A pebble in the moonlight

This is one of my favourite pieces of writing.  It's from a novel called Waylander, by David Gemmell.

I love how it describes fear, and overcoming it.

Danyal was awake, her lip swollen and a bruise on her cheek. Caymal sat beside her. The wagon was cramped and the baker's two young children were sleeping beside Danyal.

'Thank you', she said, forcing a smile.

'They will not trouble you again.'

Caymal eased himself past Waylander and climbed out over the tailboard. Waylander moved up to sit beside Danyal. 'Are you hurt?' he asked.

'No. Not much anyway. Did you kill them?'

'Yes.'

'How is it you can do these things?'

'Practice,' he said.

'No, that's not what I meant. Caymal tried to stop the man...and Caymal is strong, but he was brushed aside like a child.'

'It is all about fear, Danyal. Do you want to rest now?'

'No, I want some air. Let's walk somewhere.'

He helped her from the wagon and they walked to the cliff face and sat on the rocks.

'Tell me about fear,' she said.

He walked away from her and stooped to lift a pebble.

'Catch this,' he said, flicking the stone towards her. Her hand snaked out and she caught the pebble deftly. 'That was easy, was it not?'

'Yes,' she admitted.

'Now if I had Krylla and Miriel here, and two men had knives at their throats and you were told that if you missed the pebble they would die, would it still be easy to catch? Think of those times in your life when you were nervous, and your movements became disjointed.

'Fear makes fools of us all. So too does anger, rage and excitement. And then we move too fast and there is no control. You follow me?'

'I think so. When I had to give my first performance before the King of Drenan, I froze. All I had to do was walk across the stage, but my legs felt as if they were carved from wood.'

'That is it. Exactly! The onset of fear makes the simplest of actions complex and difficult. No more so than when we fight...and I can fight better than most because I bring all my concentration to bear on the small things. The pebble remains a pebble, no matter what hangs upon success or failure.

'Can you teach me?'

'I don't have time.'

'You are not obeying your own mantra. This is a small thing. Forget the quest and concentrate on me, Waylander – I need to learn.'

'How to fight?'

'No – how to conquer fear. Then you can teach me to fight.'

'Very well. Start by telling me what is fear?'

'An ending.'

'Make it worse.'

'Maggots and grey rotting flesh?'

'Good. And where are you?'

'Gone. Finished.'

'Do you feel anything?'

'No...perhaps. If there is a paradise.'

'Forget paradise.'

'Then I feel nothing. I am no longer alive.'

'This death, can you avoid it?'

'Of course not.'

'But you can delay it?'

'Yes.'

'And what will that give you?'

'The prospect of more happiness.'

'But at worst?'

'The prospect of more pain,' she said. 'Old age, wrinkles, decay.'

'Which is worse? Death or decay?'

'I am young. At the moment I fear both.'

'To conquer fear, you must realise that there is no escape from what you dread. You must absorb it/. Live with it. Taste it. Understand it. Overcome it.'

'I understand that,' she said.

'Good. What do you fear most at this moment?'

'I fear losing you.'

He moved away from her and lifted a pebble. Clouds partly obscured the moonlight and she strained to see his hand.

'I am going to throw this to you,' he said. 'If you catch it, you stay – if you miss it, you return to Skarta.'

'No, that's not fair! The light is poor.'

'Life is not fair, Danyal. If you do not agree, I shall ride away from the wagons alone.'

'Then I agree.'

Without another word he flicked the stone towards her – a bad throw, moving fast and to her left. Her hand flashed out and the pebble bounced against her palm, but she caught it at the second attempt. Relief swept through her and her eyes were triumphant.

'Why so pleased?' he asked.

'I won!'

'No. Tell me what you did.'

'I conquered my fear?'

'No.'

'Well, what then? I don't understand you.'

'But you must, if you wish to learn.'

Suddenly she smiles. 'I understand they mystery, Waylander.'

'Then tell me what you did.'

'I caught a pebble in the moonlight.'

Just catch the pebble.

Why England got knocked out

This is my World Cup rant. Enjoy. Here are the reasons England had a poor world cup:

1. Terry's affair. What a donkey. Because of John Terry's lack of faithfulness and self-control he lost the captaincy, his form dropped, and the squad lost unity, probably thinking 'I wonder if he's been screwing my wife too'.
2. Squad selection. Lennon, Wright-Phillips and Walcott are identical players, and none of them are that useful I agree with Capello that Lennon is the best of the three, but SWP was a waste of a squad place. He should not have been on the plane. I'm not sure who I would have taken instead – maybe Downing or Bent.
3. Ferdinand/King injuries. With Terry off form, We really needed Rio, both as a pacey defender and a captain. His injury was bad luck. Then King's injury was even worse luck.
4. Lennon was poor. No delivery. Not good enough. Milner was better.
5. Green's mistake. One of those things you can't predict, but it made a difference. It's not an excuse though, England should have still had enough to beat USA.
6. SWP coming on as sub. He's the same as Lennon, but even worse. He has no delivery. He should not be playing.
7. The Heskey/Rooney partnership did not work. I don't know why. Possibly because teams predicted it too well.
8. Heskey coming on as sub instead of Crouch. Capello played Heskey because, while he doesn't score, he brings the best out of Rooney. Once this stopped working, he switched to Defoe. Good decision. But then, when it came to replacing a striker, he brought on Heskey, who (a) cannot score, and (b) no longer works well with Rooney. Whereas Crouch can score (and does, frequently!), and would be a much better option.
9. Lampard's free kicks. Apart from the one when he hit the bar against Germany, Lampard's free kicks were abysmal. Either way over the bar or straight into the wall. Many chances wasted.
10. We had no tempo against Algeria or USA. We allowed the other teams to dictate the pace, and thus struggled to break them down because they had time to set up their defence. Ergo, we couldn't score more goals than them.
11. Missed chances against Slovenia. Way too many of them. Simply wasteful at this level. A single extra goal would have seen us top the group and play Ghana and Uruguay rather than Germany and Argentina.
12. Disallowed goal against Germany. Shocking decision that did change the game. Had it gone in, we would have been level, we would have had the momentum, Germany would have been reeling, and we wouldn't have had to commit 9 men forward at set pieces to get an equaliser and then get caught on the break.
13. Not bringing on Joe Cole for Defoe as plan B. Capello didn't really have a plan B. SWP for Lennon was like-for-like. SWP for Milner was a step backwards. Heskey for Defoe did not work, as discussed above. He should have brought Cole on for Defoe, put Cole on the left, and shifted Gerrard to the hole. Gerrard and Rooney are our two most dangerous players, and most of the exciting things England did in the four games was due to their link-up play.

All these things were factors in England's poor world cup. But the last reason is the main one: Gerrard's position. Steven Gerrard is a central midfielder. One of the best in the world. Don't play him on the wing! Especially the left wing, he's right-footed! A waste of one of our best players, and the single player who brings the best out of Rooney. Gerrard rarely has the discipline to stay out on the left, so he drifts inside. This reduces service to the strikers, stifles the central midfielders, means we lack width, and leaves Ashley Cole exposed at the back. With the lack of service to the strikers, Rooney dropped deep to get the ball and we had very little up front. Therefore we do not attack effectively and cannot defend effectively – we were continually exposed down our left side.

Capello's decision to play Gerrard out of position was the single biggest factor in England's downfall. To do well at football, you have to score and not concede (this really isn't a difficult concept!). With Gerrard on the left, we struggled to score and conceded too easily. Simple as.

Player ratings

Green – 3. Unforgivable mistake at this level. Otherwise fine.

James – 8. Good goalkeeping. Dealt with crosses well and made some good saves. Did everything he could

Cole – 8. Our best player (as ever). Solid defensively, good going forward. Did as well as he could with no cover in front of him for a lot of the time.

Johnson – 6. Sparky going forward, ok at the back. Not good enough for a world cup winning side, but not bad either.

Terry – 4. No pace, little confidence. Generally absent. Did not dominate like he used to.

King – 5. Fine until he got injured.

Carra – 4. See Terry.

Upson – 6. Generally did well. Only mistake was in the lead up to Klose's goal, but he wasn't exactly helped by the rest of the team.

Barry – 5. Nondescript. Very little to say, either good or bad.

Gerrard – 4. Some exciting moments, but too many wasted chances and way to little positional discipline (though it's not his fault he was put out on the left).

Lampard – 4. Good against Germany (unlucky not to have 2 goals), but otherwise very poor.

Lennon – 3. Did nothing.

Milner – 6. Not his fault that he was picked while ill against USA. In the other games he did well and was our main attacking chance-provider.

Cole – 5. Didn't get much of a chance, but did ok when he came on.

SWP – 2. Did less than Lennon.

Rooney – 3. 'The first touch of an elephant seal' (Robbo's blog). True fact. Very poor indeed.

Heskey – 3. Ok against USA, but his score is always limited by the fact that he never scores. Did very little.

Defoe – 6. Good goal against Slovenia, worked hard, good link up play.

Crouch – 5. Had no chance to shine.

Preaching > setup?

I've preached twice at my church.  Both times, I have received lots of positive comments from people, both in person and by text, thanking me for what I said and encouraging me.
I also lead a setup team at church, working for an average of between 1 and 2 hours each Sunday.  I hardly ever get encouragement for this work.
This is not me complaining about not being encouraged in setup stuff - I do it because it needs doing, I enjoy it and I'm good at it.  But I am aware that the work that the setup leaders and setup teams do at my church is very overlooked compared to the 'up-front' stuff like preaching or leading worship.  I think it's a shame that people put so much emphasis on something like preaching compared to something like setup, as if preaching was more important or more difficult than setup.