me though, was the teams' attitudes to the game. Australia bossed nearly all of it - and looked psychologically strong for its entirety, even during the few patches that England did well in the first innings. England were very, very ordinary in that department however, and particularly on the fourth day when Australia were piling on the runs. Everyone was talking about the likelihood of rain, it was supposed to arrive at lunchtime, and it was palpable that England were playing for the weather from ball one. It didn't arrive until tea by which time Australia had declared 239 runs in front and taken two English wickets - which served England right as far as I'm concerned. I'll say this about the English team - I have seen Australia lose, I have seen Australia play badly, but I have NEVER seen them play like that - nor seen an Australian captain allow it. How a team of highly-paid international cricketers can be allowed to go through the motions on account of a few clouds on the horizon I will never know. I think it speaks of a poor set-up in the team, and if they do that again this series it will come back to bite them. The first session of Day 4 is where England "lost" the match as far as I'm concerned, and they were very lucky it didn't actually happen properly.
I still think this series will be close, though - and I'm still going with my 2-1 margin. For all England's poor cricket and poor attitude, their tail-end batting showed a lot of application on Day 5, and it's just great to see players playing as though their lives count on it again - you only get that in the Ashes these days. Graeme Swann in particular batted very well, even in the face of one of the more frightening overs I have seen for a long time from Peter Siddle, and I really hope we get to see more of that as the series goes on. I also have the sneaking suspicion that Australia won't have it all their own way all the time - you're not going to have four of your top six scoring hundreds in the same innings every time, for starters. Unless England really are that ordinary. Which, after all, they might be.
Hope not, though.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Ashes predictions.
OK, here goes, drum roll........
I'm predicting a tense-ish 2-1 victory for Australia.
Although when you think about it, this is just a spot away from the most blatant fence-sitting you're likely to see - within that 2-1 I'm declaring that two tests will be draws, and I'm allowing for England to win one as well. It also suggests that I think the better side will win, but that it might be closer than it really should be. If I was going to make a remark about what I think really SHOULD happen, I would say 3-1 Australia, but somehow I think we're going to make hard work of this one. Essentially I think that lightning might come CLOSE to striking twice, but that it won't in the end and Australia will win - and we'll be watching a good series and no question.
So. Here are the reasons why I'm thinking this way.
Perhaps surprisingly enough to some, this isn't coloured by the 2005 result at all. There is no superstition in this. It's purely based on my feeling about the sides and how they'll play.
At the end of the day, Australia will win because they're just plain better. In (nearly) every department they are the better team, but what particularly sets them apart is their ability to play an enterprising brand of cricket when it's required, particularly with the bat. I have lost count of the times I have seen England grind away, bat too slowly, and let the opposition back into the game when they should have shut them out long ago. This always frustrates me immensely, even as someone who would rather see England lose than not, because their cautious, play to the percentages attitude often reveals such a poor mental approach to the game which I just have no time at all for. As a spectator I want to see domination, humiliation, strength and assertion of will, flair, arrogance, guts, determination, competitiveness beyond all measure and above all, contest - conservatism just doesn't belong in any of that, and England are too often too conservative a side. I've never worked out quite why that is, because in England you MUST make the most of good conditions when you have them, because things can change so quickly. A comfortable session at 2.5 runs an over just isn't good enough when the clouds set in and the ball starts nipping about, and I've seen the English do exactly that so often.
That to me is the story of the batting line-ups. The only player in the English side that ever shows any inclination to take the bowling by the scruff of the neck is Kevin "Wanker" Pieterson, and even he doesn't do it much anymore these days. A top 6 that includes Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood just isn't going to frighten anyone at all - there's just not enough fire-power there. Don't get me wrong, they're good players and are all capable of scoring hard runs when needed, but there is too much emphasis on accumulation than showing the bastards who's boss. We'll see if Bell plays of course, and I haven't included any mention of Bopara because as far as I'm concerned he's still an unknown quantity - but either way, they just do not stack up against Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and North for sheer willingness to get on with it, and I am convinced that it is that factor that makes Australia successful more often than not. You could argue that Prior and Flintoff make up for some of that, but Flintoff hasn't scored any meaningful runs for a LONG time, and Australia have Haddin and Johnson to cancel them out anyway.
As far as the new ball is concerned I think it's even more clear that Australia are the better side. With or without the injured Lee, Johnson, Siddle and Clark are a better unit than Flintoff, Anderson and Onions/Broad. I'm sure England's seamers will take wickets, though - Anderson has been impressive for the past year or so and Flintoff is always good (when fit) but I think that whichever of Onions or Broad plays will get found out. I can't see a Kasprowicz/Gillespie situation occuring to Australia the same way it did in 2005, and yet I can definitely see Flintoff getting injured and/or not playing fully fit, and someone else going for a LOT of runs.
Spin is naturally the area of concern for Australia however, and definitely England's trump card. I don't know what's happening to Australia's batting lately, but for some reason we seemed to have developed a real weakness to frankly bloody ordinary fingerspinners like Graham Swann. Yes you can argue that he's had a great start to his Test career and that it's probably not down to luck, but jeez - aren't there more talented spinners around than him? And yet his is just the sort of bowling for which we seem to have problems with - rancid bloody straight-up-and-down fingerspin. And it's just HORRIBLE to watch - I've never had a problem when Australians get out to the likes of a Harbajahn or a Kumble - even Vettori on his day - but seeing us get out to the likes of Ashley Giles or Paul Harris has given me cricketing nightmares, and I have a nasty feeling that Harris is going to hurt us in this series. He is the reason I've given England a win in my predictions, and I think if I'm wrong and England are to win, he will have a lot to say about it.
Captaincy. Hmmm. OK - I'm going to stick my neck out here and claim that it's not going to be that much of a factor. I know that it's probably heresy to suggest this, but I'm not actually sure if it's as much of a factor in Test cricket as people think anyway - and that coming from someone who understands the importance of man-management implicitly. People like to bitch about Ponting but at the end of the day he's not the one with the ball in his hand, is he? Every single time we have lost a series and people have reviled his captaincy there have been about a thousand other reasons why we lost besides any poor decision-making on his part. 2005 Ashes? Yes we should have batted at Edgbaston - but that wasn't the reason why McGrath stepped on that ball, and no-one could have predicted that Gillespie would bowl so badly after bowling so well in India the series before. India in India, 2008? Yes he shouldn't have worried about over-rates so much, but it's not his fault we didn't (and still don't) have a spinner that can offer us any sort of consistency. South Africa in Australia 2008/9? Did anyone blame him for that anyway? We just weren't good enough, end of story. .... And you know what? That's IT. Those are Ponting's only series losses - and he's been at the helm since 2004. No-one can boast his sort of record - a record which is always talked down by the fact that he had McGrath and Warne and Langer and Hayden and all the rest of them available - but I don't see why that should mean that we discount his record during that period. It's pretty bloody stupid to suggest that Ponting's statistics don't count until after he lost those players - if his record doesn't count then, then it shouldn't count now either. I haven't heard anyone shouting about how great Strauss is, anyway. AND I think Vaughan was over-rated, so there.
Right! So. That's what I think. 2-1 Australia, should be 3-1 but we can't play spin, England to be boring, Australia to be less so, the end.
Let's see what happens.
I'm predicting a tense-ish 2-1 victory for Australia.
Although when you think about it, this is just a spot away from the most blatant fence-sitting you're likely to see - within that 2-1 I'm declaring that two tests will be draws, and I'm allowing for England to win one as well. It also suggests that I think the better side will win, but that it might be closer than it really should be. If I was going to make a remark about what I think really SHOULD happen, I would say 3-1 Australia, but somehow I think we're going to make hard work of this one. Essentially I think that lightning might come CLOSE to striking twice, but that it won't in the end and Australia will win - and we'll be watching a good series and no question.
So. Here are the reasons why I'm thinking this way.
Perhaps surprisingly enough to some, this isn't coloured by the 2005 result at all. There is no superstition in this. It's purely based on my feeling about the sides and how they'll play.
At the end of the day, Australia will win because they're just plain better. In (nearly) every department they are the better team, but what particularly sets them apart is their ability to play an enterprising brand of cricket when it's required, particularly with the bat. I have lost count of the times I have seen England grind away, bat too slowly, and let the opposition back into the game when they should have shut them out long ago. This always frustrates me immensely, even as someone who would rather see England lose than not, because their cautious, play to the percentages attitude often reveals such a poor mental approach to the game which I just have no time at all for. As a spectator I want to see domination, humiliation, strength and assertion of will, flair, arrogance, guts, determination, competitiveness beyond all measure and above all, contest - conservatism just doesn't belong in any of that, and England are too often too conservative a side. I've never worked out quite why that is, because in England you MUST make the most of good conditions when you have them, because things can change so quickly. A comfortable session at 2.5 runs an over just isn't good enough when the clouds set in and the ball starts nipping about, and I've seen the English do exactly that so often.
That to me is the story of the batting line-ups. The only player in the English side that ever shows any inclination to take the bowling by the scruff of the neck is Kevin "Wanker" Pieterson, and even he doesn't do it much anymore these days. A top 6 that includes Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood just isn't going to frighten anyone at all - there's just not enough fire-power there. Don't get me wrong, they're good players and are all capable of scoring hard runs when needed, but there is too much emphasis on accumulation than showing the bastards who's boss. We'll see if Bell plays of course, and I haven't included any mention of Bopara because as far as I'm concerned he's still an unknown quantity - but either way, they just do not stack up against Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and North for sheer willingness to get on with it, and I am convinced that it is that factor that makes Australia successful more often than not. You could argue that Prior and Flintoff make up for some of that, but Flintoff hasn't scored any meaningful runs for a LONG time, and Australia have Haddin and Johnson to cancel them out anyway.
As far as the new ball is concerned I think it's even more clear that Australia are the better side. With or without the injured Lee, Johnson, Siddle and Clark are a better unit than Flintoff, Anderson and Onions/Broad. I'm sure England's seamers will take wickets, though - Anderson has been impressive for the past year or so and Flintoff is always good (when fit) but I think that whichever of Onions or Broad plays will get found out. I can't see a Kasprowicz/Gillespie situation occuring to Australia the same way it did in 2005, and yet I can definitely see Flintoff getting injured and/or not playing fully fit, and someone else going for a LOT of runs.
Spin is naturally the area of concern for Australia however, and definitely England's trump card. I don't know what's happening to Australia's batting lately, but for some reason we seemed to have developed a real weakness to frankly bloody ordinary fingerspinners like Graham Swann. Yes you can argue that he's had a great start to his Test career and that it's probably not down to luck, but jeez - aren't there more talented spinners around than him? And yet his is just the sort of bowling for which we seem to have problems with - rancid bloody straight-up-and-down fingerspin. And it's just HORRIBLE to watch - I've never had a problem when Australians get out to the likes of a Harbajahn or a Kumble - even Vettori on his day - but seeing us get out to the likes of Ashley Giles or Paul Harris has given me cricketing nightmares, and I have a nasty feeling that Harris is going to hurt us in this series. He is the reason I've given England a win in my predictions, and I think if I'm wrong and England are to win, he will have a lot to say about it.
Captaincy. Hmmm. OK - I'm going to stick my neck out here and claim that it's not going to be that much of a factor. I know that it's probably heresy to suggest this, but I'm not actually sure if it's as much of a factor in Test cricket as people think anyway - and that coming from someone who understands the importance of man-management implicitly. People like to bitch about Ponting but at the end of the day he's not the one with the ball in his hand, is he? Every single time we have lost a series and people have reviled his captaincy there have been about a thousand other reasons why we lost besides any poor decision-making on his part. 2005 Ashes? Yes we should have batted at Edgbaston - but that wasn't the reason why McGrath stepped on that ball, and no-one could have predicted that Gillespie would bowl so badly after bowling so well in India the series before. India in India, 2008? Yes he shouldn't have worried about over-rates so much, but it's not his fault we didn't (and still don't) have a spinner that can offer us any sort of consistency. South Africa in Australia 2008/9? Did anyone blame him for that anyway? We just weren't good enough, end of story. .... And you know what? That's IT. Those are Ponting's only series losses - and he's been at the helm since 2004. No-one can boast his sort of record - a record which is always talked down by the fact that he had McGrath and Warne and Langer and Hayden and all the rest of them available - but I don't see why that should mean that we discount his record during that period. It's pretty bloody stupid to suggest that Ponting's statistics don't count until after he lost those players - if his record doesn't count then, then it shouldn't count now either. I haven't heard anyone shouting about how great Strauss is, anyway. AND I think Vaughan was over-rated, so there.
Right! So. That's what I think. 2-1 Australia, should be 3-1 but we can't play spin, England to be boring, Australia to be less so, the end.
Let's see what happens.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Why it would be great if Newcastle United got relegated.
.... or how the hell have the managed to get themselves into this situation in the first place??
OK, so there are five games of this Premier League season to go. Newcastle are currently in 18th spot, on 31 points, three from safety. They really need a win, but there's no telling where it's coming from - they're playing Liverpool away today, Middlesbrough at home next week who are in the same position and will be fighting for all they're worth, then Fulham away after that who have the 3rd best home record in the league, and then Aston Villa away, who might still be having to scrap to get a European place. I can see them losing all of those matches - or at least losing most of them and getting a draw or two from the others, which won't be good enough. If they draw or lose against Middlesbrough next week they're sunk, I think. And if I were a betting man, that's exactly where I'd be putting my money. .... Which would then by consequence guarantee a 15-0 win for someone, which is why I'm not a betting man.
Anyway. The thing about Newcastle's plight that really strikes me is that they really do epitomise - or SHOULD epitomise - the expression "too good to go down". Have a look at their team. Michael Owen, Alan Smith, Damien Duff, Joey Barton, Mark Viduka, Kevin Nolan, Nicky Butt, Shola Ameobi and Njitab Geremi to name no fewer than nine players who are household names in any football supporter's house - and within that a good three or four in anyone else's house for that matter as well. Madness. You look at that team at the start of the year and you think "there's a lot of quality there, they should score a lot of goals, guaranteed top half of the table finish, probably pushing for Europe as well". And yet there they are, down in 19th.
What this does is really point out to me that all the money in the world won't get you anywhere if you don't have good management - and good management WILL get you anywhere with surprisingly little expenditure. Look at Fulham. 7th place, Europe looking entirely possible. Last year seemed down and out, but a change of coach, change of SOME of the personnel, and hey, presto, top-half finish. And conversely, look at Man City. A license to print money by their new oil-rich Arabian owners, and have struggled to be mid-table.
But I can't believe that the evidence of that would be so stark when it comes to Newcastle. Because there really are some great players in there. It makes you wonder what would happen to Arsenal or Manchester United if Wenger or Ferguson needed mid-season heart surgery like Newcastles's ex-boss, Kinnear did. Would their absence produce a similar fall from grace, and possible regulation? The mind boggles.
To explain the headline of this post, though - I would LOVE to see Newcastle go down. Not because I have any great dislike of them, but just to see what would happen to their squad. There would be a lot of players looking for new clubs at the end of the season, and a lot of them would be offering fantastic value for money in transfer fees by consequence. What chance me going to the Cottage next season to see Michael Owen up front for Fulham? Well - probably not. But there's every chance of seeing someone like Mark Viduka, or Shola Ameobi - or any one of the others, for that matter. What a fantastic prospect!
... to be honest, though - can't really see it happening. They'll probably bore everyone stupid and stay up on the last day. Care of an away victory against Fulham the week before....
OK, so there are five games of this Premier League season to go. Newcastle are currently in 18th spot, on 31 points, three from safety. They really need a win, but there's no telling where it's coming from - they're playing Liverpool away today, Middlesbrough at home next week who are in the same position and will be fighting for all they're worth, then Fulham away after that who have the 3rd best home record in the league, and then Aston Villa away, who might still be having to scrap to get a European place. I can see them losing all of those matches - or at least losing most of them and getting a draw or two from the others, which won't be good enough. If they draw or lose against Middlesbrough next week they're sunk, I think. And if I were a betting man, that's exactly where I'd be putting my money. .... Which would then by consequence guarantee a 15-0 win for someone, which is why I'm not a betting man.
Anyway. The thing about Newcastle's plight that really strikes me is that they really do epitomise - or SHOULD epitomise - the expression "too good to go down". Have a look at their team. Michael Owen, Alan Smith, Damien Duff, Joey Barton, Mark Viduka, Kevin Nolan, Nicky Butt, Shola Ameobi and Njitab Geremi to name no fewer than nine players who are household names in any football supporter's house - and within that a good three or four in anyone else's house for that matter as well. Madness. You look at that team at the start of the year and you think "there's a lot of quality there, they should score a lot of goals, guaranteed top half of the table finish, probably pushing for Europe as well". And yet there they are, down in 19th.
What this does is really point out to me that all the money in the world won't get you anywhere if you don't have good management - and good management WILL get you anywhere with surprisingly little expenditure. Look at Fulham. 7th place, Europe looking entirely possible. Last year seemed down and out, but a change of coach, change of SOME of the personnel, and hey, presto, top-half finish. And conversely, look at Man City. A license to print money by their new oil-rich Arabian owners, and have struggled to be mid-table.
But I can't believe that the evidence of that would be so stark when it comes to Newcastle. Because there really are some great players in there. It makes you wonder what would happen to Arsenal or Manchester United if Wenger or Ferguson needed mid-season heart surgery like Newcastles's ex-boss, Kinnear did. Would their absence produce a similar fall from grace, and possible regulation? The mind boggles.
To explain the headline of this post, though - I would LOVE to see Newcastle go down. Not because I have any great dislike of them, but just to see what would happen to their squad. There would be a lot of players looking for new clubs at the end of the season, and a lot of them would be offering fantastic value for money in transfer fees by consequence. What chance me going to the Cottage next season to see Michael Owen up front for Fulham? Well - probably not. But there's every chance of seeing someone like Mark Viduka, or Shola Ameobi - or any one of the others, for that matter. What a fantastic prospect!
... to be honest, though - can't really see it happening. They'll probably bore everyone stupid and stay up on the last day. Care of an away victory against Fulham the week before....
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Cantata No. 42 in Heerhugowaard
Right, so lately this blog has been less about love, life, art and cricket, and more A Diary of an Australian Tenor in Holland, but there we are - I'm sure I'll address the others in due course.
Had a rehearsal today for a gig that I'm singing tomorrow. It's in the middle of bloody nowhere - Heerhugowaard, which is an hour and a half by train from The Hague and then another ten minutes by car, so over three hours' travel there and back. I didn't know that it would take that long when I took the gig, and neither did I realise that they wouldn't be re-imbursing my travel expenses, either. Makes the €75 that they're paying me look even more paltry - I'm going to end up about €40 in front, and given the morning rehearsal and morning service, I'm foregoing two badly-needed sleep-ins as well. Hmph. Oh well - such is the life of a newly-arrived-on-the-scene singer: I'm loathe at this stage to turn anything down, particularly if it's a solo gig (which this is), because you never know who you're going to meet, and what sort of fabulous work you'll get from doing it. Today's €75 gig less travel expenses could be tomorrow's large-scale tour, recording deal and snorting crack off super-models' backsides.
Still, I continue to be impressed by what I see in this country, and continue to find very good answers when people ask me, round-eyed, "why did you want to leave Australia to come HERE???" - which happens more than you'd think. Heerhugowaard is NOWHERE, and I'm not kidding. It's a back-of-beyond, uninteresting, sparsely-populated, nothing sort of a place - an agricultural town that was established on account of the local cabbage-growing industry, or so the elderly parisioner that ferried me to and from the church proudly proclaimed. Population: fuck-all. Certainly no more than a couple of thousand, if that. And yet, despite all of this, they're remarkably well-equipped to put on Bach cantatas. The church boasted a very nice little organ, a harpsichord, a perfectly competent parish choir, and a small orchestra, who were probably all being paid but were all still local. And were playing on period instruments, for crying out loud.
This is pretty incredible, really, and more so when you consider that there are probably hundreds of churches just like this throughout the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Can my Australian readers imagine this? No matter how healthy a parish is in a country town in Australia, you'd be lucky to find someone there who even knew what a harpsichord was, let alone for the place to actually have one. Things are better in the UK, but not much, really. This is the equivalent of someone turning up in the equivalent country town in Australia wondering if anyone plays AFL, and finding not only a club but a well-maintained ground, training facilities and a whole bunch of professional and semi-profesional players.
(.... Actually come to think of it, this probably isn't the greatest comparison. There are probably any number of places like that in Australia, and the same with football in the UK, that boast this sort of thing. But maybe it IS a useful comparison anyway, because you can see that the Dutch attachment to classical music is more or less the equal to the Anglo-Saxon attachment to sport.)
Classical music is just part of people's vocabulary here. Not EVERYONE's vocabulary, you understand - the Dutch do white trash just as well as anyone else - but it is very much part of the fabric of the community. That's why when I sang eighteen St Matthew Passions that almost all of them were sold-out, despite the fact that they're mass-produced and badly-directed. THIS IS WHY I CAME HERE. Not for the under-paid gigs that require lots of travelling nor for the bad direction of course, but for a world where classical music is part of everyone's vocabulary. A world where if I tell the man in the pub what I do for a living I don't reveal myself either as a "girl", "poofter", or at the very best, quaint oddity with the unusual taste in vocational activities, who then has to justify his career-choices to everyone. It's almost like presenting art and music actually holds relevance, somehow, as opposed being part of some sort of obscure niche.
I gotta tell you, it's awfully refreshing.
Had a rehearsal today for a gig that I'm singing tomorrow. It's in the middle of bloody nowhere - Heerhugowaard, which is an hour and a half by train from The Hague and then another ten minutes by car, so over three hours' travel there and back. I didn't know that it would take that long when I took the gig, and neither did I realise that they wouldn't be re-imbursing my travel expenses, either. Makes the €75 that they're paying me look even more paltry - I'm going to end up about €40 in front, and given the morning rehearsal and morning service, I'm foregoing two badly-needed sleep-ins as well. Hmph. Oh well - such is the life of a newly-arrived-on-the-scene singer: I'm loathe at this stage to turn anything down, particularly if it's a solo gig (which this is), because you never know who you're going to meet, and what sort of fabulous work you'll get from doing it. Today's €75 gig less travel expenses could be tomorrow's large-scale tour, recording deal and snorting crack off super-models' backsides.
Still, I continue to be impressed by what I see in this country, and continue to find very good answers when people ask me, round-eyed, "why did you want to leave Australia to come HERE???" - which happens more than you'd think. Heerhugowaard is NOWHERE, and I'm not kidding. It's a back-of-beyond, uninteresting, sparsely-populated, nothing sort of a place - an agricultural town that was established on account of the local cabbage-growing industry, or so the elderly parisioner that ferried me to and from the church proudly proclaimed. Population: fuck-all. Certainly no more than a couple of thousand, if that. And yet, despite all of this, they're remarkably well-equipped to put on Bach cantatas. The church boasted a very nice little organ, a harpsichord, a perfectly competent parish choir, and a small orchestra, who were probably all being paid but were all still local. And were playing on period instruments, for crying out loud.
This is pretty incredible, really, and more so when you consider that there are probably hundreds of churches just like this throughout the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Can my Australian readers imagine this? No matter how healthy a parish is in a country town in Australia, you'd be lucky to find someone there who even knew what a harpsichord was, let alone for the place to actually have one. Things are better in the UK, but not much, really. This is the equivalent of someone turning up in the equivalent country town in Australia wondering if anyone plays AFL, and finding not only a club but a well-maintained ground, training facilities and a whole bunch of professional and semi-profesional players.
(.... Actually come to think of it, this probably isn't the greatest comparison. There are probably any number of places like that in Australia, and the same with football in the UK, that boast this sort of thing. But maybe it IS a useful comparison anyway, because you can see that the Dutch attachment to classical music is more or less the equal to the Anglo-Saxon attachment to sport.)
Classical music is just part of people's vocabulary here. Not EVERYONE's vocabulary, you understand - the Dutch do white trash just as well as anyone else - but it is very much part of the fabric of the community. That's why when I sang eighteen St Matthew Passions that almost all of them were sold-out, despite the fact that they're mass-produced and badly-directed. THIS IS WHY I CAME HERE. Not for the under-paid gigs that require lots of travelling nor for the bad direction of course, but for a world where classical music is part of everyone's vocabulary. A world where if I tell the man in the pub what I do for a living I don't reveal myself either as a "girl", "poofter", or at the very best, quaint oddity with the unusual taste in vocational activities, who then has to justify his career-choices to everyone. It's almost like presenting art and music actually holds relevance, somehow, as opposed being part of some sort of obscure niche.
I gotta tell you, it's awfully refreshing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Never a truer word spoken
I love this: Al Murray - or his alter-ego, the Pub Landlord - is always good for a one-liner. This show is from a long time ago, 2004 I th...
