Kids these days

Last week I went on a two-day school trip to London.  We went on a sightseeing tour, saw Wicked, and went to the Warner Bros studios.  A few things on this trip highlighted to me how different the kids were to what I was like at their age.  Few if any of these things were new to me, but realising or remembering them all in a short space of time was interesting.

1. Within about 20 minutes of leaving on the Thursday morning, before we even got to Darlington, some of the kids were asking 'are we nearly there yet?'  There weren't joking.  They actually thought that, after 20 minutes of driving, we were probably nearly at London.  They had no idea how far away London is.  When, at one point, we said we were near Leeds, hardly any kids had heard of the place.
2. Because we were going to the Warner Bros studios, we had a Harry Potter quiz on the way down.  I wrote it (obviously), and based the questions on the books (even more obviously).  That meant that some of the questions couldn't be answered if you'd only seen the films.  Almost all the kids had seen at least some of the films.  Hardly any had read any of the books.  I was actually shocked at how many of these pretty big Potter fans hadn't read any of the books.  When we asked why, they simply said 'I don't read'.  Like, ever.  Reading was just not something they did.  Over the course of the whole trip, I saw just one child (out of 55) reading a book.
3. Most of the kids took spending money in the region of £150-200.  For a two-day, one-night trip.  At their age I would probably have taken £20.  Wow.
4. We spent an hour or so walking round London, seeing some of the sights.  Many of the kids really struggled to deal with so much walking.  An hour.  At a relatively slow place, with a fair few pauses.  They were just not used to walking anywhere.
5. One kid lost his phone.  His reaction?  He looked for it in his bag, and his hotel room, and then shrugged and said 'It's ok, I'll get an iPhone for Christmas'.  The culture of disposability.
6. At the Harry Potter studios, most of the kids had their phones or cameras out to take photos.  Fair enough.  But some of them did this to such an extent that they barely even looked at the exhibits.  They were using their phones instead of their eyes.  They could have just stayed at home, given me a camera, and got me to email them the photos when I got back, and they'd have had pretty much the same experience.  Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but they did seem to be sacrificing the moment itself for the sake of recording the moment.
7. Having said all this, it was very sweet to see their reactions when we got back to school on the Friday night.  It was as if they'd been away for a month, they were so delighted to be home.  Of course, for many of them, it was the longest time they'd been away from home.

As I said, I knew all this stuff.  But seeing it all in a short space of time really brought it home to me how much the childhoods of these kids were different to mine.  Something to ponder.

Albums in thirds

Epic geekery here.

I have a theory that an important factor in making a good album is to have a strong final third.  So many albums start well but tail off towards the end.  Sometimes this is because the artist doesn't really have enough good songs to make an album, and packs their two or three decent singles in the first 5 tracks.

I have analysed 145 of my albums to find out a few things.  I mainly wanted to know the proportion of the albums that bucked the trend and finished well, and whether there were any patterns from any particular artists.

I did this by splitting albums in half and awarding a point to whichever half was strongest, and splitting albums into thirds and awarding three, two and one points for the strongest, middle and weakest thirds respectively.  I only did this for albums that (a) had at least 9 tracks, and (b) I was confident I knew well enough to analyse well.
There were various problems with the method.  It's hard to split an 11 track album into thirds, for example.  Or, this gives no indication of how much better one section of an album is than another.  But given the resources available (time, energy, inclination, knowledge, ability), it was the best I could do.

The findings?  Of 145 albums, 120 had a stronger first half and only 25 had a stronger second half.  The total points for thirds were: 1st third - 382; 2nd third - 259; 3rd third - 229.  So the final third is not, on average, much weaker than the middle third - but the first third is definitely the strongest.  And first halves are stronger about 80% of the time.
A total of 59 albums were 'perfectly front heavy' - that is, the first third was the strongest, the final third was the weakest, and the first half was stronger than the second.  Only 6 albums were the opposite - first third weakest, final third strongest, second half stronger than the first.  These six albums, if you are wondering, are Athlete - Beyond the Neighbourhood, Bottlerockit - Angel on a Vespa, British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power, Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and all his Friends, Hurts - Happiness, and Lifehouse - No Name Face.

In terms of artists, I looked at any artist with three or more albums on the list, and looked for patterns.
Anberlin: consistently front heavy (i.e. strongest in the opening third), with weak middles.
Athlete: very varied, no pattern, each album is very different
Bloc Party: always front heavy, except for their best album, A Weekend in the City, which is back heavy
British Sea Power: same as Bloc Party - front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Casting Crowns: always perfectly front heavy and declining throughout the album
Coldplay: slightly varies but mostly front heavy
Delirious: generally front heavy, lots of weak middles
Enya: front heavy, except for her first two albums
Idlewild: very varied, like Athlete
The Killers: always front heavy
Lifehouse: front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Matt Redman: front heavy except for his best album
Mew: consistently front heavy
Muse: front heavy
Oasis: generally front heavy
Stellastarr*: front heavy with weak middles
Tim Hughes: front heavy
U2: front heavy

The pattern is pretty clear throughout: most albums are front heavy.  Interestingly, there are several artists whose strongest album is the only one that is back heavy.  Of the nine of my top ten albums of the decade for 2000-2009 that were in this analysis, only 1 had the final third as its weakest section, and 5 had it as the strongest section.  It seems that, for me at least, a strong final third is an important factor in a good album.

Football and the pinch of salt

I like watching football.  I support Liverpool.  But I view my support of them as a bit of a hobby.  I think I am less fussed about how they do than many of my friends are about their own teams.  I would like to support them more ardently, but I don't think I can justify it.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games.  It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly.  I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens.  It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence.  Big decisions that change the game.  It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups.  Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt.  I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically.  I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.

In defence of Harry Potter

This link was recently posted on my Facebook wall.  I promised a blogged response, so here it is.  I suggest you read the linked article before this post, as I will be responding to the points made in the article.

First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm.  This is inaccurate.  While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm.  The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers.  The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave.  His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.

The author is unhappy that Harry, while not being good at much, is "touted by others as being a wonderful and excellent wizard for no discernible reason".  Two points in response to this.  Firstly, the times he is praised by many people are the times when he has done something particularly good, such as killing a basilisk, evading a dragon or escaping from Voldemort.  Secondly, a lot of the hype placed on Harry throughout the series is because he (admittedly unknowingly) caused first downfall.  It's the standard response to a saviour-hero.  Nothing that unusual, and certainly not Harry's fault.

The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill.  This is simply incorrect.  Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not.  Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on.  Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.

Harry is then criticised for not trying hard enough in the Triwizard Tournament, and for needing help to get through it.  It should be noted that both Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, the strongest wizard and witch from their respective schools, needed help from their mentors.  Harry is about three years younger than them and probably gets no more help than them.

Then comes a classic issue: angry-Harry in book 5.  I've said before that, given Harry's circumstances, a little anger is not unexpected and maybe even reasonable.  He acts like a normal teenager would.  The author of the article acknowledges this, but argues that Harry is not a normal teenager.  However, the author gives no reason for this argument, but simply goes on to criticise Rowling's writing - a separate issue that gives no evidence to the debate over Harry's anger.  Hence, there is no argument that Harry is not a normal teenager. I would like to point out that (a) I don't happen to think he is a normal teenager, but the article gives no evidence for claiming that he isn't, and (b) I don't think he is sufficiently abnormal to be immune to anger!

So, that's Harry defended.  He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be?  He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.

Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing.  The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing.  Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view).  Harry is initially just a kid.  He's young.  Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way.  Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books.  It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges.  He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling.  There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black).  The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character.  That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.

Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense.  Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament.  Two points in defence of this.  One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools.  Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years.  It was a massive deal.  I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding.  The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety.  The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort.  However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy.  This is all explained at the end of book five.  Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry?  Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions.  Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it.  Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.
Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it?  Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out.  It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic?  The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy.  From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?

Dumbledore kept information from Harry for two reasons.  One is explained in book six (Harry even asks this question!) - Dumbledore told Harry everything he knew for certain; from then on, it was guesswork.  The second is that Dumbledore was a master schemer.  He kept information from people all the time, you could argue he even sacrificed people for the long-term goal of killing Voldemort.  Dumbledore's character is possibly the most interesting of the lot.  Remember the whole 'greater good' thing from his youth?  I reckon he carried elements of that on through his life.

Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths.  Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant.  I fail to see how it isn't both of these.  It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic.  As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series.  Secondly, Lupin and Tonks.  Here I have to concede the point.  I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).

Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent.  The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'.  The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching).  Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal.  The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch.  Veritaserum?  To be honest, I don't know.  This may well be a plot hole.  But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally.  Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows.  In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.

Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.

The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.

So there we go.  My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.

Gove's plan hides a bigger problem

The education system, and particularly its assessment, is a bit of a mess.  This has been clear to me since I started teaching, 4 years ago.  Grade boundaries fluctuate, sometimes wildly.  The difference between a C in one qualification and another can be huge.  Many exams are an unrealistic way of assessing people.  The number of resits that can be taken has become absurd.  Teaching to the test is rife.  Grade inflation has become a joke.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things.  I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make.  I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.

First, a bit of background.  A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced.  This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language.  Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability.  Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs.  This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac.  The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac.  In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects.  It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take.  (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)

In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to  start with).  It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules.  It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11.  The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation.  A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago.  Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth).  This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one.  More rigour is needed.  Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results.  Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with).  (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)

However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake.  Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have.  At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June.  Mental.  But stopping modules altogether is a step too far.  As is removing coursework.  I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils.  In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that.  The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world.  This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.

Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration.  A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades.  Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades.  Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority.  Classic Tory.

However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem.  The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results.  Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be).  The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can.  Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.

Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there.  This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons.  Grade inflation for one.  The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two.  Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one.  Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year.  Which pupils get extra help for coursework.  Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier.  Teaching to the test.  Pupils breaking down with stress.  Staff breaking down with stress.

There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules.  There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils.  But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment.  I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment).  But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer.  That would be Mr Gove's job.  And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.

First World Problems

I've had a bad day (bear with me, this post is not just a whine).  I started off pretty tired, physically and emotionally.  My sister got married on Saturday - I was ushering and managing logistics.  We finished clearing up at about 12, then I had to be at church for 8 to set up on Sunday morning.  Following church and then clearing up from it, I was helping to clear the wedding reception until about 5.  Then there was the mix of emotions that goes with one's sister getting married, and the bizzare feeling of situations like seeing my oldest friend, Annie, for the first time in about 3 years, and only having time for a quick hug,
I woke up pretty shattered.  And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching.  The last thing I wanted was the first day of term.  Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday.  Yes, that's the day the kids come back.  And the labs will be empty when they arrive.  Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue.  When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock.  It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam.  I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal.  I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.

This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening.  I reckoned I needed to get some perspective.  As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'.  I remembered that I have a continual supply of food.  I have a phone, a car, and a house.  I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive.  I have a laptop on which to write this.  I have had amazing experiences in the past.  I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth.  I have done Lord of the Rings marathons.  I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset.  I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times.  I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times.  I've been up the Eiffel Tower.  I've watched live athletics at London 2012.  I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life.  My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.

The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening.  My short-sightedness is shameful.  And the scary thing is, I do this every day.  And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.

An unusual preference

I have a preference that I have noticed is unusual.

I like long films.  I've realised this over the last few years - I hardly ever think a film is too long, but I often think a film is too short.  Other people seem to often complain about films being too long, but I like long films.  I find that films under about two hours seem to finish before they've really got started.  I enjoy the depth of plot that can occur in a film of 2.5-3 hours.
I quickly made a list of 22 of my favourite films.  Even using the short versions of the Lord of the rings films, the average film length was 2 hours 22 minutes.  And that's including three anomalies at 92, 95 and 98 minutes.
I tried this with my list of contenders for greatest song ever - 23 songs, at an average length of 4 minutes 54 seconds.  Then I tried it with 27 of my favourite albums - average length of 50 minutes and 28 seconds.

A brief internet search suggests that the average film length is 2 hours (22 minutes short of my average), the average song length (in western culture) is 4 minutes (54 seconds short of my average), and the average album length is 43 minutes (7.28 minutes short of my average).
Further maths gives my average film length at 18% longer than average, my average song length at 22.5% longer than average, and my average album length at 17% longer than average.

I've noticed that I like long books too - I'm currently half-way through a ten-book series, each book having about 1000 pages.  The reason for this may be similar to the reason for the films - more length allows greater plot depth and complexity, greater character development, and I find that, as long as it's good, I don't get bored.  I'm not sure about the music though.  Probably similar reasons - I find that  short songs are over too soon - I don't have as much time to fully get into them.  Same with albums - over before they've begun.

It seems that most people like things to be a little shorter than I do.  I'm not sure why.

London 2012: The brutality of sport

This is the last post in this series on London 2012.  During the Olympics it struck me, as it has done before, how brutal sport is.

Take Liu Xiang in the 110m hurdles for example - 2004 Olympics: Gold; 2005 Worlds: Silver (missing Gold by 0.01s); 2007 Worlds: Gold.  A superb athlete, world record holder, and favourite for the Olympic Gold in 2008.  Then injury hit, and Xiang missed his home Games. London 2012 was his chance fore redemption. 7th July, first round, final heat, Liu Xiang preparing to go through to the semis.  He starts quickly, jumps for the first hurdle, and his damaged achilles means he doesn't get high enough, takes out the barrier, falls and fails to finish the race.  One of the best hurdlers in the world (arguably the very best) over the last 7 years, and he hasn't even got to an Olympic semi final in that time.  Not his fault, just the brutality of injury.

Or take Argentinian hockey player Luciana Aymar, 7-time world player of the year, easily the best player ever.  Olympic record?  Zero gold medals.  Not because she's not awesome, but because she plays for a team who have never been the best team.  Not her fault, just the brutality of being the best player in the world but not in the best team in the world

Or (and this is the most interesting one) how about gymnast Jordyn Wieber, or the Spanish men's football team, or archer Brady Ellison - all pre-Olympic favourites for gold having performed excellently in buildup events, but who all underperformed when it came to the Games.  Although this one is their fault, it's only their fault because they are not perfect.  They were the best for the last, say, 12 months, and just had their blip at the crucial time.  The brutality here is that the medals are often awarded based on a very small sample of performances - usually just one race, or one game.  And it doesn't matter how well you perform in warmup events, or even in the semifinals.  What matters is how you perform in the final, and if that's when you have an off-day, that's it.  No second chances, no excuses.

It is true that part of top-level sport is the requirement to perform under pressure on the big stage, but sometimes things just go wrong, and in most sports, where you only get one chance, that is brutal.

Sailing is, interestingly, a little different: ten races, with the overall best sailor being awarded the gold (a bit like the annual Formula 1 competition).  Equally interestingly, BMX racing uses a very similar model in the heats and semifinals, but reduces the final to one race.  Not only is this brutal, it seems unnecessarily brutal.

The brutality of sport is that it doesn't matter how good you are, if you're not good (or fit, or on the right team), at the time when you are assessed.  You can win every race in four years but if you come fourth in the Olympic final, hardly anyone will know who you are.

London 2012: Greatest Olympians

During the Olympics one of the most interesting discussions was over who is the greatest ever Olympian.  Here are my thoughts on the question.

According to these discussions, Olympic greatness should be measured mainly by success in Olympic games, i.e. by gold medals or medals in general.  The Olympics are about competition and the aim is to win.  Therefore we should look for athletes who have won many medals.  Swimmer Michael Phelps has won 18 golds and 22 medals in total, so surely he is the greatest, right?  Wrong.

7 of those golds and 9 of his total medals were from team events (i.e. relays), which surely don't count to the same extent as individual medals.  If you look at individual medals, gymnast Larisa Latynina comes top.  Interestingly, both swimming and gymnastics are sports that allow athletes to compete in multiple events at one Olympic games.  In fact, of the top 20 all-time Olympic medallists, 14 are swimmers or gymnasts.  A female gymnast can compete in beam, floor, vault, uneven bars, all-around, and team events.  A swimmer like Michael Phelps can do 100m free, 200m free, 100m fly, 200m fly, 200m IM, 4x100m medley relay, 4x100m free relay etc.  Compare this to, say, a hockey player, who can only enter one event per Olympics.  Or a decathlete, who does ten events but can only win one medal.  Looking at Phelps' events, many are very similar (e.g. 100m free, 200m free, 4x100m free, 4x200m free) - like Usain Bolt running 100m, 200m and 4x100m - whereas a decathlete's events are much more varied.

Then there's the issue that some sports, like equestrian, can be competed at for many more years than others, like diving.  Horseriders can go on well into their fifties.  Divers peak at age 22.  A horserider will be able to compete at many more Olympic games than a diver.

There's also the fact that some sports, like rowing, require more physical recovery time than others, like swimming.  Others are barely physical at all, like archery.

Then what about the argument that it should not only be medals that are used to decide the greatest Olympian, but medals won over several Olympic games?  Is it valid to argue that winning 5 golds at five different games is more impressive than winning 5 golds at a single games?

There are so many variables - how long you can compete at the top for, how many events are enterable, whether medals are won as an individual or in a team, and so on.  It is not possible to say who the greatest ever Olympian is, even if we only consider  medals, without thinking about personal circumstances or contribution to the Olympic movement as a whole or sport-changing performances.

So who is the greatest Olympian of all time?  No-one knows.  And if they think they do, they're wrong.  It's not really even that easy to have a personal opinion about, if you think about how many variables there are that could contribute to greatness, let alone form a cohesive argument to propose the 'greatest'.

London 2012: Sport vs performance

Towards the end of the Olympics, Ben Dirs wrote this on the BBC website.
On the face of it, the article is about why only some sports are in the Olympics, but it's really about what makes a sport a sport.  The example of synchronised swimming was used, but references were also made to dressage and rhythmic gymnastics.  The following key point was made:
"I respect the participants of synchronised swimming and their indefatigability I salute. The French duet was throwing shapes to Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and that presumably takes some doing, especially when you're upside down, shin-deep in chlorinated water and trying to keep up with your mate next door.
But at what point does performance become sport? People have been dancing to Swan Lake for almost 150 years - they call it ballet. By extension, if you put a set of judges down in the orchestra pit at the Bolshoi, then ballet becomes sport."
A fair point.  Synchronised swimming is very similar to ballet, just in water.  Dressage and rhythmic gymnastics (and I would add diving and possibly artistic gymnastics and trampolining) are similar.  All these are scored by a panel of judges who make - and this is the crux  - qualitative decisions, which they then give quantitative scores.  A sport like hockey or handball is measured quantitatively, by counting goals.  These other sports are measured in a more qualitative way.  Judges look for how well competitors perform certain moves.  They look for something like straight legs, but judge it qualitatively rather than actually measuring the angle of bend at the knee.  Does this mean they are not sports?  Not necessarily.  But I think it does mean that if they are, then something like ballet could legitimately be considered a sport.  And if ballet, then surely other forms of dance could be judged in a similar way and be called sports.  Of course, dancing competitions do happen...but they are not considered sporting competitions.  Similarly, playing a musical instrument can be judged, even in a competitive way, but is not considered a sport.
But looking at it another way, what about chess?  Quantitatively measured, but a game, not a sport.  Why?  Because of the lack of physical exertion?  Well what about darts?  Darts is considered a sport but involves very little physical exertion.  While ballet is the opposite - not a sport, but physically very demanding.

If you include synchronised swimming, diving and gymnastics as sports, you have to be willing to include ballet and trombone playing.  If you include darts, you have to include chess.
A brief look at Wikipedia and the IOC website reveals that sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity.  In therms of the Olympics, to be a potential Olympic sport, an activity must have an international federation and be practised around the world.  Interestingly, they IOC recognises five 'mind sports' - bridge, chess, draughts, go and xiangqi.
This is clearly a minefield of inconsistency.  It seems that the definition of a sport should either be much narrower or much wider than it currently is, but I don't know which!

London 2012: expectations and reactions

Before the Olympics, some people were very excited (myself included), but many people were quite underwhelmed.  ‘I'm not into sport’, ‘It’s not worth the financial cost’, ‘We’ll be rubbish anyway’ were phrases commonly heard.  This enraged me a little.  I always love the Olympics, since I first watched it in 1992.  Sport is both wonderful and brutal, and displays extremes of joy and despair.  The Olympics brings together 36 sports (currently), and has them all at the same time.  It brings together sporting superstars from almost every country of the world.  It unites people.  The Olympics is a massive deal, and having them in our own country so that, not only is the action on TV during daylight hours (Sydney 2000 was a nightmare!), but we can actually go and see events live, is amazing.  I had been counting down to London 2012 for seven years.

But the most infuriating thing is not that people were not excited about the Olympics.  The most infuriating thing was the hype that emerged when GB started doing well.  I loved that GB did well, I loved that we won medals.  I did not love the hype that emerged.  In the space of two weeks, the public seemed to go from apathetic to euphoric about the Olympics – which is great.  It is great that people became interested and supported our athletes.  What is not great is the delusion that accompanied this, and what I fear will happen now the Olympics are over.

According to most people, including the media (who are part of the problem), GB had an unexpectedly superb Olympics.  This is not true.  We were only superb in two sports: cycling and rowing.  In these events, we undoubtedly dominated.  Particularly in rowing, where we exceeded any expectations.  In cycling, although we dominated, none of the medals we won were unexpected.  Hoy, Pendelton, Kenny, Trott, Wiggins et el are the best cyclists in the world.  They’ve been winning things for years.  If anything, we actually underperformed in cycling, as we could reasonably have hoped for a medal in the women’s team sprint, the men’s road race, and at least one BMX race as well.  How about other sports?

In athletics, we won some medals, but again, none were unexpected.  Ennis, Farah and Rutherford were all world leaders going into the games.  Grabbarz is European Champion and in the form of his life.  Ohurogu always performs at the big meets.  But there could have been so much more.  Sayers, Idowu, Rooney, Greene, Yamuchi, Dobriskey, men’s 4x1 and 4x4 relays could all have medalled, but none of them did, and only Rooney and the 4x4 got close.

Swimming?  Only 3 medals and 2 medallists.  Nowhere near the (reasonable) target of 5-7 medals.

There were disappointments all over the games.  Sarah Stevenson in Taekwondo, Keri-Anne Payne in the swimming marathon, Daley and Waterfield in the 10m synchronised diving, arguably both football teams.  Volleyball, handball, basketball, water polo – no teams got out of the groups, few teams even won a match.

Of course, this is all balanced by the wonderful surprising successes.  Copeland and Hosking, Jade Jones, the men’s gymnastics team, Karina Bryant, Luke Campbell and so on.  But there are fewer of these.  Even the equestrian success was not that surprising given the riders’ form over the last couple of years.

At any Olympics, there will be surprising wins and disappointing losses, but they don’t seem balanced to me.  GB did well, with our best medal tally ever, but we could (should?) have had more.  I am delighted with how well we did, but I am disappointed with the euphoria suggesting we surpassed our wildest dreams.  We did not.  We can be happy and celebrate our successes, but let’s not delude ourselves.  We only came third in the medal table because in the UK we count Gold medals first.  In any other system (total number of medals, total points based on gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1, number of top 8 finalists) we came 4^th behind USA, China and Russia – exactly where we hoped to come before the games.  We did not overachieve.

Some will say I should stop being so negative, and that any Olympic success is to be celebrated.  This is true, but that does not mean that a fourth or fifth place, or even a silver medal, cannot be a disappointment.  It depends on the expectation.  If GB had only one a single silver medal and nothing else, I’m pretty sure that, while celebrating that silver medal with the athlete, we would be disappointed that GB did not achieve more.  This is part of why some athletes apologised in their interviews.  If you, your coaches, your families and your fans expect you to do well, based on world ranking, previous success, form or whatever, and you don’t do well, that is disappointing.  There is such a thing as failing to live up to expectations.  This doesn’t mean we should have a go at someone who only comes fifth in a final, but we should allow them to be disappointed, we can be disappointed with them, and we should not tell them not to apologise if that’s what they feel they need to do.  As Zac Purchase said, “Even though it’s a silver medal, it still hurts when you come for gold.”

Our failure to be ambitious and the way we have been drawn into the hype that says everything was a roaring success and Team GB far surpassed expectations disappoints me.  Many athletes did well and we should celebrate their success.  Many others underperformed and, while we should stand by them and support them, we should also acknowledge the disappointment and remember that we could have had much more success than we did.

The other thing that disappoints me is what I fear might happen next.  Here’s a quote from an article in The Independent by Chris McGrath.

“Here is the bald truth suppressed at the heart of our present euphoria. In most cases you could stage exactly the same events as "world championships", last year or next, and hardly anyone would cross the road to watch. Very few, in fact, would bother to shift a thumb on the television remote. Jessica Ennis herself completed her Olympics warm-up before 300 paying customers.

Now clearly the Games mean more than a world championship to many of the participants themselves, albeit not in mainstream sports such as football or tennis. And that warrants respect. But only up to a point. Because it's blatantly dishonest to dismiss all these people as nobodies one day, and acclaim them as "icons" the next; to exalt, overnight, minority pastimes you have long considered dull or ludicrous.”

Have we just got caught in the media hype surrounding the Olympics?  Or do we actually care more about judo, canoe slalom and dressage than we did before?  Will we maintain our interest in these sports and these athletes?  How many people will watch next year’s athletics world championships, let alone the world championships of the lesser-known sports?  Are we as dishonest as Chris McGrath suggests?

London 2012: controversy

There were a few controversial moments during the Olympics, but two particularly got me thinking.

The first occurred in badminton.  The first round of the badminton competition was a round-robin group stage.  In the women’s doubles, in one group, the favourites unexpectedly lost one of their matches, meaning they finished second in the group.  This meant that teams in other groups would rather qualify second in their group rather than first, as second would see them avoid the favourites in the quarter finals.  Therefore four pairs of players attempted to lose their final group matches and thereby finish second in their group, not first.  The crowd booed the players, who were later disqualified from the competition for ‘not using one’s best efforts to win’.

I have two conflicting reactions to this.  The major reaction is that I agree with the disqualification.  In sport, one should always do ones best, and attempt to win.  Simple.  And this is how the vast majority of people seem to have reacted.

Some people have defended the players, pointing out that they didn’t actually break any rules.  Technically, they didn’t do anything they weren’t supposed to.  A fair point, but not the one I wish to make.

I want to point out that in many sports, competitors or teams perform at less than their best in the short term, for the sake of long term goals.  For example:

• A team that has already qualified from a group play a weakened team in their final game.
•  A runner qualifies in the top three of their heat, rather than straining to win it and expend energy that could be saved for the final.
• A tennis player, at 5-0 down in a set, doesn't try hard in the final game, in order to save energy for the next set.
• A snooker player concedes a frame rather than playing for the two snookers required to win it.

There are other examples but the point is minimising performance in the short term in order to maximise performance in the long term.  After all, it doesn’t matter if you lose a certain match, or set, or frame, if you eventually qualify and win in the final.  The ultimate goal is to win in the final, and before that, you just have to do enough to get there.

This is what the badminton players were doing.  They had already qualified from their group.  They were minimising short term performance to maximise their chances of winning the competition in the long run.  The key difference is that in the other examples, players or teams are not actually trying to lose, they are trying to win with minimum effort.  However, this difference only stands if you break a competition down into matches.  The tennis player and snooker player want to win their matches, they just want to do it as easily as possible.  They would never go so far as to lose a match.  But breaking a competition down into matches is only one way to do it.  We could break a tennis tournament down into individual points and not be surprised or alarmed if a player gave up on the odd point in order to conserve energy.  What got people so angry is that the badminton players were trying to lose a match, but that is a fairly arbitrary way of dividing a competition.

You can either say that a competitor should try their best at all times, or you can say that a competitor should do what they need to win the competition, saving themselves where necessary.  Saying “they should try to win every match, but within matches can play at less than their best at times” is no different from saying “they should try to win every tournament, but within tournaments can play at less than their best at times”.

The difference between what the badminton players did and what commonly happens in sport all the time does not equate to the far larger difference between peoples outrage at the badminton players and people’s not-batting-an-eyelid at what commonly happens in sport all the time.

Another problem that people had with the players’ attitude is that people had paid money to come and watch entertaining sport, not a ‘farce’ of this nature.  But we have to remember that this is the Olympics.  It’s the biggest sporting competition in the world.  Not the biggest performance in the world.  These players are here primarily to win, not to entertain.  (More on this in a later post)

I do think that the players should have been disqualified, but part of my brain keeps pointing out that what they did is not very different from what happens in many other sports, and the reasoning behind the outrage is based on an arbitrary assumption that matches should be played to win, while individual points or sets should not necessarily.

The second moment of controversy occurred in the men’s 800m.  Taoufik Makhloufi of Algeria had been entered into both the 800m and 1500m.  He ran the 1500m heats and qualified for the final.  The scheduling was ludicrous enough that the 800m semifinals were in the same session as the 1500m final, removing any chance of anyone actually attempting this common double.  Makhloufi, having qualified for the 1500m final decided not to enter the 800m – a sensible decision given the scheduling clash.  One assumes that he had originally entered the 800m to give himself a backup if he failed to make the 1500m final.  It is quite common for an athlete to enter an event before the meet and then pull out.  Jessica Ennis did it in the 100m hurdles.  However, the Algerian Olympic Association failed to withdraw Makhloufi from the 800m, meaning he had to compete in the heats.

Makhloufi decided to not try in his heat.  He ran only 200m and then dropped out, thereby not qualifying and leaving only the 1500m to concentrate on.

Makhloufi was later disqualified for ‘not providing a bona fide effort’ – disqualified from the 800m and the 1500m.  There are clear parallels with the badminton players here – minimising performance at one stage of the competition to maximise performance in a later stage.

Makhloufi appealed and was reinstated into the 1500m due to medical evidence (presumably stating that he was injured for his 800m heat).  The next day he won the 1500m, clearly at full fitness.

The controversy here is multiple.  Firstly, should he have been disqualified from the 800m, when the scheduling made it clear that no-one would be able to pursue both events to the final?    Secondly, should he also have been disqualified from the 1500m, an event in which he had competed to normal standard?  Thirdly, should the scheduling not have been more intelligent, as the 800m/1500m is a very common double to attempt in athletics?  Fourthly, should Makhloufi have been reinstated on the basis of a clearly false injury claim?

Given my comments on the similar situation in the badminton, I think there is a strong case for saying that he should not have been disqualified.  The case here is even stronger than for the badminton players because (a) it wasn’t his fault he wasn’t withdrawn – it was the fault of the Algerian Olympic Association, and (b) it wasn’t possible to run in both events, so he had really been screwed over by the Olympic organisers in the first place.

London 2012: Highs and Lows

This is the first of a few posts containing thoughts on the London Olympics.  This post remembers some of my personal highs and lows of the games, in vaguely chronological order.

• First day of the games, before the opening ceremony: GB vs New Zealand in the women's football.  The tears in Kelly Smith's eyes showed what the Olympics meant to her and gave a little taster of what the next couple of weeks would hold.
• Team GB being destroyed in the men's road race because, basically, everyone was scared of them.  Mark Cavendish, the only cyclist in Beijing not to win a medal and the unsung hero of Team Sky's domination of Le Tour, didn't event get a chance.
• Lizzie Armitstead, having won silver in the road race, genuinely not sure in her interview about whether to be happy or gutted.  A great achievement, and so close to gold.  The bittersweetness of simultaneous success and failure.
• Luis Leon Sanchez in the men's time trial - a snapped chain in the first two seconds, then a puncture later on. One of the favourites seeing his chances removed by horrendous luck.  The brutality of sport.
• Chad Le Clos in the men's 200m butterfly, actually unable to believe he had won.
• Euan Burton's post-judo interview, taking no positives from the experience.  Completely gutting.
• The women's team sprint, Victoria Pendleton and Jess Varnish disqualified  for changing over too early.  An almost guaranteed gold down the drain.
• Katherine Grainger winning gold after three consecutive silvers.  Get in.
• Tearful triathlete Helen Jenkins (5th place) apologising in her interview for not medalling.
• Heather Stanning and Helen Glover absolutely destroying the field in women's pair, one of the most devastating performances of the games.
• Katherine Copeland's flabbergasted reaction to winning in lightweight double sculls.  
• Zac Purchase and Mark Hunter giving their all in the lightweight double sculls, coming second, and then apologising for not winning, moving John Inverdale to tears.
• Andy Murray winning on centre court.  Perfect.
• Louis Smith being edged out for gold in pommel horse - same overall score, separated only by execution marks.  So close.
• 39-year old Iorden Iovtchev competing in the rings final and clearly loving every second of it - the freedom of having no pressure to win and just being able to enjoy the experience.
• Beth Tweddle's dubiously-judged low difficulty score leading to a bronze medal which, while wonderful, could seem unsatisfactory in making up for being robbed in Beijing.
• Goldie Sayers having no chance in the javelin qualifying with her injury, and then fighting the tear in her post-throw interview.
• Mo Farah's triumph in the 10,000m, a year after a tactical error cost him the gold in the world championships.
• Felix Sanchez breaking down in tears on the podium after unexpectedly winning the 400m hurdles.
• Andrew Osagie qualifying for 800m final against the odds and celebrating like he'd won the gold.
• Sally Pearson delivering the goods in the 100m hurdles under some of the most enormous pressure.
• Liu Xiang crashing out due to injury in the heats of the 110m hurdles, after injury also kept him out of his home Olympics four years ago
• Merve Aydin of Turkey getting injured in the first lap of the 800m and then hobbling round the second lap a la Derek Redmond.
• The receptions from the crowd for Saudi Arabian female competitors.
• Jade Jones winning a Taekwondo gold and going absolutely mental with celebration.

The highs and lows are perhaps summarised best by these two moments: Felix Sanchez breaking down with happiness as he receives his gold medal, and Goldie Sayers trying, and failing, to hold it together at the end of her interview.

The Hunger Games - part 5

This is the final part of my 5 part series on The Hunger Games.  Parts one, two, three and four are here.

I've now read the final book in the series, Mockingjay.  I haven't quite had time to process all my thoughts yet, but here's a sample.

The book was as readable and exciting as the previous two and finished the series well.  The plot was good, though a little off-page.  A lot of stuff happened off-page and was simply reported to Katniss by other characters or the narrator.  This was necessary to prevent the book becoming overlong, and a necessary problem caused by writing in first person (more on this below), but it disappointed me a bit.
Gale came into the story a bit more, though I still feel like I don't really know him.  His character wasn't developed much.  Katniss' character is still engaging - a complex mix of inspiring and annoying.  Very flawed and very interesting.
I was interested to hear a few weeks ago that Mockingjay will be split into two films, following in the footsteps of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn (Twilight Saga).  At first I was suspicious of whether there would be enough content to fill two films.  I now think there is - the plot is dense and there is a lot of action which always takes more time on film.  The decision is probably still motivated primarily by money rather than a desire to adapt the books well, but at least the book is adaptable to two books and should make two decent films.
The fact that the series is written in first person caused a few problems.  I've read very little first person fiction so haven't come across this before.  The problem is that (obviously in hindsight) the reader only knows what the main character (Katniss in this case) knows.  There were a few times in the book where lots of things were explained to Katniss, it seems for the benefit of the reader.  When Katniss had been absent or unconscious, lots of exposition followed which seemed like a bit of a limited way of doing things.  I've never been much of a fan of first person fiction, and this series has confirmed my wariness.
However, overall, I enjoyed the series.  The story is good, though at times is seemed like the author didn't know exactly where she was going - it felt a bit lost and meandering.  While Katniss endless fretting her choice between Peeta and Gale became a bit tiresome, her character, as previously discussed, is brilliant.
The Hunger Games is certainly no Harry Potter, but it's also certainly no Twilight.  Easy to read, gripping plot, interesting characters and themes and some really touching moments.

Honour Spotlight: Tom Judge

Tom Judge is a special man.  He's an absolute nutcase a lot of the time.  I was pushing a trolley through Tesco the other day, and he came round the corner with his own trolley, and just charged me.  He is an expert at making fun of himself and making people laugh.  His sense of humour is infectious. No party is complete without Tom Judge.

He's also very hardcore.  Rumour has it that if he's bored, he'll run to the beach and back.  The beach is 13 miles away.  I first met Tom on the frisbee pitch when I was playing for Grey and he was playing for Hild Bede.  After marking him for about 2 points, I summarised him to my team as 'engine'.  The guy just ran.  He worked so hard for his team.

Recently, Tom has joined my setup team at church.  He is attentive, making sure he learns as much as he can as quickly as he can, and meticulous, never pausing until everything is done, and continually asking what else needs doing. His attitude is exemplary.

Finally, Tom is one of the best conversationalists I know.  He is a very interesting guy himself, but he always seems to direct conversations away from himself and towards others.  He takes a real interest in peoples lives and takes time to see how you're doing.  He is full of interesting questions to ask, and makes people feel comfortable in talking to him.  Tom makes you feel like you can safely be honest with him.  Whether the topic of conversation is silly or serious, Tom is key to it.  And when he says he'll pray for you, you know he will pray his heart out for you.

Tom is a few years older than me.  If I am as awesome as he is in a few years, I will have done very well indeed.