Saturday, April 27, 2013

Luis Suarez, and related thoughts


Luis Suarez has been in the headlines a lot this week.  He has recently been banned by the FA for ten games, for biting an opponent in a match last week.  He was previously banned for seven games in 2010 for biting, while at his former club Ajax.
There are several point to make in reaction to this.

1.       Biting is not appropriate on any sports field.  In football, it is classed as violent conduct, warranting a red card and at least a three-match ban.
2.       Players sent off for violent conduct are often banned for more than three games by the FA.  Di Canio was banned for 11 games for pushing a referee in 1998.  Prutton was banned for 10 games for the same offence in 2005.  Thatcher got 8 games for elbowing Mendes in 2006.  In most non-sporting professions, such offences would warrant a sacking.  Why not in football?
3.       This is the longest ban a player has been given for violent conduct against another player in England.  The only longer bans are for acts against referees, fans, or for drug offences.  The exception is Joey Barton’s 12-game ban, but that was for two counts of violent conduct rather than one.  Why has this offence been given a significantly longer ban than many other counts of violent conduct?  What is inherently worse about biting than stamping, spitting or headbutting?
4.       Jermaine Defoe bit an opponent in 2006 and was given no ban because the referee saw the incident, and FIFA have a policy that means that players cannot be retrospectively punished by football associations if the referee has already ‘dealt’ with the incident.  This policy is understandable, because they want to empower the referees.  The policy is also laughable because the best way to empower referees is with a system of TV replays and challenges, a system that shows no signs of becoming available.  Referees should be able to use replays like in rugby, for incidents such as infringements in the penalty area or when players are accused of something like biting.  Team captains should be allowed, say, two challenges per half, like in tennis, to challenge decisions like dives and offsides.  I have made this argument so many times, I am getting sick of it.
5.       There are two issues here – that of retrospective punishment, and that of the length of Suarez’s ban.  Much of the discussion over the ban has been to do with consistency.  Why ten games, where similar incidents have warranted fewer?  Is biting an opponent worse than racist language but not as bad as pushing a referee?  Is this a longer ban because it is the second time he has bitten an opponent?  If so, why has this not been clarified?
6.       The bottom line is that Suarez should be banned, but he should be banned in a way consistent with other similar incidents.  On a related note, the way games are refereed needs to change, and has needed to change for a while now.


Thursday, April 11, 2013

Standing ovations

I have never given a standing ovation.  Yes, I've stood and clapped people.  But only in situations where I was already standing (like a gig) or needed to stand to see, because everyone else was standing (like a football match), or because I'm asked to (like a wedding).  I've never stood to applaud someone because I thought what they had done was worth it.  I've come close a few times, but I've never been so jaw-droppingly overwhelmed that I feel the need to acknowledge it with a standing ovation.
Maybe I'm overly harsh.  I probably am.  I certainly have very high expectations.  I thought the other day that the one time I would probably have given a standing ovation, I never got the chance.  If there had been a chance to stand and applaud Colin and Margy Stephenson, the couple who led the youth camp Hebron, to recognise what they had given to teenagers and adults over twenty years, I think I might have.  The chance never arose, so I remain a standing ovation virgin.  For now.

Martin Smith

I saw Martin Smith (former lead singer of Delirious) perform with his band last week.  The gig confirmed my theory that he is the best frontman I have ever seen.
Some of the reasons for this are:

  • He seems to really enjoy performing live.  He has a good time on stage.  This makes him really good to watch.  I'm sure many other people also enjoy performing, but it doesn't show as clearly.
  • He engages with the crowd like no-one else.  He doesn't just talk to the crowd, he converses with them.  He shakes hands, makes jokes, stands on shoulders, takes song requests.  It's like watching your mate play a gig in the local pub.
  • He makes great use of his body when performing.  Many frontmen will just stand there and sing (think Liam Gallagher).  Martin Smith will jump, dance, kneel, crouch etc.
  • He is creative with his music.  The other day, he sang History Maker, though a different version without the classic bass/synth intro (creative), but then he sang God is Smiling over the top of it (more creativity).  Some of the times he does this, I'm sure it is planned.  Sometimes, I'm sure it is spontaneous.

I really have seen no-one else like him.  He is the best at what he does.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Albums by year

This morning, I was challenged to investigate the years in which various of my albums had been released, and rank the years according to how strong the albums from each year are.

I listed 151 of my albums which I know best, assuming that these were generally my favourite albums (simply because I know them the best).  The release dates of the albums ranged from 1981 right through to 2013.
I wrote lists of the albums released each year.  Given that these are my favourite albums, I made the assumption that the year with the most albums would be the greatest year.  This resulted in a draw between 2002 and 2005.  Of course, this assumption is not a valid one - it could be that all of 2002's albums are stronger than any of those from 2005, for example.  Having glanced quickly at the two years, I would suggest that 2002 is slightly stronger.

Another method would be to assign each album an score and give each year a total score.  Or an average score.  This method would take more time than I have, but I can make estimates.  I estimate that, using the 'total' method, 2002 and 2005 still lead, mainly because they each have 16 albums contributing to their totals, while the next closest year, 2003, only has 11.  Using the 'average' method, a kind of indicator of the 'concentration of quality' of a year, I estimate that 1994, 2000, 2006 and 2007 would all feature highly.  1994 only has on album on the list - Definitely Maybe (Oasis).  2000 has A day without rain (Enya), All that you can't leave behind (U2), Glo (Delirious), Hybrid Theory (Linkin Park), No name face (Lifehouse), Parachutes (Coldplay) and The Father's Song (Matt Redman) - I know, right, what a year!  (Interestingly, when I just typed The Father's Song, I mis-typed it as The Father's Snog...).  2006 features Beautiful News (Matt Redman) (not the strongest start, but wait for it), Black holes and revelations (Muse), Harmonies for the haunted (Stellastarr*), Sam's Town (Killers) and Stadium Arcadium (RHCP).  2007 includes A weekend in the city (Bloc Party), An end has a start (Editors), Beyond the Neighbourhood (Athlete), Cities (Anberlin), Holding nothing back (Tim Hughes) (what a first five!), Make another world (Idlewild), The altar and the door (Casting Crowns), The Kissaway Trail (The Kissaway Trail), The scene and the unseen (Stoney), Who we are (Lifehouse).

Three points in summary:

  1. There is a lot of good music from a lot of good years.
  2. I like music.
  3. I am still a geek, and that doesn't look like changing any time soon.

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

The Chronicles of Narnia

Without any explanation, and off the top of my head (which are both unusual), here is my ranking of The Chronicles of Narnia.  Do you agree?

  1. The Horse and His Boy
  2. The Last Battle
  3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
  4. The Magician's Nephew
  5. The Silver Chair
  6. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
  7. Prince Caspian