All the build-up seemed to threaten the un-thinkable: that Mexico might actually go and win this one, ruthlessly crushing the sky-high hopes and dreams of millions of South Africans. The multitudes of interviews with jubilant men, women and children all loyal to the Bafana Bafana cause seemed to pessimistic me that a awful defeat beckoned, and the first ten minutes seemed to confirm my fears.
It was a good seven minutes before the first South African player actually managed to get that pesky Jubilani under control; Mexico were making South Africa look like they were doing their best to fulfil that old African football team stereotype: decent individuals but no idea how to pass and defensively naive. Mexico had a goal ruled out shortly after for offside, but then something strange happened. South Africa remembered how to pass, and although it came to nothing, they worked the ball with skill and speed down the left, and with just a touch more vision the left-winger could have been played through (sorry, I don't know any of their names, bar Pienaar and Mokoena. And Tshabalala, who I'll get to shortly). There was another interlude of erattic play from the hosts, before something similar happened again, and I thought, perhaps this team are decent after all. Half time arrived with the scores still 0-0, with Mexico looking increasingly impotent despite the endeavours of Giovanni Dos Santos, who looks and plays like Ronaldinho's younger brother.
After continuing very much in the same vein the first half finished for ten minutes, South Africa scored, and it was an absolute beauty. Siphiwe Shabalala was put through but a surgical daisy-cutter on the left, he took a touch and walloped it past Perez straight into the top-right corner; replays showed Shabalala making perfect contact. The din from the already infamous vuvuzuelas became intolerable, what it must have been like inside the stadium I hope I'll never know.
South Africa were unable to find a second, and Mexico finally did my eardrums a favour and scored in the 78th minute. Thank God for that, a bit of peace and quiet. South Africa hit the woodwork following a route one pass in the dying minutes, but with neither side being able to make the decisive move the game finished 1-1.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Saturday, 5 June 2010
What the Hell happened to Muse?
The release of the incredibly unimaginative Neutron Star Collision has confirmed Muse as a band that can no longer be called 'Good'. Thing is, I didn't see it coming. Black Holes and Revelations was a step down from the previous two, sure, but it was still by no means a bad album: Map of the Problematique and Knights of Cydonia will be considered classic Muse in time to come.
Then about this time last year, United States of Eurasia was released, and I loved it - it promised the album I had been hoping for. The follow-up, Uprising was more...solid, but still quite good. And then there was the much-hyped Exogenesis suite. It was billed to be a culmination of everything Muse had done previously, but alas, it was rubbish. In a way Exogenesis sums up what went wrong: Muse over extended themselves, the majestic classical stylings of Butterflies & Hurricanes from Absolution gave way to pomposity, with classical pretentions that not even Matt Bellamy could achieve successfully. Exogenesis was very much Bellamy's own, and without his less-celebrated but nevertheless essential bandmates he fell flat.
Exogenesis wasn't the only mis-fire. Bellamy doesn't speak French; why then the ridiculous add-on "(Mon Coeur S'ouvre A Ta Voix), and the full-blow Francophone singing? And the flute? WHY WAS THERE A FLUTE! On top of that Undisclosed Desires is comfortably the worst song ever released by Muse, not helped by the tragic hip-hop beat. I could rant for ages about the shortcomings of each individual track.
Is there hope for recovery? I really hope so, but somehow I'm doubtful. They're no less popular than before, if not more so, so it seems unlikely that Muse will suddenly refind that youthful energy that made them such an exciting live - and studio - band.
Then about this time last year, United States of Eurasia was released, and I loved it - it promised the album I had been hoping for. The follow-up, Uprising was more...solid, but still quite good. And then there was the much-hyped Exogenesis suite. It was billed to be a culmination of everything Muse had done previously, but alas, it was rubbish. In a way Exogenesis sums up what went wrong: Muse over extended themselves, the majestic classical stylings of Butterflies & Hurricanes from Absolution gave way to pomposity, with classical pretentions that not even Matt Bellamy could achieve successfully. Exogenesis was very much Bellamy's own, and without his less-celebrated but nevertheless essential bandmates he fell flat.
Exogenesis wasn't the only mis-fire. Bellamy doesn't speak French; why then the ridiculous add-on "(Mon Coeur S'ouvre A Ta Voix), and the full-blow Francophone singing? And the flute? WHY WAS THERE A FLUTE! On top of that Undisclosed Desires is comfortably the worst song ever released by Muse, not helped by the tragic hip-hop beat. I could rant for ages about the shortcomings of each individual track.
Is there hope for recovery? I really hope so, but somehow I'm doubtful. They're no less popular than before, if not more so, so it seems unlikely that Muse will suddenly refind that youthful energy that made them such an exciting live - and studio - band.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Why Fabio Made A Mess Of Our World Cup Preparation
It's not a complete disaster by any means: a decent squad will board the plane next week, but it's make-up is weaker than it could be, and preparations have been inadequate. Here's why:
The Players
My main gripes are the omissions of Michael Dawson and Adam Johnson. Michael Dawson played nearly every game in a Spurs team that clinched fourth place this season, and is now ready to step up a level. The rock in an ever-changing Spurs defence, was brilliant throughout the whole campaign, and was a major factor in achieving the lowest ever number of goals conceded in the Premier League era for Spurs. I believe only Chelsea conceded fewer goals. Speaking of Chelsea, Dawson is very much in the mould of their captain, John Terry. Both can be described as classic English centre-backs, gritty and determined, and while Terry still has the edge, Dawson has a bit of pace that all-too-frequently proves a costly flaw in Terry's game. Dawson also has the advantage of not being a bastard. But who should have Dawson replaced? Matthew Upson, the shoddy West Ham centre-back who, in a team with a good number of international players, only just crawled home 17th. With Upson we know what we're getting - a decent but nevertheless sub-international standard defender who suffered a poor season at a poor club and has never excelled when called up into the first team. Dawson is something of a wild card - but if we find ourselves shorn of Terry and Ferdinand, Dawson could just excell himself, particularly if he is pair with Ledley king, with whom he shares good communication.
Adam Johnson, the young Manchester City left-winger, is a similarly unknown quantity. He is a very tricky player, intelligent and swift, who can provide a touch of inspiration that the England team sorely lacks at times. He is more-or-less unproven at international level, but in the 10 minutes he played against Mexico he was sharp, certainly sharp enough to warrant a run-out on Sunday against Japan, but the call never came. Again, the question is: who should he replace? This is tougher one - all the England midfield seem to be sound selections - but I would argue drop a goalkeeper. Goalkeepers are unlikely to be injured or booked, so just the one back-up will suffice. If one gets crocked it is a risk to have no replacement, but to quote the Spurs motto "He Who Dares Wins". Drop James, take Johnson.
Preparation
The ru-up to the World Cup has been horrendously disjointed, with the likely first eleven having hardly played a game together. Fabio was split in two minds: do I give everyone a run out or do I stick with a team early and give them a few games to gel? He did neither, with a large number of the 30-man squad getting 45 minutes, or in Adam Johnson and Michael Dawson's cases, 10 minutes or less. That is not enough to establish whether they are good enough at the top level or will fit in the team. Players can take ten games or more to feel comfortable, and while I recognise that is an amount of time that Fabio simply didn't have, he should have decided upon a formation on a game-by-game basis, and given the unknowns time to show what they can do. What this chop-and-change method achieved is to leave the team in an uncertain position after the Japan game. Without any qualifiers for nine months the first eleven will possibly be strangers to each other, and since 45 minutes is not enough time to judge a player, replacement will be ill-judged.
Perhaps one element that Fabio can be forgiven is the lack of games played. England have played 3 internationals this yeah; Japan had played 6. However, if you look at the number of games each English player had played in comparision to his Japanese counter-parts it is clear that there simply isn't enough time to fit more internationals into an already packed schedule. Still, there's no doubting that Fabio could have made better use of the recent friendlies.
EDIT: Apparently it's against the rules to take only two keepers, but I still think Johnson should go, this time in place of Shaun Wright-Phillips. I quite like SWP but he has recieved a bit of a bashing from the press - he's direct, fast and can run through broken play perhaps even more adeptly that Aaron Lennon, but we need a left winger, and SWP can't play there. Without bothering to fully check, it appears that Ashley Cole and Stephen Warnock are the only left-footers in the team (not even sure about Warnock), and it is absolutely important we have that capability. Joe Cole can operate on the left, as he did last time round, but it is not his best position, likewise for Gerrard. SWP could be a lethal impact substitute, but it is more important to have a balanced team across the 90, instead of relying on a goal in the last ten minutes. SWP can't cross; Johnson can, so if our game plan breaks down, bring on Crouch and have the Johnsons and Lennon swing crosses onto his head.
EDIT 2: So Ferdinand is injured, Dawson gets a call-up!
The Players
My main gripes are the omissions of Michael Dawson and Adam Johnson. Michael Dawson played nearly every game in a Spurs team that clinched fourth place this season, and is now ready to step up a level. The rock in an ever-changing Spurs defence, was brilliant throughout the whole campaign, and was a major factor in achieving the lowest ever number of goals conceded in the Premier League era for Spurs. I believe only Chelsea conceded fewer goals. Speaking of Chelsea, Dawson is very much in the mould of their captain, John Terry. Both can be described as classic English centre-backs, gritty and determined, and while Terry still has the edge, Dawson has a bit of pace that all-too-frequently proves a costly flaw in Terry's game. Dawson also has the advantage of not being a bastard. But who should have Dawson replaced? Matthew Upson, the shoddy West Ham centre-back who, in a team with a good number of international players, only just crawled home 17th. With Upson we know what we're getting - a decent but nevertheless sub-international standard defender who suffered a poor season at a poor club and has never excelled when called up into the first team. Dawson is something of a wild card - but if we find ourselves shorn of Terry and Ferdinand, Dawson could just excell himself, particularly if he is pair with Ledley king, with whom he shares good communication.
Adam Johnson, the young Manchester City left-winger, is a similarly unknown quantity. He is a very tricky player, intelligent and swift, who can provide a touch of inspiration that the England team sorely lacks at times. He is more-or-less unproven at international level, but in the 10 minutes he played against Mexico he was sharp, certainly sharp enough to warrant a run-out on Sunday against Japan, but the call never came. Again, the question is: who should he replace? This is tougher one - all the England midfield seem to be sound selections - but I would argue drop a goalkeeper. Goalkeepers are unlikely to be injured or booked, so just the one back-up will suffice. If one gets crocked it is a risk to have no replacement, but to quote the Spurs motto "He Who Dares Wins". Drop James, take Johnson.
Preparation
The ru-up to the World Cup has been horrendously disjointed, with the likely first eleven having hardly played a game together. Fabio was split in two minds: do I give everyone a run out or do I stick with a team early and give them a few games to gel? He did neither, with a large number of the 30-man squad getting 45 minutes, or in Adam Johnson and Michael Dawson's cases, 10 minutes or less. That is not enough to establish whether they are good enough at the top level or will fit in the team. Players can take ten games or more to feel comfortable, and while I recognise that is an amount of time that Fabio simply didn't have, he should have decided upon a formation on a game-by-game basis, and given the unknowns time to show what they can do. What this chop-and-change method achieved is to leave the team in an uncertain position after the Japan game. Without any qualifiers for nine months the first eleven will possibly be strangers to each other, and since 45 minutes is not enough time to judge a player, replacement will be ill-judged.
Perhaps one element that Fabio can be forgiven is the lack of games played. England have played 3 internationals this yeah; Japan had played 6. However, if you look at the number of games each English player had played in comparision to his Japanese counter-parts it is clear that there simply isn't enough time to fit more internationals into an already packed schedule. Still, there's no doubting that Fabio could have made better use of the recent friendlies.
EDIT: Apparently it's against the rules to take only two keepers, but I still think Johnson should go, this time in place of Shaun Wright-Phillips. I quite like SWP but he has recieved a bit of a bashing from the press - he's direct, fast and can run through broken play perhaps even more adeptly that Aaron Lennon, but we need a left winger, and SWP can't play there. Without bothering to fully check, it appears that Ashley Cole and Stephen Warnock are the only left-footers in the team (not even sure about Warnock), and it is absolutely important we have that capability. Joe Cole can operate on the left, as he did last time round, but it is not his best position, likewise for Gerrard. SWP could be a lethal impact substitute, but it is more important to have a balanced team across the 90, instead of relying on a goal in the last ten minutes. SWP can't cross; Johnson can, so if our game plan breaks down, bring on Crouch and have the Johnsons and Lennon swing crosses onto his head.
EDIT 2: So Ferdinand is injured, Dawson gets a call-up!
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
OMG
Some extremely clever people up north have managed to recreate a soldier's face using computer imagery. I think this sort of thing has been done before, but this one actually looks like a real person. I say crack open some royal graves and scan in old royalty - medieval paintings are just too awful to really give a genuine likeness. Or everyone was ugly 500 years ago.
Monday, 17 May 2010
3:10 To Yuma (James Mangold, 2007)
Will contain spoilers (you're not missing much).
Despite initial promise - Christian Bale and Russel Crowe are two able leads - the formulaic and frequently cliché nature of 3:10 To Yuma stops it ever getting off the ground. You've heard it before: a hard-up rancher (Bale) is tempted into joining a rag-tag bunch in escorting dangerous criminal Ben Wade (Crowe) to the titular train, persued by his gang. Along the way trouble with the locals forces them to work together, and the criminal begins to question is motives and life choices. Will he turn good? Difficult one.
This is James Mangold's first foray into a straight-up actioner, and he handles the gun-fights adroitly, but there are too many slightly suspect moments that just make the film as a whole feel somewhat amateurish. For instance, a group of horseriders charge down a path and the extras, lined along the side, dash in front of the riders to create chaos, but it was far too obviously not how people would react. Shortly after, the well-meaning but timid doctor gets shot in a chase; in the aftermath he asks "Did we make it? Did we get away?" to which Bale replies "Yeah, Doc, we made it". There's enough ham in that line to feed a family of four for a week. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but I feel moments such as these are too common to let slide as isolated incidents. They do have a negative impact on the imersion, certainly.
There are positives. Crowe makes an excellent bad-guy, carrying himself with a sence of purpose and volatility, and Bale isn't bad either, his run-down rancher war-vet is interesting if a little trite. The relationship between Bale and his son is developed well also; I can imagine their relationship is one to which many fathers can relate, although their conclusion feels hollow.
5/10
Despite initial promise - Christian Bale and Russel Crowe are two able leads - the formulaic and frequently cliché nature of 3:10 To Yuma stops it ever getting off the ground. You've heard it before: a hard-up rancher (Bale) is tempted into joining a rag-tag bunch in escorting dangerous criminal Ben Wade (Crowe) to the titular train, persued by his gang. Along the way trouble with the locals forces them to work together, and the criminal begins to question is motives and life choices. Will he turn good? Difficult one.
This is James Mangold's first foray into a straight-up actioner, and he handles the gun-fights adroitly, but there are too many slightly suspect moments that just make the film as a whole feel somewhat amateurish. For instance, a group of horseriders charge down a path and the extras, lined along the side, dash in front of the riders to create chaos, but it was far too obviously not how people would react. Shortly after, the well-meaning but timid doctor gets shot in a chase; in the aftermath he asks "Did we make it? Did we get away?" to which Bale replies "Yeah, Doc, we made it". There's enough ham in that line to feed a family of four for a week. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but I feel moments such as these are too common to let slide as isolated incidents. They do have a negative impact on the imersion, certainly.
There are positives. Crowe makes an excellent bad-guy, carrying himself with a sence of purpose and volatility, and Bale isn't bad either, his run-down rancher war-vet is interesting if a little trite. The relationship between Bale and his son is developed well also; I can imagine their relationship is one to which many fathers can relate, although their conclusion feels hollow.
5/10
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Super Taranta!
- Super Taranta!I know what you're thinking. Five stars? Gogol Bordello? Really? Well, yes actually, hear me out.
Never have I heard an album that is as brimming with creativity and enthusiasm as this. Every song, from start to finish, is dynamic, with a surprising level of subtlety hidden under the chaotic exterior. Despite the minor-key nature of the gypsy music it strongly identifies with the songs are never downbeat, urged onwards by the off-beat rhythms and technical playing of the violinists and accordions.
Unsurprisingly for a band whose members hail from across the globe, Eugene Hutz sings about his roots and culture. American Wedding impales the - to Hutz at least - watered down nature of weddings in America: "Have you ever been to an American wedding?/Where's the vodka, where's the marinated herring?", or "I understand the cultures of a different kind/ But the word celebration just doesn't come to mind". Despite this rather glum outlook it never feels glum, with lyrics like "No one ever talks about my super theory of super everything!" injecting a touch of humour, giving the impression that he is chiding his abdoptive country rather than criticising it. Taking a similarly downbeat attitude to surburban America is Tribal Connections, in which he sings "No can do this/ No can do that/ Then what the hell can you do my friend/ In this place you call your town!"
There are also moments of brilliant fun, with the chorus of Harem In Tuscany being the best example. It blasts along at 100mph and has more twists and turns than Memento. I think it would be fair to say that if you don't enjoy this song you probably have no soul and you can Super Theory of Super Everthing and Forces Of Victory to the bunch too.
Buybuybuybuybuybuybuybuybuybuy!
Monday, 3 May 2010
How To Solve A Problem Like Exams
Exam fatigue is already setting in, and they haven't even started yet. At least, round 5 hasn't started yet. Come July, I will have been through: Year 9 SATS, Year 10 Maths, Science and coursework galore, year 11 GCSEs, year 12 As levels and year 13 A2 levels. It has been an almost relentless procession of coursework, revision, examination, repeat, that absolutely heaps pressure on young shoulders, just so we can tackle rounds 6, 7, and 8 (although by all accounts round 6 is a all-round doss).
Examination results really can make or break our lives. Screwing up just one exam can cause people to miss out on their chosen university, or university altogether in general, and it is that fear that hangs over anything from middlingto high achievers for a very long time, forcing people to neglect their social lives and happiness just for some exams. It is awful that so much rides on just a few hours work. The big education bosses seem to have forgotten that we are only children once, and it is far to valuable period of time to be wasted stricken by the spectre of examinations. I recognise that does sounds a bit Helen Lovejoy, but it is a fact: people have massive - justified - worries about the exam period.
Stress isn't the only factor, however. Taking a wider perspective, we are not taught to think, we are taught to pass exams. I feel it has reached the point where sat-down examinations are no longer the best way to assess education. The blame for this lies largely with the introduction of the School League Tables, which dumped a whole load more pressure on schools to perform: good exam results equals more money, which in theory should lead to even better exam results. This spiral increased until schools are forced to only think about how well students do in exams rather than their general development, a result of which is a very narrow skills base.
Perhaps the best example is languages. I study Spanish, predicted B, and can converse reasonably well on important topics like immigrate, science, poverty and a novel and a film. I do not, however, feel confident that I would be able to fend for myself if I were to be dumped unceremoniously in the mean streets of Madrid, instructed to intergrate with other Spaniards. It is telling that the Speaking portion of the exam is the smallest of all, a paltry 20% in comparison the the 80% for Reading, Writing and Listening combined. Speaking is by far the most important and difficult aspect of learning a language, and I cannot understand why it is neglected to such an extent.
Another example is English. I have no gripe with the A level course - I feel it is sufficiently streching and rewarding - instead it is the GCSE course that worries me. So many of my peers leave school at the end of year 11 with basic literary abilities, absolutely basical abilites like grammar, language usage, letter writing etc, and yet we are made to analyse poetry. First off, almost nobody enjoys this, and is generally seen (correctly) as useless as algaebra (incorrectly, morons!). It is likely that 90% will never read, or have to understand, a poem ever again, so why teach it?
I think I have thought of a solution. It has no doubt been mooted before, but I don't care, it seems reasonable enough to me. Firstly, exams as we know them should be scrapped, although coursework should stay. I propose teachers assess pupils across an extended period of time, 3 months, say, during which performance during lessons will be scrutinised. This has several benefits. Exams are a one-off, during which pupils can underperform drastically for various reasons, none the least the immense pressure, but this system will ensure their average attainment can be found more accurately. Secondly, since it is class-time that is being used, students will have an incentive to try as hard as they can, which I think will improve the abilities of the students more than preparing for exams.
Of course there are flaws in this system. How do we ensure teachers don't show favouritism, or allow personal bias to affect their judgement? Would unruly pupils who have no intention of doing well screw up performace of class-mates? How do we ensure all schools follow the same method of marking? Indepentent moderation could be key. External observers will provide anchors across the whole country, assessing in turn the teachers' assessments of the pupils. Records of pieces of classwork will show a general level, as would coursework.
Other things could be taken into account too. Punctuality, for instance, is something that an amazing number of people suck horrendously at, so why not give some small mark for how good students are at that? Team working similarly could be taken into account, though I think it would be of secondary importance than academic ability.
The success of this system would depend on the abolition of Leage Tables. Keeping them would only result in the problems we are currently faced with all over again, though it would be potentially being even more damaging - imagine three months of relentless stress in every lesson and you can see where I'm coming from.
I hope I have gone some way to persuading you that the current system is flawed, and this proposal would solve the issue.
Examination results really can make or break our lives. Screwing up just one exam can cause people to miss out on their chosen university, or university altogether in general, and it is that fear that hangs over anything from middlingto high achievers for a very long time, forcing people to neglect their social lives and happiness just for some exams. It is awful that so much rides on just a few hours work. The big education bosses seem to have forgotten that we are only children once, and it is far to valuable period of time to be wasted stricken by the spectre of examinations. I recognise that does sounds a bit Helen Lovejoy, but it is a fact: people have massive - justified - worries about the exam period.
Stress isn't the only factor, however. Taking a wider perspective, we are not taught to think, we are taught to pass exams. I feel it has reached the point where sat-down examinations are no longer the best way to assess education. The blame for this lies largely with the introduction of the School League Tables, which dumped a whole load more pressure on schools to perform: good exam results equals more money, which in theory should lead to even better exam results. This spiral increased until schools are forced to only think about how well students do in exams rather than their general development, a result of which is a very narrow skills base.
Perhaps the best example is languages. I study Spanish, predicted B, and can converse reasonably well on important topics like immigrate, science, poverty and a novel and a film. I do not, however, feel confident that I would be able to fend for myself if I were to be dumped unceremoniously in the mean streets of Madrid, instructed to intergrate with other Spaniards. It is telling that the Speaking portion of the exam is the smallest of all, a paltry 20% in comparison the the 80% for Reading, Writing and Listening combined. Speaking is by far the most important and difficult aspect of learning a language, and I cannot understand why it is neglected to such an extent.
Another example is English. I have no gripe with the A level course - I feel it is sufficiently streching and rewarding - instead it is the GCSE course that worries me. So many of my peers leave school at the end of year 11 with basic literary abilities, absolutely basical abilites like grammar, language usage, letter writing etc, and yet we are made to analyse poetry. First off, almost nobody enjoys this, and is generally seen (correctly) as useless as algaebra (incorrectly, morons!). It is likely that 90% will never read, or have to understand, a poem ever again, so why teach it?
I think I have thought of a solution. It has no doubt been mooted before, but I don't care, it seems reasonable enough to me. Firstly, exams as we know them should be scrapped, although coursework should stay. I propose teachers assess pupils across an extended period of time, 3 months, say, during which performance during lessons will be scrutinised. This has several benefits. Exams are a one-off, during which pupils can underperform drastically for various reasons, none the least the immense pressure, but this system will ensure their average attainment can be found more accurately. Secondly, since it is class-time that is being used, students will have an incentive to try as hard as they can, which I think will improve the abilities of the students more than preparing for exams.
Of course there are flaws in this system. How do we ensure teachers don't show favouritism, or allow personal bias to affect their judgement? Would unruly pupils who have no intention of doing well screw up performace of class-mates? How do we ensure all schools follow the same method of marking? Indepentent moderation could be key. External observers will provide anchors across the whole country, assessing in turn the teachers' assessments of the pupils. Records of pieces of classwork will show a general level, as would coursework.
Other things could be taken into account too. Punctuality, for instance, is something that an amazing number of people suck horrendously at, so why not give some small mark for how good students are at that? Team working similarly could be taken into account, though I think it would be of secondary importance than academic ability.
The success of this system would depend on the abolition of Leage Tables. Keeping them would only result in the problems we are currently faced with all over again, though it would be potentially being even more damaging - imagine three months of relentless stress in every lesson and you can see where I'm coming from.
I hope I have gone some way to persuading you that the current system is flawed, and this proposal would solve the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)