Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts

Friday, 11 July 2014

The Meaning of LiFIFA - England World Cup 2014 Edition

It's the World Cup Final this weekend (preceded by the utterly pointless 3rd-4th Place play-off), and my money's on Germany (which undoubtedly means Argentina will be raising the trophy come Sunday evening!)
In honour of what I hope will be rip-roaring 8-7 victory to Germany on penalties (after the match finishes 3-3 in normal time and 5-5 after extra time, with 3 players sent off!), I have decided to resurrect the hugely popular  Meaning of LiFIFA, this time with an England Edition.
I could pretend that I had two versions of this England World Cup 2014 Edition drafted - one for when England won the tournament (or at least got the knock-out stages), and one for the real world. Needless to say, it's the real world version that takes pride of place on the blog.
So, here goes:

HODGSON (vb.)
To continue to doggedly follow a plan even though all the indications are that it simply isn't working.


Example of usage - extract from a copy of Winston Churchill's unpublished manuscript 'How I Would Have Fought The Great War': At Ypres, Sir John French hodgsoned, wasting the lives of thousands of his troops.


GERRARD (adj.)
Understatedly excited - derived from the many news conferences where Stephen Gerrard explained how 'excited' he was to be at the World Cup in a monotone Scouse drawl which suggested he'd rather be spending his time (and his money) on a beach somewhere.


Example of usage - 'The boy was cock-a-hoop at winning the prize, but decided to act all Gerrard.'


ROONEY (vb.)
To criticise your dejected fans for your own shit performance (applicable to all Wayne Rooney world cup appearances)


Example of usage - words aren't needed here - just have a look at this video and then tell me this isn't an arrogant twat!


HART (adj.)
To be distracted - derived from spending too much time making adverts for shampoo instead of working on the critical goalkeeping skill of preventing the ball from going into your goal.


Example of usage - 'Sorry, what were you saying? I went all Hart there for a moment.'


BOBBY MOORE (adj.)
Something to be proud of; a fine example of something
Majestic, honorable, resolute, determined



Example of usage - 'That new wall I've just built, well it's just Bobby Moore, innit.'

If you have any further suggestions, feel free to comment.

Saturday, 14 June 2014

The Ugly Truth about The Beautiful Game

Let's gone one thing straight.
Football is corrupt.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is either pitifully deluded or monumentally naive.

We've seen two examples of the superficial corruption of football in the last few days.
Firstly, there is the ongoing saga of the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar and the alleged greasing of a number of FIFA palms by one Mohamed Bin Hamman. Of course, Sepp Blatter and his cronies will no doubt continue to argue that a desert state, where summer temperatures are in the high 40s, which has no footballing pedigree and, at the time the world cup was awarded (before they shipped in a load of migrants and put them to work in conditions not unlike the Pharaohs used to consider best practice) no stadia, was the right and proper choice for the greatest footballing event in the world. And we won't even go into whether it should have gone to Russia in 2018!
Secondly, there was the decision by referee Nishimura to award a penalty to Brazil after 70 minutes of the opening match and, in so doing, go a long way to ensuring a much needed, morale-boosting victory for the host nation. Now everyone will have a view on whether there was sufficient contact for the amusingly named Brazilian striker Fred to go down as theatrically as he did, and everyone will have a view on whether the referee should have considered that to be worthy of a penalty or perhaps, more appropriately, a booking for the Brazilian for 'simulation' (or, as we Up North would call it, cheating). Conspiracy theorists will be able to argue long into the night about whether the referee had been 'nobbled', or whether he was looking to 'make his mark' on the game, or whether he was just too weak to pass up the chance to ingratiate himself with thousands of baying onlookers…who knows? But the fact remains that the instantaneous decision of one man, taken in the heat of the moment, more or less dictated the result of that game, a situation which, with all the technology now at the disposal of world sport, is simply unforgivable (and is, again, another example of the 'corruption' in football). In tennis, it is now possible to review where a ball travelling at 150 mph landed in relation to a painted line to an accuracy of a couple of millimetres - and yet in football they can't even determine with any certainty whether a player is offside (maybe because they're not even sure what the offside rule really is!!). For the last decade in rugby, it has been possible to review whether the ball has touched the ground and a try should be awarded - but in football, they've only just introduced the technology to figure out whether the ball has crossed the goal-line (four years too late for Frank Lampard and England!). And why, when it comes to critical decisions like penalty awards and goals being scored, why is it still beyond the wit of those who run football to pause the game, refer it to someone upstairs who has all this technology at their disposal, and take the time to get the decision right (like they do in cricket, for example…and please, spare me the argument about the third umpire still getting it wrong…it doesn't wash)?
Perhaps it's because the powers that be in 'the beautiful game' want the ambiguity and the uncertainty, because it makes the game easier to manipulate…



But there's one form of corruption of football that is, in my humble opinion, more insidious than either the grubby money grabbers at FIFA or the technological luddites…at FIFA. And this is becoming ingrained in the sport from the ridiculously paid 'professionals' right down the kids have a kick-about with jumpers for goalposts.
You see, my simplistic idea of sport is that it's about individuals, or a group of individuals, seeking acclaim and reward from their peers through the demonstration of natural talent, hard-earned skills, mental and physical toughness, and the strength of their determination to succeed. And all that is good, and should be encouraged, because these are the facets of mankind that push us all forward and make us all better.
But something has crept into sport in general, and into football most particularly, that has 'corrupted' this purist ideal.
The 'art' of deception.
It is no longer certain that a football team that has the most talented players, who have reached the peak of fitness, and who are managed by the most able football strategist, will be triumphant.
Why?
Because as Fred so ably demonstrated, even the best team can be defeated by those who have mastered the art of deception, have honed to perfection the ability to fool a gullible or corrupt official into awarding a penalty in the way that Fred managed to do, or getting another player sent-off by feigning a football hitting you in the face and rolling around as if you've been shot by a sniper (yes, I mean you, Rivaldo!!).
In other words, if you cheat better than everyone else, you'll probably win, and that, as a message to the wider world, is simply wrong.
And what's worse is the fact that when such blatant cheating takes place, no-one stands up and says 'Hey, that Fred who plays for Brazil, he's just a fucking cheat!!' Instead, pundits on television and in the newspapers and online use derisible euphemisms like 'he earned the penalty' or 'he drew the contact'. No, morons, what he did was gain an advantage by deceiving the referee and that, in anyone's book, is simply cheating…and I was always taught that Cheaters Never Prosper.
So if we fail to decry cheating when we see it, and if we begin to consider the ability to earn a free kick by throwing oneself on the floor and rolling around whilst screaming in agony, to be as important to success as dribbling or shooting or tackling, then the sport of football has succumb to the worst kind of corruption and I, for one, will simply stop watching it, because I prefer to watch something where the best of us is what counts, not the worst.

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Hello, did you miss me...?

I know what you're thinking - there have been so few posts in recent weeks, you're wondering if things have gone a little quiet in Andy's Universe.
Oh contraire.
It's the fact that so much has been going on in my universe that I've had so little opportunity to share it all with you fabulous people (and alien life-forms, if any happen to have taken to following my blog).
So, three short snippets today - sport, writing, and international politics.

Sport - at the risk of upsetting any blog-followers down-under, it was very satisfying to watch Michael Clarke desperately trying to convince the umpires at the Oval to go off for bad light in the full knowledge that he was just about to suffer the humiliation of becoming the first Aussie captain to lose an Ashes series 4-0...and this after the day had started with the odds of an England victory at 100-1. A definite momentum switch back to England ahead of the series in Oz, methinks.

Writing - so little time to blog because so much time spent writing and creating. Finished the first draft of 'It's A Dog's Life' and awaiting feedback from the kind souls who have offered to proof-read and critique. Personally, I think it is pretty damn good, but I would, wouldn't I. Also wrote a piece of flash fiction this week that I now need to type up and, perhaps most importantly, I think I've hit upon a really cool concept for a potential series of books - watch this space.

International politics - yes, I know that what has been going on in Syria is truly awful and, yes, I know that the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, but I do worry when I hear William Hague suggest that the UK may take unilateral military action in Syria. Since when did we become the world's conscience? Why do we have to be the ones to take action?
No, Billy Boy, this is a job for the UN Security Council - unless there is a resolution from them (which is unlikely given the not-unreasonable Russian stance of finding out exactly who it was who used the chemical weapons in the first place, because, let's face it, either side is capable) we shouldn't be doing anything.

Hope to be able to do a bit more blogging in the days and weeks ahead - I'm sure this crazy world of ours will not be without a thing or two to comment on!