Mclaren

Good article on Steve Mclaren here http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/11/07/the_day_mcclaren_went_missing.html

My comments on it are- The fact that Steve Mclaren was evidently never up to the job has nothing whatsoever to do with his ginger hair. The same can be said for Gary Megson at Bolton. If ever there was a man whose reputation outweighed his actual achievements (midtable obscurity and one, wow, Carling Cup) it is Mclaren.

Contrasts/opposites/ying and yang

Chelsea and Liverpool. Liverpool are to Chelsea's 0 goals last night what Chelsea's 0 goals are to Liverpool's 8. What?! What is the sound of one hand clapping again?

Forget politics. These results tell us how long a week is in football. On Saturday Liverpool where "in the midsts of at least a mini crisis" and Avram Grant was 'beginning to make Chelsea play again' (as if Chelsea had ever stopped playing!) Now it is all change. Surely Roman Abramovic has had words. "I don't want to see that again Avram. Not 0-0. Never again. Never in Europe. Do we understand each other?" In fact I am sure Roman Abramovic has unusual features in his house/mansion/palace in volcano crater. Features like a pits of sharks and piranhas, trapdoors, and diamond cutting laser beams.

But to speculate in the non-fantastical for a moment. Will Liverpool reach the next round. They have been here before of course, needing to win there last three games to qualify for the knockout stages. They duly won all three of them, and went on to win the tournament. History then, tells us that Liverpool will be fine. Especially with an 8-0 wind in your sails and just two more wins to go. But then history can tell you nearly anything you want it to if you look hard enough at it for long enough.

Recommended Read

OK- I haven't actually read this, but since a friend's brother wrote it I said I would plug it. With that said I am going to read it. It sounds good, in that jumpers for goalposts kind of way.

"stuck for a xmas present for that football loving relative? why not buy my brother's brand new book 'from sheffield with love'?released to tie in with the current 150th birthday celebrations of the world's oldest football club sheffield fc, it's a rollicking romp through the growth of football in victorian times, facsinating and irreverent, charting the development of association rules and its birth in the english public schools and sheffield factories.*every page is packed with at least one potential football quiz gem.
cheapest place to order it is from thebookdepository.com (free p&p).'from sheffield with love' by brendan murphypublished by sports books. £8.99
go on!

* the works team of the factory where our dad worked and where me and brendan worked in summer holidays once reached the fa cup quarter finals, losing to west brom. while wearing long johns and caps. crikey!"

Also correcting the BBc (again!)

Non football related this one. As I was reading the BBC website the other day I noticed that they branded the Uruguayan Tupumaros as a "violent Marxist" group. This is erroneous. So I sent the Beeb this letter. "I was reading your country profile on Uruguay. Generally speaking it is a good overview. I must object however to the description of the Tupumaros as "violent". The Tupumaros were famously non-violent, although they did perpetrate illegal and unlawful acts. The British ambassador Geoffrey Jackson, kidnapped by the organisation, is a sound witness as to their non-violence. Perhaps the phrase "unlawful Marxist" would be be better. I think when discussing these matters it is important to distinguish between revolutionary organisations that use violence against the general population and those that don't (even though they may commit crimes in the name of their cause). If we fail to make this distinction we end-up branding all radical groups as "terrorists" and risk justifying the unjustifiable and disproportionate. This is of particular importance when writing about Latin American history. " The website now reads "urban Marxist". Which should well be down to my letter, I think/hope. As director generals have resigned over lesser erors obviously offending the queen is more important than accurately describing Latin American history. Of course "urban" does not really mean anything in this instance. It is a geographical term not a sociological term. Even if it conjures up borderline legal/shadowy activity. Or groups of kids in Dalston litening to to MOBO award nominees. There is also no information on the tupumaros activities either- how they used to rob banks and give money to the poor, rather like Robin Hood. Imagine for example if the Merry men were described as a "rural anarchist group", when we all know they are folk heroes. Notions of neutrality and objectivity depend on context and ideological convenience, so it seems. Hamas for example "are described as a terrorist organisation by the US, EU, and Israel." The Israeli government is not. Despite the fact that both kill civilians in the course of military operations. Traditionally this was down to the fact that the Israeli government is legitimately elected, but since Hamas were given a democratic mandate by the Palestianians the distinction remains. This confirms what we already know. What constitutes terrorism is dependent on the ideological and tactical concerns of those in power. Semantics are important. The West, and its allies, are engaged in a War On Terror. Yet what this means is woefully loose. The plurality that makes up the mass mind falls into line, or at least silence, behind the definition. The electorate are left dumb as to the real military objectives of the foreign policies they are responsible for franchising. The media, our representaives of free speech, limit our capacity for independent thought through "good journalistic practice". To quote Ian Hislop, who I have always secretly thought was a thoroughly good fucker- "if this is democracy then I'm a banana."

Flare/Flair Pay League Update

See orignal article here http://footballisnotmygod.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-may-border-on-obvious.html

The biggest difference here is that Man Utd are top, after a couple of more emphatic results earlier in the season. Despite scoring more goals overall Arsenal need a big win or two to close the gap. Judging by Alex Ferguson's reaction this weekend I am sure he believes his team should be top. Don't worry Alex, in the world of footballisnotmygod you have a two point cushion.

For the uninitiated- WIN BY 3 CLEAR GOALS=5, 2 CLEAR GOALS=4 1 CLEAR GOAL =3, SCORE DRAW=2 NON SCORE DRAW=1.

Man U 35
Arsenal 33
Blackburn 30
Portsmouth 29
Man City 29
Chelsea 29
Liverpool 27
Everton 23
Aston Villa 22
West Ham 22
Newcastle 21
Fulham 17
Tottenham 15
Midlesbrough 13
Reading 13
Wigan 12
Sunderland 12
Bolton 12
Birmingham 10
Derby 8

Minister Sutcliffe defends his position

Gerry Sutcliffe today defended yesterday's comments made against footballers wages, and ticket prices http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2203910,00.html, saying "I am a government minister, one of the most powerful men in the country, I was dining with saudi princes just this week, all at the taxpayers expense, and not even I can earn the kind of cash John Terry can. It is outrageous. A politician in his pomp is nothing compared to a footballer. A nurse is to a politicain what a politician is to a footballer. He almost earns more in a week than I claim a year in expenses (£148,111). The difference is close to what we pay a year to teachers. How is that fair?" He then went on "Thinking about it it probably was silly that I made these comments at all. I mean, although what I am saying is true it is obvious that the tabloids are going to jump all over my back about this one. The singling out of John Terry was an error. The guy is England captain, a national hero. If I had said instead that footballers earn too much money, and not cited John Terry as an example, everyone would probably have agreed with me. At least now though I got my name into the papers. Everyone knows who I am now. No-one gave a flying fuck before."

(source not given)

One last thing. Is it just me or does anyone else think that John Terry has a passing resemblance to the child catcher in chitty chitty bang bang?

Last night

rather than tuck myself up, with the works of Robert Frost, to read about the Triple Godess, the blessed mooncrone, my girlfriend and I watched the National Television Awards instead. The only thing that got read was teletext, when I checked the Carling Cup scores. First, as this is a football blog, let me give you the lowdown in typical News In Brief Style.



...Everton last night scraped through to the last eight of the Carling Cup after a hard fought win over League 1 Luton. Despite making all the running the Toffees were unable to break a down a dogged and determined Luton defence until Tim Cahill, still returning from injury, converted Thomas Gravesen's extra time corner for a late winner. The win ensures Everton will play one of their Premiership rivals in the next round...



Enough of that. If you want more I suggest you head elsewhere. Now, the NTA awards!



The biggest shock of the night was Ant and Dec winning the the Best Presenter Award, despite the fact that they are clearly two people. Surely the award they should have won was the Best Presenters' Award. They obviously enjoy a a relationship of symbiotic dependency to such an extent that they are no longer seen as one person. Their consciousnesses merging into one sentiency, Burroughsesque, the one fading to insignificance without the other. Every time I see Ant and Dec I am unable to forget the image of Duncan from Byker Grove (played by one of them, Dec, I think) being brainwashed by a Tai Chi instructor. Maybe this layed the spiritual groundwork for his later soul convergence with Ant/PJ.



Trevor Mcdonald, hosting the affair, revealed a hitherto concealed lightness of touch. He deserted his sombre catastrophe announing sobriety for an all togehter more open and approachable style . He even gave the audience a cheeky wink at one point, when talking about the news at 10 being back in the New Year. This switch to panache light was a bit disconcerting. Like John Motson suddenly revealing a hidden talent as a childrens' entertainer.



Eastenders won best soap. Their new producer mumbled incoherently in the background to Dot while stumbling around like an overgrown toff. He looked thoroughly flumoxxed by the whole hoo-ha.



...

Back to the football however: teletext reported on Bolton's match by writing "Gary Megson enjoyed his first defeat as Bolton manager" Like he was some kind of maschocist who contrived to lose whenever he could. Looking at this record that would explain a lot.



There was no giant killing in the cup last night, although the Foxes and Luton both came close. But then, even if a smaller club does somehow manage to invert the form book, it is a case of winning the battle and not the war. There are always giants. Not just in football too, in all of life. Any Iraqi can tell you that.