Yes, I know I'm becoming a one trick pony with this and it's actually tragic how much thought a grown man puts into one topic, but screw it, it's my blog and it's cathartic. Am going to do one of these after every game to get it out of my system and then I can focus on something more interesting to blog about. Something more all-encompassing and challenging. Something intellectual and worthy. Like telly or sumfing.
Anyway thoughts from last night.
Watford played better than anyone was expecting, and their finishing and movement from the front two was exceptional. City looked good going forward and should be more than capable of opening most teams up. Defensively we were less impressive, and as predicted, Fox may be a capable passer but he provides scant cover in front of a central defence that has obviously not learned to play together. Special mention should go to Russell Martin who despite being a boo-boy target for no apparant reason worked furiously up and down the right hand side and consistently provided good width for us whilst also getting back to fulfil his defensive responsibilities.
Marks out of 10:
Ruddy 5 - Could have done better with 2 of the goals but equally can't be blamed for them either. Bryan Gunn looked wobbly when he started his career with us, so Ruddy can be given time to ease his way in. Some good stops.
R Martin 8 - As above, great buccaneering full back play.
Drury 7 - 7 out of 10 as he almost always is. More than comfortable at Championship level.
Nelson 5 - Caught out positionally a few times but also made some good blocks and scored a quality goal. Will need to do better to maintain his place with Askou and Whitbread breathing down his neck.
Ward 6 - Not a great game, but did enough to suggest that there's better to come. Positional issues will hopefully clear up the more he gets used to playing with his nw teammates.
Fox 6 - Good passing but also gave some balls away. Can see him dominating some games but will also cause us some issues with his lack of size and grit in what is a key defensive position. Not sure Lambert has this one right tactically.
Surman 6 - Exceptionally comfortable on the ball, he lost patience once or twice and tried to force some balls that weren't on. Worked hard though and not a bad debut.
Crofts 7 - Best of the debutants. Great engine and aggression. I think he's going to be a Drury-like 7/10 every week.
Hoolahan 8 - Great feet, sometimes overdid things but overall he was our best attacking option and looked the most gifted player on the park by a long chalk.
Jackson 7 - Good first game. Intelligent runs and good on the ball. Also showed a creative touch to set up Crofts goal.
Martin 7 - Worked hard and was unlucky that the service didn't quite give him the chances that he needed
Subs - Holt 7, McNamee 6.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Friday, 6 August 2010
Blog 10 - New Season Preview
Can't let the new season begin without a Head preview, Y'Army or no Y'Army!
Only about the Championship because it's the only league that matters this year.
So how do the mighty City look?
I'm very positive at this stage, which is nothing new on the eve of a new season, and indeed 12 months ago I was feeling similarly bright just before we got handed our arse courtesy of Mr Lambert. So what's different? Whatmakes us more likely to succeed now?
The simple answer is Lambert. I don't think that he's a football genius or somekind of tactical nostradamus just because he got us promoted last year. His record before City with Wycombe and Colchester was only briefly promising and when he arrived I was surprised by how well he did, as he himself has confessed he was. The positive thing with Lambert is that he's learning, and he's retaining good habits as he acquires knowledge. For a player who has been an international and played in the Champions League, you can see that the higher he moves up the divisions the more comfortable he's going to be with the tactics and the lessening of limitations of the players at his disposal. The players he has brought in are proper footballers and have added technical quality to the squad. The key this season will be marrying the skills to the steel which we also need at this level. As fans we've spent enough time in this league to know that you need the willingness to hoof it an stick a foot in as to play a killer through-ball at times and I'm eager to see ho our new lads fit in with this dual philosophy.
Ruddy in goal is a interesting choice and I've not seen nearly enough of him to gauge a proper opinion yet. He had a blooper against Everton but unless he starts chucking them in regularly I think we can write that one off as an isolated incident. He certainly comes with a better pedigree than Theoklitis did a year ago, and at 6ft 4in is less likely to be left flapping every time a looping head goes near the goal. In Lambert I'll trust on this one.
Steven Smith at left back is someone I've never seen, so again, I'll reserve judgement. Even if he's only good enough to keep Drury on his toes then he'll have done his job so expectations can be kept at a low level for Smith.
Elliot Ward is an awesome signing and if he can keep fit and get a steady run of games and minutes in a settled defence at the start of the season I can see him becoming a huge player for us for seasons to come. No hedging on this one. Ward is perfect for what we're trying to do and where we're hoping to be. Fantastic addition.
David Fox is a player I didn't expect us to sign but someone I'm delighted we did. Fox is a Man United youth product who plays with the comfortable, productive style of someone who has had that grooming. The criticism that has always been levelled at him is that, certainly in a 4-4-2 he doesn't have the legs or the tenacity to compete in the middle of the park. Good passer, but too lightweight. In our system he's going to play in what's been termed the Quarterback role. Like Darel Russell last season he'll sit in front of the defence. Unlike Russell though he'll take the ball from the centre halves to launch our attacks and has a handsome range of passing with which to do this. Whereas Russell was an anchor, dropping in to help the defence and stopping anybody trying to come through the middle of us, Fox is a gunslinger who will sit deep because it gives him space to work. Of course there will be times when he needs to defend, and how successfully he adapts to this will be another key to our season. If he looks too good in the role, other teams will start to close him down and limit his time on the ball and again, he'll have to adapt to that.
Andrew Surman was the surprise signing of the summer with most of us thinking that he was probably a bit too good for what we were expecting. Again this shows how positive Lambert is looking to be though. Like Fox he's a renowned ball-player with the question mark being whether he can dig in and fight. In this system he'll have to do just that but I can't see him having any problems. He's a player who for Southampton was always too good for the Championship, and the only question is whether he is quite good enough at the highest level. Like Ward, that's perfect for our ambitions.
Andrew Crofts was an interesting, and if I'm honest, a slightly underwhelming first signing of the summer. Having seen him play for Gillingham and Brighton I'd got him pegged as an aggressive and energetic runner in the middle but the more I see of him, the more I realise that he can play a bit too. He'll have to be on his game as well because his most obvious competition for a start is Korey Smith and I can't see him giving up his place without a good fight. I'm looking forward to seeing how Crofts adapts to being a smaller fish in a bigger pond. It can surely only be good for him to not be carrying a poor team and be with better players.
Which just leaves Simeon Jackson. An aggressive, direct, lightning-quick finisher, he's an entirely new option for our attack. I'm not entirely sure how he's going to fit in, particularly at Carrow Road because pacey strikers are generally better in counter-attacking teams and we're not set up to play in that manner. However, he has the weapons in his arsenal to score goals whatever the system and when you can add a striker who's capable of being a 20 goals a season man to a strikeforce already boasting two similar players you know you're going to have a decent "For" column.
All in all I'm very pleased and very positive.
As far as where we'll finish, the key will be staying injury-free and having some consistency of selection. The first part we can do little about although I'm mildly concerned that there is no target man to back up Holt for when he inevitably picks up suspensions. Likewise any absence of Hoolahan will knock us back considerably. However other than that we've got good competition everywhere else, and we're as equipped to cope with injuries as any squad in the league, and in most cases, more so. Lambert has shown last year that he believes in keeping a settled side as much as possible and again, that can only be positive.
The interesting thing for me is that whilst injuries to key players is our biggest/only achilles heel, most of the other sides have got far bigger problems.
Our opening day opponents Watford have no money, a diminished squad, an inexperienced manager and are going to be fighting against relegation.
Scunthorpe have performed miracles in staying up last season but with Hooper and Hayes gone I can't see them repeating that effort again despite having an astute and capable boss in Nigel Adkins.
Swansea had a play-off near miss last season based on hard work and defensive grit but with their (only?) creative spark, Leon Brittain gone and a new manager with a very modest track record in Brendan Rogers, I can't see them being anyting other than also rans.
Nottingham Forest are a lot of peoples favourites and Billy Davies is a proven manager but there are some odd goings-on behind the scene at the City Ground with talk of Perch being sold behind the managers back. They have a potential to implode quite easily, but should still be in the shake-up at the top end of the division.
I'd love to see Mark Robins succeed at Barnsley and as one of the favourites for relegation coming off a poor end to last season, expectations are low at Oakwell. I think they'll be ok but as far as providing a challenge to the promotion contenders they're a million miles away.
Doncaster are an ever-increasing force in this division and the permanent addition of Billy Sharp is huge for them. If they can cope with the increased attention and expectation they'll do well.
Preston are rebuilding and although I can see them being solid, it's too soon for them to mount any serious challenge.
Hull have given themselves a chance by getting Nigel Pearson and what they drugged him with to persuade him to take over as captain of the Titanic I'll never know, but if anyone can sort out a squad of overpaid freelancers and make them a team, I think Pearson could be that man. Could go either way.
Leicester replaced Pearson with Swansea's De Sousa. Both clubs did well on small budgets last year but I can't shake the feeling that this is a move in the wrong direction for the Foxes. I see them as mid-tablers making up the numbers.
Bristol City have surged up most bookies list of favourites but I don't see it myself. They're a good club with a decent infrastructure but I'm not sold on Coppell as saviour because of two outstanding seasons at Reading a few years back. James is a marquee signing but if he can't get some consistency from the rest of the team, in particular a porous defence, then it won't matter who picks the ball out of the net. May have a crack at the play-offs but don't count on it.
QPR have money and Warnock but both can be as much of a curse as a blessing. I think Warnock has done well to keep the squad settled and make careful additions and not make wholesale changes, and this evolution rather than revolution will help. Definite play-off contenders for me.
Crystal Palace are on their arses, both financially and in terms of experience and Ambrose alone cannot make a team. Burley will be looking at the bottom half rather than the top.
Middlesbrough have brought in more Jocks but this time have focussed on quality, and with Boyd and Bailey they'll be stronger than last season, and sould prove a genuine contender.
Cardiff look like they're holding things together on the surface but with Kennedy having to be sold to Ipswich just to guarantee that wages could be paid, plus Chopra angling for a move, Ledley gone and Whittingham seemingly constantly in talks elsewhere I think they're going to struggle.
Burnley are amongst the favourites but for me Brian Laws is a dead-weight as manager and will keep them from achieving their potential. I'm certain that he'll go at some point and from their point of view the quicker he does the better chance they'll have.
Millwall outdid themselves last season and don't have the tools to get above the lower reaches of the table.
Reading are a lot of peoples fancies after the success of Brian McDermott in taking over last year. I think second-season syndrome will kick in for them though and I think Play-offs will be their best hope.
Leeds are blowing their trumpets as usual but don't have the squad to back it up. I expect them to struggle a little and be mid-table at best.
Ipswich have the wrong manager and a poor squad. They should be the favourites with the resources they have but until Paddy o'Grumpy has taken his gloom elsewhere they'll continue to be inconsistent and unproductive.
Derby are struggling on and off the pitch and I think the situation there will get a lot worse before it can get better.
Portsmouth look to have the biggest problems of any club in the division but I have a feeling that Cotterill will plot a canny course through the stormy seas. They won't trouble the promotion contenders but they'll pick up points along the way.
Coventry are in flux yet again and I think Boothroyd will either take them on a massive up or a massive down. The Ricoh could be a good place to get a season ticket this year.
Sheffield United have experienced another season of expensive mediocrity under Blackwell and I can't see there being any difference again. Play-Offs at best, but more likely they'll dip a bit and finish lower mid-table.
Overall, I think Middlesbrough are deserved favourites and of the rest, Forest, Doncaster and QPR are the only other teams who are on the up for me. And I think we'll be better than any of those.
But then it is still pre-season...
Only about the Championship because it's the only league that matters this year.
So how do the mighty City look?
I'm very positive at this stage, which is nothing new on the eve of a new season, and indeed 12 months ago I was feeling similarly bright just before we got handed our arse courtesy of Mr Lambert. So what's different? Whatmakes us more likely to succeed now?
The simple answer is Lambert. I don't think that he's a football genius or somekind of tactical nostradamus just because he got us promoted last year. His record before City with Wycombe and Colchester was only briefly promising and when he arrived I was surprised by how well he did, as he himself has confessed he was. The positive thing with Lambert is that he's learning, and he's retaining good habits as he acquires knowledge. For a player who has been an international and played in the Champions League, you can see that the higher he moves up the divisions the more comfortable he's going to be with the tactics and the lessening of limitations of the players at his disposal. The players he has brought in are proper footballers and have added technical quality to the squad. The key this season will be marrying the skills to the steel which we also need at this level. As fans we've spent enough time in this league to know that you need the willingness to hoof it an stick a foot in as to play a killer through-ball at times and I'm eager to see ho our new lads fit in with this dual philosophy.
Ruddy in goal is a interesting choice and I've not seen nearly enough of him to gauge a proper opinion yet. He had a blooper against Everton but unless he starts chucking them in regularly I think we can write that one off as an isolated incident. He certainly comes with a better pedigree than Theoklitis did a year ago, and at 6ft 4in is less likely to be left flapping every time a looping head goes near the goal. In Lambert I'll trust on this one.
Steven Smith at left back is someone I've never seen, so again, I'll reserve judgement. Even if he's only good enough to keep Drury on his toes then he'll have done his job so expectations can be kept at a low level for Smith.
Elliot Ward is an awesome signing and if he can keep fit and get a steady run of games and minutes in a settled defence at the start of the season I can see him becoming a huge player for us for seasons to come. No hedging on this one. Ward is perfect for what we're trying to do and where we're hoping to be. Fantastic addition.
David Fox is a player I didn't expect us to sign but someone I'm delighted we did. Fox is a Man United youth product who plays with the comfortable, productive style of someone who has had that grooming. The criticism that has always been levelled at him is that, certainly in a 4-4-2 he doesn't have the legs or the tenacity to compete in the middle of the park. Good passer, but too lightweight. In our system he's going to play in what's been termed the Quarterback role. Like Darel Russell last season he'll sit in front of the defence. Unlike Russell though he'll take the ball from the centre halves to launch our attacks and has a handsome range of passing with which to do this. Whereas Russell was an anchor, dropping in to help the defence and stopping anybody trying to come through the middle of us, Fox is a gunslinger who will sit deep because it gives him space to work. Of course there will be times when he needs to defend, and how successfully he adapts to this will be another key to our season. If he looks too good in the role, other teams will start to close him down and limit his time on the ball and again, he'll have to adapt to that.
Andrew Surman was the surprise signing of the summer with most of us thinking that he was probably a bit too good for what we were expecting. Again this shows how positive Lambert is looking to be though. Like Fox he's a renowned ball-player with the question mark being whether he can dig in and fight. In this system he'll have to do just that but I can't see him having any problems. He's a player who for Southampton was always too good for the Championship, and the only question is whether he is quite good enough at the highest level. Like Ward, that's perfect for our ambitions.
Andrew Crofts was an interesting, and if I'm honest, a slightly underwhelming first signing of the summer. Having seen him play for Gillingham and Brighton I'd got him pegged as an aggressive and energetic runner in the middle but the more I see of him, the more I realise that he can play a bit too. He'll have to be on his game as well because his most obvious competition for a start is Korey Smith and I can't see him giving up his place without a good fight. I'm looking forward to seeing how Crofts adapts to being a smaller fish in a bigger pond. It can surely only be good for him to not be carrying a poor team and be with better players.
Which just leaves Simeon Jackson. An aggressive, direct, lightning-quick finisher, he's an entirely new option for our attack. I'm not entirely sure how he's going to fit in, particularly at Carrow Road because pacey strikers are generally better in counter-attacking teams and we're not set up to play in that manner. However, he has the weapons in his arsenal to score goals whatever the system and when you can add a striker who's capable of being a 20 goals a season man to a strikeforce already boasting two similar players you know you're going to have a decent "For" column.
All in all I'm very pleased and very positive.
As far as where we'll finish, the key will be staying injury-free and having some consistency of selection. The first part we can do little about although I'm mildly concerned that there is no target man to back up Holt for when he inevitably picks up suspensions. Likewise any absence of Hoolahan will knock us back considerably. However other than that we've got good competition everywhere else, and we're as equipped to cope with injuries as any squad in the league, and in most cases, more so. Lambert has shown last year that he believes in keeping a settled side as much as possible and again, that can only be positive.
The interesting thing for me is that whilst injuries to key players is our biggest/only achilles heel, most of the other sides have got far bigger problems.
Our opening day opponents Watford have no money, a diminished squad, an inexperienced manager and are going to be fighting against relegation.
Scunthorpe have performed miracles in staying up last season but with Hooper and Hayes gone I can't see them repeating that effort again despite having an astute and capable boss in Nigel Adkins.
Swansea had a play-off near miss last season based on hard work and defensive grit but with their (only?) creative spark, Leon Brittain gone and a new manager with a very modest track record in Brendan Rogers, I can't see them being anyting other than also rans.
Nottingham Forest are a lot of peoples favourites and Billy Davies is a proven manager but there are some odd goings-on behind the scene at the City Ground with talk of Perch being sold behind the managers back. They have a potential to implode quite easily, but should still be in the shake-up at the top end of the division.
I'd love to see Mark Robins succeed at Barnsley and as one of the favourites for relegation coming off a poor end to last season, expectations are low at Oakwell. I think they'll be ok but as far as providing a challenge to the promotion contenders they're a million miles away.
Doncaster are an ever-increasing force in this division and the permanent addition of Billy Sharp is huge for them. If they can cope with the increased attention and expectation they'll do well.
Preston are rebuilding and although I can see them being solid, it's too soon for them to mount any serious challenge.
Hull have given themselves a chance by getting Nigel Pearson and what they drugged him with to persuade him to take over as captain of the Titanic I'll never know, but if anyone can sort out a squad of overpaid freelancers and make them a team, I think Pearson could be that man. Could go either way.
Leicester replaced Pearson with Swansea's De Sousa. Both clubs did well on small budgets last year but I can't shake the feeling that this is a move in the wrong direction for the Foxes. I see them as mid-tablers making up the numbers.
Bristol City have surged up most bookies list of favourites but I don't see it myself. They're a good club with a decent infrastructure but I'm not sold on Coppell as saviour because of two outstanding seasons at Reading a few years back. James is a marquee signing but if he can't get some consistency from the rest of the team, in particular a porous defence, then it won't matter who picks the ball out of the net. May have a crack at the play-offs but don't count on it.
QPR have money and Warnock but both can be as much of a curse as a blessing. I think Warnock has done well to keep the squad settled and make careful additions and not make wholesale changes, and this evolution rather than revolution will help. Definite play-off contenders for me.
Crystal Palace are on their arses, both financially and in terms of experience and Ambrose alone cannot make a team. Burley will be looking at the bottom half rather than the top.
Middlesbrough have brought in more Jocks but this time have focussed on quality, and with Boyd and Bailey they'll be stronger than last season, and sould prove a genuine contender.
Cardiff look like they're holding things together on the surface but with Kennedy having to be sold to Ipswich just to guarantee that wages could be paid, plus Chopra angling for a move, Ledley gone and Whittingham seemingly constantly in talks elsewhere I think they're going to struggle.
Burnley are amongst the favourites but for me Brian Laws is a dead-weight as manager and will keep them from achieving their potential. I'm certain that he'll go at some point and from their point of view the quicker he does the better chance they'll have.
Millwall outdid themselves last season and don't have the tools to get above the lower reaches of the table.
Reading are a lot of peoples fancies after the success of Brian McDermott in taking over last year. I think second-season syndrome will kick in for them though and I think Play-offs will be their best hope.
Leeds are blowing their trumpets as usual but don't have the squad to back it up. I expect them to struggle a little and be mid-table at best.
Ipswich have the wrong manager and a poor squad. They should be the favourites with the resources they have but until Paddy o'Grumpy has taken his gloom elsewhere they'll continue to be inconsistent and unproductive.
Derby are struggling on and off the pitch and I think the situation there will get a lot worse before it can get better.
Portsmouth look to have the biggest problems of any club in the division but I have a feeling that Cotterill will plot a canny course through the stormy seas. They won't trouble the promotion contenders but they'll pick up points along the way.
Coventry are in flux yet again and I think Boothroyd will either take them on a massive up or a massive down. The Ricoh could be a good place to get a season ticket this year.
Sheffield United have experienced another season of expensive mediocrity under Blackwell and I can't see there being any difference again. Play-Offs at best, but more likely they'll dip a bit and finish lower mid-table.
Overall, I think Middlesbrough are deserved favourites and of the rest, Forest, Doncaster and QPR are the only other teams who are on the up for me. And I think we'll be better than any of those.
But then it is still pre-season...
Monday, 19 July 2010
Blog 9: I'm mental. No really..... I'm proper mental.
Every day at work I speak to person after person claiming various things. Some things are true, and an awful lot arn't, but one of the most heard claims is that someone is suffering from Stress, Depression and Anxiety.
These are probably the least believed statements by me and many of my peers, partly because they are so prevalent that by law of averages a large percentage must be bullshit, and partly because claiming stress, depression and anxiety is relatively easy to do and it's a ticket to convenient benefits.
We arn't there to make a judgement on whether these people are genuine or not and in fact it makes no odds to us whether they're faking it. But the underlying fact remains: as soon as someone says Depression, most of us think of it as a quasi- illness. I'm no better than anyone else in this respect. I disbelieve the stories, I assume a lot of them are lying through their teeth. (On a side bar, I don't believe 90% of ADHD claims either but don't even get me started on that bullshit...)
The thing is I should be more sympathetic than most. If anyone should give people the benefit of the doubt in this situation it's me. Because I'm a proper mental. I suffer from stress, anxiety and depression and have for the past decade, and for years beforehand without confronting it.
I don't speak about it, other than to a select few people. This is mainly because most people (like me) assume that if someone says they have depression it either means they're preparing the ground to go on a long stretch of sick leave at work, or they're looking for a big dose of sympathetic attention, neither of which I want people to think about me. So I keep it quiet.
But now I'm here blurting it out for all 4 people who may just bother to read my blog and one or two of them may not know this about me already and may even tell other people too. Why?
The reasons I want to make it a bit more public are twofold. Firstly, occasionally you find out that someone else you know suffers with depression and has been really battling against it at a difficult time but has never spoken to you about it because they, like me, keep it to themselves. This is frustrating because when I've been suffering it's really helpful sometimes to talk to someone else. Not a big girly blubfest, but just to mention it to someone and feel free to talk about it can be very therapeutic. Fortunately I have some good friends in this respect, and I've been lucky enough to be there for other people. But there are times when good friends have been struggling and I could have helped but we were both playing the non-admittance game, and to be quite honest it's shit. Secondly, I'm too old to be embarrassed by this kind of stuff anymore. I am what I am, and I am who I am. And whether I like it or not this is part of me so I'm not going to bother keeping it quiet. If anyone has a problem with it tough shit. If you know me and you think any less of me, I don't care.
I first got diagnosed 10 years ago. Scared the shite out of me at first because I had no idea what was going on. I'd just moved into a new flat, a few weeks later had met Kerry and a few weeks later she'd moved in with me. Happy days, or should have been. But work was just beginning to turn shite at the time and with all the changes going on I think everything came to a head. I had a week where I simply couldn't function. I was exhausted and run down. I presumed I had a fluey thing and went to bed, expecting that after a day or two, I'd feel better, get up and back to normal. But that didn't happen. And so I went to the doctor who said it sounded like a virus and signed me off for another week. And than another. And then on the fourth week he ran through some questions. "Do you ever..." this, and "How do you feel when..." that. Then he asked me where I worked and when I said "Norwich Union" he just laughed and chucked a truckload of pills at me and wrote me a sicknote for work which said "Depression" and I had to suck it up and deal with it, because I was going to have to hand it in at work and become one of those people that I'd always been suspicious and skeptical of. I went back to work, relieved that I wasn't dying of some mystery disease, but baffled by the fact that this was what I had because I'd never thought of myself as being someone who would get depression. I didn't think I fit "the profile". But I went back in, rightly or wrongly, and those initial four weeks are still the only time I've ever had off sick from work with depression.
It really didn't sit well with me, not just immediately, or for the next few months. I developed horrendous panic attacks which would show up for no reason and which would render me a sweating, breathless lunatic. I remember having lunch with Kerry one day and suddenly saying "sorry, have to go" before dashing out the door because I thought I was going to pass out if I stayed where I was for a second longer. Proper fucking nutcase stuff.
For months I kept going over it in my mind: how did I get here? I thought I was mentally strong, now I'm a fucking basketcase. What triggers are there that set me off? Surely there's something I can do to get rid of this? Some way to put this bloody genie back in the bottle. But there wasn't. And after a long time I realised this and came to terms with the fact that it wasn't going away.
It's with me for life now. My Black Dog (If it's good enough for Churchill, another mentalist, who coined the phrase, then it's good enough for me). And I'm fine with that. I can manage it. I have down periods, and then I have ok periods. I still sometimes have panic attacks which I keep quiet about because nobody wants to see a big sweating freaky mess so I'll keep them to myself. But otherwise it's just a normal part of life. A pill a day keeps the total wobblies away.
But I can cope. I've been lucky to have Kerry who's been amazing, putting up with my madness, my freakouts, and my sometimes overwhelming snappiness and melancholy. Love that woman. I've also had various friends, some who are non-mentals, some who are up-front mentals and some who are closet mentals who've helped me and who continue to do so.
Anyway, I've decided that whilst I'm definitely not making a song and dance about it, I'm moving from the closet out into the open. I'm a strong proud mental man and I don't care who knows it. And hopefully if anybody else is where I was 10 years ago and needs to talk about it, they'll feel they can with me.
These are probably the least believed statements by me and many of my peers, partly because they are so prevalent that by law of averages a large percentage must be bullshit, and partly because claiming stress, depression and anxiety is relatively easy to do and it's a ticket to convenient benefits.
We arn't there to make a judgement on whether these people are genuine or not and in fact it makes no odds to us whether they're faking it. But the underlying fact remains: as soon as someone says Depression, most of us think of it as a quasi- illness. I'm no better than anyone else in this respect. I disbelieve the stories, I assume a lot of them are lying through their teeth. (On a side bar, I don't believe 90% of ADHD claims either but don't even get me started on that bullshit...)
The thing is I should be more sympathetic than most. If anyone should give people the benefit of the doubt in this situation it's me. Because I'm a proper mental. I suffer from stress, anxiety and depression and have for the past decade, and for years beforehand without confronting it.
I don't speak about it, other than to a select few people. This is mainly because most people (like me) assume that if someone says they have depression it either means they're preparing the ground to go on a long stretch of sick leave at work, or they're looking for a big dose of sympathetic attention, neither of which I want people to think about me. So I keep it quiet.
But now I'm here blurting it out for all 4 people who may just bother to read my blog and one or two of them may not know this about me already and may even tell other people too. Why?
The reasons I want to make it a bit more public are twofold. Firstly, occasionally you find out that someone else you know suffers with depression and has been really battling against it at a difficult time but has never spoken to you about it because they, like me, keep it to themselves. This is frustrating because when I've been suffering it's really helpful sometimes to talk to someone else. Not a big girly blubfest, but just to mention it to someone and feel free to talk about it can be very therapeutic. Fortunately I have some good friends in this respect, and I've been lucky enough to be there for other people. But there are times when good friends have been struggling and I could have helped but we were both playing the non-admittance game, and to be quite honest it's shit. Secondly, I'm too old to be embarrassed by this kind of stuff anymore. I am what I am, and I am who I am. And whether I like it or not this is part of me so I'm not going to bother keeping it quiet. If anyone has a problem with it tough shit. If you know me and you think any less of me, I don't care.
I first got diagnosed 10 years ago. Scared the shite out of me at first because I had no idea what was going on. I'd just moved into a new flat, a few weeks later had met Kerry and a few weeks later she'd moved in with me. Happy days, or should have been. But work was just beginning to turn shite at the time and with all the changes going on I think everything came to a head. I had a week where I simply couldn't function. I was exhausted and run down. I presumed I had a fluey thing and went to bed, expecting that after a day or two, I'd feel better, get up and back to normal. But that didn't happen. And so I went to the doctor who said it sounded like a virus and signed me off for another week. And than another. And then on the fourth week he ran through some questions. "Do you ever..." this, and "How do you feel when..." that. Then he asked me where I worked and when I said "Norwich Union" he just laughed and chucked a truckload of pills at me and wrote me a sicknote for work which said "Depression" and I had to suck it up and deal with it, because I was going to have to hand it in at work and become one of those people that I'd always been suspicious and skeptical of. I went back to work, relieved that I wasn't dying of some mystery disease, but baffled by the fact that this was what I had because I'd never thought of myself as being someone who would get depression. I didn't think I fit "the profile". But I went back in, rightly or wrongly, and those initial four weeks are still the only time I've ever had off sick from work with depression.
It really didn't sit well with me, not just immediately, or for the next few months. I developed horrendous panic attacks which would show up for no reason and which would render me a sweating, breathless lunatic. I remember having lunch with Kerry one day and suddenly saying "sorry, have to go" before dashing out the door because I thought I was going to pass out if I stayed where I was for a second longer. Proper fucking nutcase stuff.
For months I kept going over it in my mind: how did I get here? I thought I was mentally strong, now I'm a fucking basketcase. What triggers are there that set me off? Surely there's something I can do to get rid of this? Some way to put this bloody genie back in the bottle. But there wasn't. And after a long time I realised this and came to terms with the fact that it wasn't going away.
It's with me for life now. My Black Dog (If it's good enough for Churchill, another mentalist, who coined the phrase, then it's good enough for me). And I'm fine with that. I can manage it. I have down periods, and then I have ok periods. I still sometimes have panic attacks which I keep quiet about because nobody wants to see a big sweating freaky mess so I'll keep them to myself. But otherwise it's just a normal part of life. A pill a day keeps the total wobblies away.
But I can cope. I've been lucky to have Kerry who's been amazing, putting up with my madness, my freakouts, and my sometimes overwhelming snappiness and melancholy. Love that woman. I've also had various friends, some who are non-mentals, some who are up-front mentals and some who are closet mentals who've helped me and who continue to do so.
Anyway, I've decided that whilst I'm definitely not making a song and dance about it, I'm moving from the closet out into the open. I'm a strong proud mental man and I don't care who knows it. And hopefully if anybody else is where I was 10 years ago and needs to talk about it, they'll feel they can with me.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Blog 8 - Start the day the right way.
Got on the bus this morning behind the usual collection of Eastern Europeans coming into the City to scab benefits and college kids spouting rubbish.
Went to go upstairs and in front of me was an attractive blonde 17 year old wearing a short floaty skirt.
God bless the bus driver because he jolted away from the stop so suddenly that the girl in front tripped up the steps (she was fine), her skirt flew up, and revealed that she had decided to embrace the day commando style. Far from being embarrassed, she brazenly stood up, smoothed her skirt back down, gave me a wink (facial), and went to sit with her giggling friends.
Carlsberg don't do Bus Rides, but if they did...
Went to go upstairs and in front of me was an attractive blonde 17 year old wearing a short floaty skirt.
God bless the bus driver because he jolted away from the stop so suddenly that the girl in front tripped up the steps (she was fine), her skirt flew up, and revealed that she had decided to embrace the day commando style. Far from being embarrassed, she brazenly stood up, smoothed her skirt back down, gave me a wink (facial), and went to sit with her giggling friends.
Carlsberg don't do Bus Rides, but if they did...
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Blog 7 - Nostradamus Head
A while ago (Feb 2009) I posted the following on the Pink Un Message Board. It got a good reaction at the time but looking back, I think a lot of our recent England World Cup shambles have vindicated the points I made here.
Plus it's an easy way to post a quick blog and I'm a lazy bastard...
The downfall of our game - a rant
The FA and the Premier League need to take a lot of criticism for the part they have played in creating situations like Saturday, where you have a team in dire need of points to fight relegation, and the majority couldn't summon up the fire and the fight to take the game to the opposition when the game was there for the taking. Obviously Norwich's woes aren't solely due to the players who couldn't produce on Saturday, but I'm talking in a wider context, as the same lack of fight can be seen at so many clubs up and down the country and even with the national team, and it's a growing problem that undermines football in this country.
One problem is that players no longer think of their being part of a club or area because their careers are so transitory. Even if you sign for a club permanently (e.g. Jason Jarrett for us), if you don't gel into the side immediately chances are you'll be lobbed out on loan to get gametime within six to eighteen months, at which point you'll have to move into a hotel for probably three to six months, leaving whatever family you have behind in a place they haven't lived for very long. Then when you do return, is it for first team football, or another loan spell away, in a hotel, while your Missus and kids cry on the phone about you never being there again? Eventually, you'll grow to resent the club that's loaning you out, and the clubs you're being loaned to.
Or if you are lucky enough to get into the team as a regular (e.g. Sammy Clingan) you're then at the mercy of the teams fortunes. If you find yourself doing well (and if you're a regular pick you can't be doing too bad with the size of most squads these days) then a bigger, richer team will be looking to sign you in which case you're moving again. Or at best, your team may be in line for promotion, in which case your stay is likely to be extended, but then you have the worry of whether the club will try and buy someone with experience of the league above who plays in your position. If your team does badly and gets relegated then you'll be looking to move to stay in the league and salary bracket you fought to get to in the first place. And if you do get to said new, bigger club, see paragraph above. And worst of all is when you're playing for a club who should be doing better but continually find themselves at the wrong end of the table, whose fans moan and are constantly negative, and who apparantly have no money and a paper-thin squad of loanees...
Players however have themselves to blame for this state of affairs by appointing agents who have routinely created monsters from young talented boys who go on to holding clubs to ransom, threatening Bosman escapes, sulky strikes or whatever it takes to get what they want. The more arseholes clubs see, the less they fancy committing to a contract for another potential nightmare ego, and they take the soft option, as City tend to do, of trying before you buy. Nine times out of ten it doesn't pan out because either the player is every bit as much of an arsehole as the rest, or is disillusioned even before he walks in the door, hating the lifestyle of a short-term traveller, and will probably consider he's doing the club a favour by being there and will only put in the effort he deems neccesary, which won't usually tally with the supporters, and the loan fails.
Add in the factor that thanks to the travelling rule for youth academies, small clubs who made the most of their youth systems like Norwich and Crewe have been completely shafted at the expense of Premiership clubs who now swallow up all the promising youth in the country (and in increasing numbers) and most youngsters are drawn into the role of traveller at young ages anyway. Live in Cambridge? Don't worry, that's only a short flight to Manchester airport. Based in Macclesfield? Don't worry, you won't have to play for Macc, because you're in range of Manchester and Birmingham and Villa and Man U are both taking on 100 youngsters this year. And whereas a few years ago it would have been ridiculous to travel these distances twice a week for training and then again for the game at the weekend, don't worry, because the potential pay rewards are so great that Dad's willing to risk his job and take time off to drive you. Or if you're really talented, the big clubs might even send a car for you.
Because of the vast numbers that now go through the big clubs nets, most of the players at Championship level and even a large proportion of those at L1 and 2 will have learnt their trade in a big clubs academy. This means that they will have been brought up to see how to carry themselves as a pro and as a man, by the current crop of Premiership footballers. So what we all end up with are over-privilaged young men who look upon their livelihood as more of a lifestyle choice than a profession. The look is as important as the job itself. Making friends with celebrities, appearing on Footballers Cribs and queing up for your crack at Danielle Lloyd is the day job, and in between that you try and fit in training and the odd game. And when the fans criticise your lack of effort, you sulk and move to another club, and another location where there are a whole new bunch of nightclubs and wannabe Danielle Lloyds desperate to look at the ceiling of a footballers crib for a night. Repeat ad nauseum.
Look back 20 years at someone like Gary Mabbutt, a one-club man, model professional and someone who had to cope with regularly injecting himself with Insulin before matches and training just to get onto the pitch. Could the modern footballer summon up the willpower to conquer such a problem? An everyday life situation for the hundreds of thousands of diabetics out there, but what would happen to Ashley Cole tomorrow if it happened to him? I imagine a barrage of "coping seminars" and three months off on full pay (funded by the fans) to get his head around it followed by a heartwarming hour-long special on Sky where he weeps comforted by Cheryl whilst we all discuss how brave the little soldier is to be even thinking of playing football again. Frank Lampard's mum dies (not pleasant, but not a totally unusual occurrence for a man in his thirties to have to live through) and shirts with "Pat Lampard RIP" are paraded around Stamford Bridge by his teammates on the day he missed the game due to her death. Admirable team spirit, and I have no complaint about his missing the match but for Gods sake!!! Would it have happened twenty years ago? An outpouring of emotion in a football ground for the passing of someone's mum who contributed nothing to the game of football except for the fact that thirty years ago she pushed out a boy who is now on the fringes of the England team and who can't take a penalty in a pressure situation? Of course not. Unthinkable.
Unfortunately, the players, the agents and the clubs have created the modern footballer and we, the fans, have to suffer through him. We have treated our young like little boys and we can't then expect them to become men. All the young talent is chauffeured into the big clubs, pampered and promised the world, the majority then get kicked out or sent on loan to places that don't pamper as well, and they look on it as an unwanted setback, an ordeal to get through rather than relish. Bitter and resentful, the lower clubs sieve through them by virtue of loans, prospecting for the odd nugget that contains both a measure of talent and residual integrity from before they got involved with the professional game.
Where have all the good men gone? We've let the growing wealth of the game, and in particular the big clubs, emasculate a generation. In the words of the England vice-captain and leader of the Champions of England and Europe, "You've been Merked".
Plus it's an easy way to post a quick blog and I'm a lazy bastard...
The downfall of our game - a rant
The FA and the Premier League need to take a lot of criticism for the part they have played in creating situations like Saturday, where you have a team in dire need of points to fight relegation, and the majority couldn't summon up the fire and the fight to take the game to the opposition when the game was there for the taking. Obviously Norwich's woes aren't solely due to the players who couldn't produce on Saturday, but I'm talking in a wider context, as the same lack of fight can be seen at so many clubs up and down the country and even with the national team, and it's a growing problem that undermines football in this country.
One problem is that players no longer think of their being part of a club or area because their careers are so transitory. Even if you sign for a club permanently (e.g. Jason Jarrett for us), if you don't gel into the side immediately chances are you'll be lobbed out on loan to get gametime within six to eighteen months, at which point you'll have to move into a hotel for probably three to six months, leaving whatever family you have behind in a place they haven't lived for very long. Then when you do return, is it for first team football, or another loan spell away, in a hotel, while your Missus and kids cry on the phone about you never being there again? Eventually, you'll grow to resent the club that's loaning you out, and the clubs you're being loaned to.
Or if you are lucky enough to get into the team as a regular (e.g. Sammy Clingan) you're then at the mercy of the teams fortunes. If you find yourself doing well (and if you're a regular pick you can't be doing too bad with the size of most squads these days) then a bigger, richer team will be looking to sign you in which case you're moving again. Or at best, your team may be in line for promotion, in which case your stay is likely to be extended, but then you have the worry of whether the club will try and buy someone with experience of the league above who plays in your position. If your team does badly and gets relegated then you'll be looking to move to stay in the league and salary bracket you fought to get to in the first place. And if you do get to said new, bigger club, see paragraph above. And worst of all is when you're playing for a club who should be doing better but continually find themselves at the wrong end of the table, whose fans moan and are constantly negative, and who apparantly have no money and a paper-thin squad of loanees...
Players however have themselves to blame for this state of affairs by appointing agents who have routinely created monsters from young talented boys who go on to holding clubs to ransom, threatening Bosman escapes, sulky strikes or whatever it takes to get what they want. The more arseholes clubs see, the less they fancy committing to a contract for another potential nightmare ego, and they take the soft option, as City tend to do, of trying before you buy. Nine times out of ten it doesn't pan out because either the player is every bit as much of an arsehole as the rest, or is disillusioned even before he walks in the door, hating the lifestyle of a short-term traveller, and will probably consider he's doing the club a favour by being there and will only put in the effort he deems neccesary, which won't usually tally with the supporters, and the loan fails.
Add in the factor that thanks to the travelling rule for youth academies, small clubs who made the most of their youth systems like Norwich and Crewe have been completely shafted at the expense of Premiership clubs who now swallow up all the promising youth in the country (and in increasing numbers) and most youngsters are drawn into the role of traveller at young ages anyway. Live in Cambridge? Don't worry, that's only a short flight to Manchester airport. Based in Macclesfield? Don't worry, you won't have to play for Macc, because you're in range of Manchester and Birmingham and Villa and Man U are both taking on 100 youngsters this year. And whereas a few years ago it would have been ridiculous to travel these distances twice a week for training and then again for the game at the weekend, don't worry, because the potential pay rewards are so great that Dad's willing to risk his job and take time off to drive you. Or if you're really talented, the big clubs might even send a car for you.
Because of the vast numbers that now go through the big clubs nets, most of the players at Championship level and even a large proportion of those at L1 and 2 will have learnt their trade in a big clubs academy. This means that they will have been brought up to see how to carry themselves as a pro and as a man, by the current crop of Premiership footballers. So what we all end up with are over-privilaged young men who look upon their livelihood as more of a lifestyle choice than a profession. The look is as important as the job itself. Making friends with celebrities, appearing on Footballers Cribs and queing up for your crack at Danielle Lloyd is the day job, and in between that you try and fit in training and the odd game. And when the fans criticise your lack of effort, you sulk and move to another club, and another location where there are a whole new bunch of nightclubs and wannabe Danielle Lloyds desperate to look at the ceiling of a footballers crib for a night. Repeat ad nauseum.
Look back 20 years at someone like Gary Mabbutt, a one-club man, model professional and someone who had to cope with regularly injecting himself with Insulin before matches and training just to get onto the pitch. Could the modern footballer summon up the willpower to conquer such a problem? An everyday life situation for the hundreds of thousands of diabetics out there, but what would happen to Ashley Cole tomorrow if it happened to him? I imagine a barrage of "coping seminars" and three months off on full pay (funded by the fans) to get his head around it followed by a heartwarming hour-long special on Sky where he weeps comforted by Cheryl whilst we all discuss how brave the little soldier is to be even thinking of playing football again. Frank Lampard's mum dies (not pleasant, but not a totally unusual occurrence for a man in his thirties to have to live through) and shirts with "Pat Lampard RIP" are paraded around Stamford Bridge by his teammates on the day he missed the game due to her death. Admirable team spirit, and I have no complaint about his missing the match but for Gods sake!!! Would it have happened twenty years ago? An outpouring of emotion in a football ground for the passing of someone's mum who contributed nothing to the game of football except for the fact that thirty years ago she pushed out a boy who is now on the fringes of the England team and who can't take a penalty in a pressure situation? Of course not. Unthinkable.
Unfortunately, the players, the agents and the clubs have created the modern footballer and we, the fans, have to suffer through him. We have treated our young like little boys and we can't then expect them to become men. All the young talent is chauffeured into the big clubs, pampered and promised the world, the majority then get kicked out or sent on loan to places that don't pamper as well, and they look on it as an unwanted setback, an ordeal to get through rather than relish. Bitter and resentful, the lower clubs sieve through them by virtue of loans, prospecting for the odd nugget that contains both a measure of talent and residual integrity from before they got involved with the professional game.
Where have all the good men gone? We've let the growing wealth of the game, and in particular the big clubs, emasculate a generation. In the words of the England vice-captain and leader of the Champions of England and Europe, "You've been Merked".
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Blog 6 - I am a football snob
I am not frightened of snobbery; either the application of it against myself, or to be seen as a perpetrator in my own right. Most people who know me have probably realised that I don't tend to embarass easily and that I'm comfortable in "letting it all hang out" in public. So if a snob is what I am, in whatever form, I'm happy enough to be known as such.
I've been the victim of snobbery on many occasions. Socio-economic snobbery often kicks in when people find out that I'm not married to the mother of our 4 children, and that we don't own our own house, and that we do actually receive Child Tax Credit to prop up my wages. You see it in smug smiles, or phrases such as "you'll get there in the end". Where, pray tell? To the suburban perfection you obviously assume you've achieved. Well strap me in, that's a thrill ride I just have to get in on. Dick.
But the area of the Arts and snobbery is the one I really want to discuss today. Everyone has their own opinion on items such as music, art, literature, and films. And I'd bet that most wouldn't include football on the same list under the heading "Arts" either, but my blog, my rules. In most areas of the Arts I always seem to be mentally undernourished according to the accepted wisdom of what counts as an enthusiast.
Take music. I like music. I have an i-pod. It has songs on, and some of those even have melody and lyrics rather than smutty limericks or songs derived from barking dogs. My taste however, is almost universally derided by my peers. It seems that McFly and Lily Allen are not what the cool 33 year old father should be listening to. According to my more musically-infatuated friends, scruffy groups of youths hammering guitars and grunting maudlin monosyllables as lyrics make up the only acceptable form of modern music. A look at the acts on view at Glastonbury shows how far out of the loop I appear to be. I have never heard of Vampire Weekend (as a band obviously, as a concept it sounds quite fun...). Couldn't tell you who they are, or name any of their songs. Yet they appear to be a major influence on proceedings. The Gorillaz, I have heard of, and of the 2 songs I know, I thought they were a load of plinky-plonky gubbins for people who like electronic instruments without any story to the song. Not my sort of thing at all. Obviously then, my tastes are not the norm. Most people don't like my music and I don't like theirs. Fine. I can accept, musically I am an outsider. And that's ok. When people at a a party discuss music, I know that my role is to nod politely and never ever reveal what is going on in my head as it will undoubtedly kill both the mood and the conversation. Rhythmically I am an island. And that island is certainly not Ibiza like everybody else.
In terms of literature, again, I'm not normal. I read voraciously. At one point I was reading two or three books a week. But when, on occasion, somebody has attempted to speak to me about literature, I quickly aquiesce into a babbling fool wishing that the other person would bugger off and leave me to my misery. Because I know, and they know within seconds, that I don't like "literature". Jane Austen - Boring. William Shakespeare - Too much effort for too little reward. Any author with two initials followed by their surname - Sod that for a stultifying game of soldiers. Don't know it, haven't read it, not interested. Now if you want to talk about Nick Hornby, Dan Brown or any other lightweight author that has written a book since I've been born then I might have a chance. But it seems that the clarifying status for being someone who can discuss "literature" is that you have to know the oldies. The classics. I don't, so again, I take my position on the fringe of the conversation nodding like Stevie Wonder during an orgasm. I'll let THEM have literature. I like it, or parts of it, but I accept, it's not my thing. I'm not a force of intelligence within the zeitgeist, because I don't fully understand or appreciate it. Fine.
However, when it comes to football, I know my stuff. I've watched and studied the game in all of its minuteia for nearly 30 years. When football is discussed, I go from dormant backbencher to cabinet rabble-rouser in the twinkle of an eye. I'm not on the fringe of the conversation, I lead the conversation. My knowledge of the history of the game, the breadth of the global sport and it's driving forces whether it be political, organizational, financial or sporting mean that I aquiesce to no man. This is MY thing. And I realise that I am not the only person who feels like this. Loads of people are exceptionally knowledgeable about the game. However my problem comes with those that arn't but believe they are. That's where I become the snob.
Most people, when entering a conversation with me will touch upon football, because they know it's MY thing. And I appreciate that they make this effort to remember my interests and engage me accordingly regardless of their own level of interest or knowledge. It's a human kindness and god bless them for it. If they are someone I know is only bringing it up as a pleasantry, I will answer with equal non-committal yet pleasant platitudes, and move onto a more mutual topic of conversation. If I know they are a football fan, then I'll launch in with the full force of a discussion between peers.
The problem lies in the middle. Those people who say they like football, or even go so far as to profess knowledge on the subject, but in actual fact form all their opinions by listening to commentators like Andy Townsend or Paul Merson once every four years at the world cup, and whom any intelligent follower of the game will tell you, are pundits of the worst kind who need regular CAT scans to prove they shouldn't be using special buses.
I was accosted on the morning of the last England match (booked the day off as holiday in January as soon as the fixture was announced to make sure no fairweather bastard in the office beat me to it two weeks before the game) whilst doing the school run by another Dad who has never professed any interest in football before. "Watching the game today then?" he enquired. "Yeah, that's what flex days are for" I replied amiably. A pleasant exchange of conversation with a football outsider.
"It was rubbish the other night" he postulated. Now at this point I would have argued if I thought it was worth it. Yes the previous game had been poor, but I was firmly resolved against the national furore that Uncle Tom Cobley and all had opined, thinking it more symptomatic of a global shift in the pattern of the game which had witnessed many other favoured nations struggling to make progress as well. However, it wasn't worth me launching into this at this point. For one, it was the school run and I didn't have the time or the patience. For two, I knew that this guy didn't know anything about football, at least no more than the average doorpost. Any point that I tried to make woulod be lost in comparison to what he'd read on the back page of the Star about how we should be building pires to set fire to players upon their undoubtedly humiliating return to the country. The laymans knee-jerk reaction. But it was a safe opinion for him to espouse as it was in keeping with the majority. (At this point I was somewhat arrogantly, but self-awaredly in the minority that thinks it knows better than the majority. And I still am.) So I kept things civil, and nodded along. Don't get involved, just let him think he knows it all, bless him. Like when your child starts telling you how the science behind Father Christmas works. Don't spoil it for them, just pretend.
He stretched my credulity and ability to ignore things a step further when he then added "I reckon if we'd got 11 blokes from the forces and sent them out there, they'd have won, because they'd have the passion". And he was serious. This wasn't just idle chat. He actually had this as a real theory and wanted my input.
And thus the snobbery kicked in. I couldn't take part in this conversation any more. I was incapable of pretence. I was Einstein, he was someone who licks windows on the bus to school. My only polite escape was to pretend that I needed to make an urgent departure and leave at haste with just a touch if brusqueness to hide my distaste. My anti-social behaviour might be abhorrent to some, but I find it far ruder when people who have no idea what they are talking about try to despoil my environment with their ridiculous theories. Just as I know enough to stand on the sidelines and let "literature" types bang on about Chaucer or Amis, or when I keep quiet when "Elbow" are heralded as a brave new future for music when I only know them as a ball and socket joint, they should know enough to not try and talk football with me if they're not packing the full armory of knowledge.
There's not a set level of knowledge required and the world of football is very varied. I have a good knowledge of English football and players across all four divisions. Some people only really get involved in the Premiership and Champions League (Again, I regard these with a certain sense of moral superiority - they'll disappear as soon as Sky pulls the financial plug), and there are some fans who have a far greater knowledge of international and foreign football than I (those I doff a reverential cap to in the knowledge stakes). However, I am happy to have a discussion with any of these people, because they've made the effort to expand their knowledge in some way. They haven't just been told what to think by the press or thick mates who know as little as they do.
This is arrogance on my part, I realise. A presumed intelligence for which there is no actual qualification or proof. However I know, with the certainty that literature or music afficianados know when they speak to me, who knows their spuds and who is an unworthy bluffer. And I simply cannot and will not enter a serious conversation with someone like that on MY subject. Arrogant? Certainly. But that's how it is. There's an adults table and a kids table happening here. Know your bloody place.
I've been the victim of snobbery on many occasions. Socio-economic snobbery often kicks in when people find out that I'm not married to the mother of our 4 children, and that we don't own our own house, and that we do actually receive Child Tax Credit to prop up my wages. You see it in smug smiles, or phrases such as "you'll get there in the end". Where, pray tell? To the suburban perfection you obviously assume you've achieved. Well strap me in, that's a thrill ride I just have to get in on. Dick.
But the area of the Arts and snobbery is the one I really want to discuss today. Everyone has their own opinion on items such as music, art, literature, and films. And I'd bet that most wouldn't include football on the same list under the heading "Arts" either, but my blog, my rules. In most areas of the Arts I always seem to be mentally undernourished according to the accepted wisdom of what counts as an enthusiast.
Take music. I like music. I have an i-pod. It has songs on, and some of those even have melody and lyrics rather than smutty limericks or songs derived from barking dogs. My taste however, is almost universally derided by my peers. It seems that McFly and Lily Allen are not what the cool 33 year old father should be listening to. According to my more musically-infatuated friends, scruffy groups of youths hammering guitars and grunting maudlin monosyllables as lyrics make up the only acceptable form of modern music. A look at the acts on view at Glastonbury shows how far out of the loop I appear to be. I have never heard of Vampire Weekend (as a band obviously, as a concept it sounds quite fun...). Couldn't tell you who they are, or name any of their songs. Yet they appear to be a major influence on proceedings. The Gorillaz, I have heard of, and of the 2 songs I know, I thought they were a load of plinky-plonky gubbins for people who like electronic instruments without any story to the song. Not my sort of thing at all. Obviously then, my tastes are not the norm. Most people don't like my music and I don't like theirs. Fine. I can accept, musically I am an outsider. And that's ok. When people at a a party discuss music, I know that my role is to nod politely and never ever reveal what is going on in my head as it will undoubtedly kill both the mood and the conversation. Rhythmically I am an island. And that island is certainly not Ibiza like everybody else.
In terms of literature, again, I'm not normal. I read voraciously. At one point I was reading two or three books a week. But when, on occasion, somebody has attempted to speak to me about literature, I quickly aquiesce into a babbling fool wishing that the other person would bugger off and leave me to my misery. Because I know, and they know within seconds, that I don't like "literature". Jane Austen - Boring. William Shakespeare - Too much effort for too little reward. Any author with two initials followed by their surname - Sod that for a stultifying game of soldiers. Don't know it, haven't read it, not interested. Now if you want to talk about Nick Hornby, Dan Brown or any other lightweight author that has written a book since I've been born then I might have a chance. But it seems that the clarifying status for being someone who can discuss "literature" is that you have to know the oldies. The classics. I don't, so again, I take my position on the fringe of the conversation nodding like Stevie Wonder during an orgasm. I'll let THEM have literature. I like it, or parts of it, but I accept, it's not my thing. I'm not a force of intelligence within the zeitgeist, because I don't fully understand or appreciate it. Fine.
However, when it comes to football, I know my stuff. I've watched and studied the game in all of its minuteia for nearly 30 years. When football is discussed, I go from dormant backbencher to cabinet rabble-rouser in the twinkle of an eye. I'm not on the fringe of the conversation, I lead the conversation. My knowledge of the history of the game, the breadth of the global sport and it's driving forces whether it be political, organizational, financial or sporting mean that I aquiesce to no man. This is MY thing. And I realise that I am not the only person who feels like this. Loads of people are exceptionally knowledgeable about the game. However my problem comes with those that arn't but believe they are. That's where I become the snob.
Most people, when entering a conversation with me will touch upon football, because they know it's MY thing. And I appreciate that they make this effort to remember my interests and engage me accordingly regardless of their own level of interest or knowledge. It's a human kindness and god bless them for it. If they are someone I know is only bringing it up as a pleasantry, I will answer with equal non-committal yet pleasant platitudes, and move onto a more mutual topic of conversation. If I know they are a football fan, then I'll launch in with the full force of a discussion between peers.
The problem lies in the middle. Those people who say they like football, or even go so far as to profess knowledge on the subject, but in actual fact form all their opinions by listening to commentators like Andy Townsend or Paul Merson once every four years at the world cup, and whom any intelligent follower of the game will tell you, are pundits of the worst kind who need regular CAT scans to prove they shouldn't be using special buses.
I was accosted on the morning of the last England match (booked the day off as holiday in January as soon as the fixture was announced to make sure no fairweather bastard in the office beat me to it two weeks before the game) whilst doing the school run by another Dad who has never professed any interest in football before. "Watching the game today then?" he enquired. "Yeah, that's what flex days are for" I replied amiably. A pleasant exchange of conversation with a football outsider.
"It was rubbish the other night" he postulated. Now at this point I would have argued if I thought it was worth it. Yes the previous game had been poor, but I was firmly resolved against the national furore that Uncle Tom Cobley and all had opined, thinking it more symptomatic of a global shift in the pattern of the game which had witnessed many other favoured nations struggling to make progress as well. However, it wasn't worth me launching into this at this point. For one, it was the school run and I didn't have the time or the patience. For two, I knew that this guy didn't know anything about football, at least no more than the average doorpost. Any point that I tried to make woulod be lost in comparison to what he'd read on the back page of the Star about how we should be building pires to set fire to players upon their undoubtedly humiliating return to the country. The laymans knee-jerk reaction. But it was a safe opinion for him to espouse as it was in keeping with the majority. (At this point I was somewhat arrogantly, but self-awaredly in the minority that thinks it knows better than the majority. And I still am.) So I kept things civil, and nodded along. Don't get involved, just let him think he knows it all, bless him. Like when your child starts telling you how the science behind Father Christmas works. Don't spoil it for them, just pretend.
He stretched my credulity and ability to ignore things a step further when he then added "I reckon if we'd got 11 blokes from the forces and sent them out there, they'd have won, because they'd have the passion". And he was serious. This wasn't just idle chat. He actually had this as a real theory and wanted my input.
And thus the snobbery kicked in. I couldn't take part in this conversation any more. I was incapable of pretence. I was Einstein, he was someone who licks windows on the bus to school. My only polite escape was to pretend that I needed to make an urgent departure and leave at haste with just a touch if brusqueness to hide my distaste. My anti-social behaviour might be abhorrent to some, but I find it far ruder when people who have no idea what they are talking about try to despoil my environment with their ridiculous theories. Just as I know enough to stand on the sidelines and let "literature" types bang on about Chaucer or Amis, or when I keep quiet when "Elbow" are heralded as a brave new future for music when I only know them as a ball and socket joint, they should know enough to not try and talk football with me if they're not packing the full armory of knowledge.
There's not a set level of knowledge required and the world of football is very varied. I have a good knowledge of English football and players across all four divisions. Some people only really get involved in the Premiership and Champions League (Again, I regard these with a certain sense of moral superiority - they'll disappear as soon as Sky pulls the financial plug), and there are some fans who have a far greater knowledge of international and foreign football than I (those I doff a reverential cap to in the knowledge stakes). However, I am happy to have a discussion with any of these people, because they've made the effort to expand their knowledge in some way. They haven't just been told what to think by the press or thick mates who know as little as they do.
This is arrogance on my part, I realise. A presumed intelligence for which there is no actual qualification or proof. However I know, with the certainty that literature or music afficianados know when they speak to me, who knows their spuds and who is an unworthy bluffer. And I simply cannot and will not enter a serious conversation with someone like that on MY subject. Arrogant? Certainly. But that's how it is. There's an adults table and a kids table happening here. Know your bloody place.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Guns n Stuff
I flicked through the news channels the other day and got briefly distracted by a Fox News Report on the Cumbrian killings last week.
As you'd expect from the Murdoch subsidiary, it was packed with hyperbole and low on fact or context, and, as is their wont, they discussed with an "expert" the ramifications had the incident occurred in the U.S. instead of the Lake District.
The expert, named Bob, was dressed partially in camoflage and had a beard and sunglasses. And a cap. His qualification for comment was that he ran a local National Rifle Association branch. He postulated that the incident would never have happened in the States because, and I quote, "somebody woulda hadda gun and somebody woulda put the guy down."
To be fair to Bob, he is undoubtedly correct. In America, spree killings (outside of high schools) whilst not-uncommon, are almost always short-lived, precisely because there is always someone to stop the perpetrator. Derek Bird was so deadly because he possessed a weapon that nobody else did. 12 people died here and in the U.S. the probability is that far fewer would.
What Bob, and of course, Fox News, failed to do is address the realities and motives behind the attack, and indeed, spree killings in general. Spree Killings are catagorised as random attacks where the killer acts out of anger and without premeditation and has little thought for the victims identities. The killer traditionally has a mental breakdown or episode and then their anger or rage explodes in a violent, destructive and short-lived burst, which is what appears to have happened here. Certainly the initial victims of Derek Bird were targetted, as he had rowed with his brother over a will dispute and after killing him, he went to the solicitor handling the will and killed him as well. After this however, everything points to randomness. He'd snapped, killed and just killed again, his anger and life imploding upon himself.
The fact is that people have breakdowns of various types and severities all the time, whichever country they live in. A proportion of those will react violently. The difference is that in England, when people have said breakdown and react violently they reach for a knife because only 5% of the population have access to a firearm. Knives, whilst deadly, are less effective because of the physics of having to attack someone up close where they will be able to fight back. In the U.S. where 85% have access to a firearm, when people have a violent breakdown they're far more likely to use a gun, an entirely more lethal, efficient and repetative alternative.
Bob and Fox were postulating for the relaxation of gun laws in our country in the interests of protection. I'd argue that the fact that we only seem to suffer one gun-based spree killing every decade or so (Hungerford and Dunblane being the obvious examples) points to the fact that we've got the balance right, and if anything a tightening of gun laws seems more appropriate. More people may die per spree-killing incident in the UK, but in terms of where you would feel safer to live it is apparantly 1,200x more likely that you will die from a firearms related incident in the U.S. than here. I'll take those odds and leave the guns away from the general population if it's all the same to you.
As you'd expect from the Murdoch subsidiary, it was packed with hyperbole and low on fact or context, and, as is their wont, they discussed with an "expert" the ramifications had the incident occurred in the U.S. instead of the Lake District.
The expert, named Bob, was dressed partially in camoflage and had a beard and sunglasses. And a cap. His qualification for comment was that he ran a local National Rifle Association branch. He postulated that the incident would never have happened in the States because, and I quote, "somebody woulda hadda gun and somebody woulda put the guy down."
To be fair to Bob, he is undoubtedly correct. In America, spree killings (outside of high schools) whilst not-uncommon, are almost always short-lived, precisely because there is always someone to stop the perpetrator. Derek Bird was so deadly because he possessed a weapon that nobody else did. 12 people died here and in the U.S. the probability is that far fewer would.
What Bob, and of course, Fox News, failed to do is address the realities and motives behind the attack, and indeed, spree killings in general. Spree Killings are catagorised as random attacks where the killer acts out of anger and without premeditation and has little thought for the victims identities. The killer traditionally has a mental breakdown or episode and then their anger or rage explodes in a violent, destructive and short-lived burst, which is what appears to have happened here. Certainly the initial victims of Derek Bird were targetted, as he had rowed with his brother over a will dispute and after killing him, he went to the solicitor handling the will and killed him as well. After this however, everything points to randomness. He'd snapped, killed and just killed again, his anger and life imploding upon himself.
The fact is that people have breakdowns of various types and severities all the time, whichever country they live in. A proportion of those will react violently. The difference is that in England, when people have said breakdown and react violently they reach for a knife because only 5% of the population have access to a firearm. Knives, whilst deadly, are less effective because of the physics of having to attack someone up close where they will be able to fight back. In the U.S. where 85% have access to a firearm, when people have a violent breakdown they're far more likely to use a gun, an entirely more lethal, efficient and repetative alternative.
Bob and Fox were postulating for the relaxation of gun laws in our country in the interests of protection. I'd argue that the fact that we only seem to suffer one gun-based spree killing every decade or so (Hungerford and Dunblane being the obvious examples) points to the fact that we've got the balance right, and if anything a tightening of gun laws seems more appropriate. More people may die per spree-killing incident in the UK, but in terms of where you would feel safer to live it is apparantly 1,200x more likely that you will die from a firearms related incident in the U.S. than here. I'll take those odds and leave the guns away from the general population if it's all the same to you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)