I haven't blogged for 4 months. This is mainly due to laziness. However, I've decided to slap down some thoughts regarding the marvellous Norwich City and how I think they should progress with the recruitment process for next seasons tilt at the Premier League.
Norwich City 2011-2012
Goalkeepers: John Ruddy, Declan Rudd, Jed Steer.
Ruddy is one of those players that Lambert has developed in a very short space of time to become greater than the sum of his parts. He now looks like a top level keeper, not just a mediocre shot-stopper with confidence issues. I suspect he could still have the potential to have a wobble given one or two mistakes back-to-back but I'm confident if he starts the season as our number one. I would however look to get a genuine rival for him as competition. The likes of Robert Green have been mooted but I don't think his wages would come anywhere near our budget anymore, and I'm not sure he would fit the "hungry with a point to prove" philosophy that has underpinned so much of our success. Fraser Forster would be ideal for where our club wants to go, and that's not just a sentimental throwback to memories of a year ago but an honest opinion that a young English keeper who has a genuine affection for our club and clearly a great career ahead of him, would be a top signing. With Ruddy and Forster competing for the number one position I'd be extremely happy going into the season. Rudd and Steer are both good prospects but equally they both need more experience before they are ready for the Prem, so a season-long loan for Rudd at least is preferable. Someone like Brighton, Coventry or Barnsley playing Championship football but where he would have a fair bit to do would be the best option.
Right Backs: Russell Martin, George Francomb.
I'm a huge fan of Russell Martin, and like Ruddy, Lambert has built this guy from the ground up, to the extent where a player Peterborough felt was not up to Championship football is clearly going to play games in the Premier League. The only question is whether you add cover here. I like George Francomb and I have high hopes for the future for him, but next season may be a step too soon for him if he has to cover for Martin. Lambert may be comfortable with Korey Smith as the back up and if so, In Lambert We Trust. Personally I'd look to add an experienced body who can fill in elsewhere if needed. Bobby Hassell of Barnsley is someone that always impresses me and can play numerous positions.
Left Backs: Adam Drury, Marc Tierney, Sam Habergham, Stephen Smith.
I wouldn't look to add to this. Tierney and Drury are both quality left backs and I don't have any worries that they are capable of making the step up and providing ample competition between them. With Lappin and Surman also capable of deputising if need be we seem well covered here. Habergham was a highly fancied youth player that hasn't managed to make a breakthrough and it's difficult to see that happening now. I would be surprised if he was retained for next year. Smith is as good as gone and there is no chance he will be here come August.
Centre Backs: Zak Whitbread, Leon Barnett, Elliott Ward, Jens Berthal Askou.
After years of having "big lump" centre halves that can head and kick everything that moves but can't pass over 5 yards it's been a genuine pleasure to have defenders who are comfortable on the ball and able to pass or move forwards against the opposition where possible. Whitbread, Barnett and Ward are all in contention for Premiership starts and I have no problem with any of them going into the new season. Askou is a decent L1/Championship player who would be punching well above his weight in the big leagues and he is very unlikely to be retained this summer. I would look to add one other centre half to the group to ensure adequate cover as all three centre halves have had injury concerns in the past. My first choice would be Swansea and Wales captain Ashley Williams. He fits perfectly into the Canary ethos of being a young, hungry, professional, who looks after himself and takes his own development seriously. Williams has spent a lot of time in the gym in the last year, bulking up to aid his conversion from full back to centre half and the work has paid dividends with Williams now a skilful, pacy behemoth who proves a dominant force in either box. The fact that he has taken on captaincy for club and country at a young age speaks volumes for his character. Perfect addition in my book, and I would make him our number one target this pre-season. His wages would likely fit into the structure and an investment of £3.5 million would likely secure his services IF Swansea fail to go up via the play-offs.
Midfield Anchor/Quarterback: Mathew Gill, David Fox
David Fox has made the position his own in the second-half of the season and has quietly been one of our best players. Another example of Lambert making the most of a player. Fox has the skills, breeding and mentality to be highly successful at the top level and the space and time available in the Premiership should suit him more than most. Crofts can also fill in at the base of the diamond but more as a defensive shield than as a play-starter such as Fox, so I would expect to see another midfielder added who can also play this position to compete with Fox. Lambert is an expert at finding gems from the lower leagues who are comfortable on the ball and have the potential to play higher so I look forward to seeing who he picks up. Dare I suggest that someone like Sammy Clingan might be a good addition? It would take an awful amount of forgiveness but there aren't many players who can play this role well and Clingan has the skills needed. Mathew Gill is a good pro and a popular player in the dressing room but would have struggled in the Championship, let alone the Premier. With the best will in the world I can't see him being here next year.
Midfielders: Andrew Crofts, Stephen Hughes, Andrew Surman, Korey Smith, Simon Lappin, Matt Ball, Owain Tudor-Jones.
The "sides" of the diamond are currently occupied by Surman and Crofts, with Lappin and Korey Smith the back-ups. To play successfully in the system, you need the stamina and strength to get up and down and support full backs in making tackles, the technical ability to link play and find non conventional angles for passing, and a great deal of comfort on the ball. Surman is excellent on the ball and tracks back well. His only weakness is a slight lack of pace which is the only reason he isn't playing at very highest level. He will however, be fine at the next level and I expect him to flourish with a little more time on the ball. Crofts is an exceptional worker and ok on the ball, but against the Arsenal's and Manchester United's who punish every mistake that may not be enough. He certainly deserves his chance but I would expect Lambert to bring in players to challenge Crofts and either raise his game to the next level or replace him. Lappin is someone a lot of supporters see as being a potential casualty of the promotion recruitment process but I don't agree. Technically he is very good and he works hard and always follows the instructions handed to him. You definitely get the impression that Lambert and Culverhouse have great faith in him and trust him to do whatever job is handed to him. I don't see him going anywhere, and I think he'll be competing for a bench place. Korey Smith has massive potential and is another 100% man. Whether his technical ability matches his work rate at this stage is up for debate but he's still very young and he has some great footballers to learn from. I wouldn't be surprised if Lambert lets him out on loan for at least part of the season. He could play comfortably in the Championship which is probably preferable for his development than simply the odd bench appearance. Stephen Hughes, like Askou is a good L1/Championship player but he has come about as far as is possible and will most likely be off. Likewise Owain Tudor-Jones. Matt Ball is a well-thought-of youngster who will benefit from training in a Premier League set-up and if he develops well he may even see some bench time. In terms of players to come in, I would expect Lambert to make at least three aquisitions to really improve the competition for places. I like the look of Wigan's James McCarthy (if they come down). A young player who has overachieved with struggling sides, he always impresses me whenever I see him. Huge motor and technically able. Likewise, Wolves' Dave Jones may be a relegated player who'd like another crack at the Premier League and wouldn't cost the earth in either transfer fee or wages. He has great ability on the ball with a Fox-esque Man United Youth pedigree, and is a hard-worker. A move for Henri Lansbury either on a loan or permanent would obviously be wonderful if Arsenal were agreeable but speculation in North London suggests that Arsene Wenger plans on bringing Henri through next season. With his love for Arsenal and the underwhelming feeling he seems to have at the hotel-based life of a loanee, I'd be surprised if Henri went anywhere this season unless he was given a guarantee of no future with Arsenal.
Wingers: Anthony McNamee, Josh Dawkin.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for McNamee who has barely been able to get a look in based simply on his fit into our system. I think with Lambert's pursuit of Elliott Bennett, it's clear that he wants a Plan B for when the diamond isn't working so well, and the width that McNamee and Bennett could offer in a 4-4-2 would open up even the largest of Premiership pitches. For this reason alone I can see McNamee still being here and challenging around the bench next season, especially as his attitude regarding his lack of starts appears to have been good. Dawkin is one for the future and may well be loaned out next season with L1 a good practice ground for him. I expect Lambert to add one or two players who either play wide or can do so comfortably. Bennett is an obvious target, and I suspect Lambert may be prepared to pay slightly more than he bid in January to secure such a promising player. I don't see any big names coming in though because the realities of our system mean that a wide player will need the patience of McNamee or a great deal of role flexibility to stay involved. Wright-Phillips or Kightly are two names on the rumour circuit but are never going to happen. Likewise Scott Sinclair unfortunately.
The Hole: Wes Hoolahan.
Everyone who says Wes is a one-off and impossible to have cover for was proved wrong when Henri Lansbury and Dani Pacheco both proved it possible. It is a difficult position to play successfully, but it's a dream position for technically able players and we'll find no problem as a Premiership club finding players who have the skills and would give their right arm to play there. If neither Lansbury or Pacheco return then I would expect Lambert to bring in another option as cover for Wes.
The Target Man: Grant Holt, Aaron Wilbraham.
Holt will cause Premiership defences the exact same problems as he has caused defenders in every other league and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he still manages to notch 15-20 goals. He'll still win headers and throw himself at anything in the box, and his technical skills are constantly underrated by the opposition. Most importantly he's a goalscorer, and has the coolness and instincts when through on goal which some better footballers will never have. Wilbraham may have come as far as he can and whilst I expect him to still be here next year, I would be surprised if Lambert didn't add another big striker to the mix to keep Holty on his toes because the gulf between the two in terms of competition is enormous. Ricky Lambert and Steve Morrison are two potential options that would fit the Lambert criteria well. I'm not convinced that Sam Vokes is quite good enough but he may be another consideration.
Striker: Simeon Jackson, Chris Martin, Oli Johnson, Luke Daley, Cody McDonald
3 months ago I'd have laughed at the thought of Simeon Jackson being a Premeirship striker but now he's one to leave out at your peril. He always had speed and keenness but his all-round game was lacking and it looked like Gillingham had been on the better end of the deal that took Cody Macdonald on loan in part-exchange. But then, with a 30 minute cameo against an already beaten Scunthorpe he scored a hat-trick and it was like he suddenly "got it". An entire seasons worth of frustration and missed opportunities was released and we not only got the striker we hoped we were buying from Gillingham, we got a far better player than we thought we had signed. He ended the season looking the best player in the Championship and a threat every time he had the ball. Another example of the Lambert belief coming to fruition. Chris Martin is one who's future seems up in the balance and it will depend on who comes in as to whether Martin stays or moves to pastures new. I think he's developed into a fine footballer and it would be a shame to see him go but he didn't score the goals we know he's capable of in the Championship and the feeling may be that the Premiership is too big an ask. Oli Johnson is likely to move on following a long loan spell at Yeovil where he proved adequate but didn't pull up any trees. He's a good player with quick feet and the ability to create a chance from nothing but may be better suited to League 1 or the Championship than the Premier League. Luke Daley failed to get off the bench for Stevenage during a loan spell and I can't see him being here in August. I would definitely expect Lambert to make another striker a priority. I think Mackail-Smith is an obvious target but Lambert and McNally won't be held to ransom and neither should they be. A return for Dani Pacheco would be hugely welcome but this is unlikely to be decided before late July at the earliest and Lambert may not have the patience to wait for that. Leon Best is a target and would be good as long as his wages fit in. For that reason alone rumours of Michael Owen or Craig Bellamy are ridiculous. Ironically, Cody McDonald could be a great option if you think of him as a prolific L2 striker coming off a great season who would come into the club as a new signing with a point to prove hoping to fight for a place. I can't see it happening however as Cody's indicated he thinks he's leaving and he wants to play for Gillingham and Paul Lambert has moved to play down the more exhuberent cries to recall McDonald from loan with reminders of the level that Cody was playing at.
Overall, I have great faith in Paul Lambert to continue his excellent record in the transfer market. I have no doubt that come August we will be a lot stronger than we are now. Lambert's skill to date is that his team has evolved in a positive manner for both players coming in and players moving out and if that continues Norwich's ongoing forward progress should continue and a few "big teams" may well be dumped on their backsides by "Little Old Norwich".
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Blog 20 - Crossing the line - To accept or not?
As you've probably gathered by now, I'm opinionated, and I'm judgemental. Whilst I believe people can make small changes to their lives I believe that essentially they will remain the same person they always have been. A person who shoplifts a loaf of bread because they have no money and no food is not a hardened criminal for life, but someone who has the money and still does it is a thief and always will be. Not everyone will agree with me but that's my opinion. Fairly subjective to my own morality admittedly but at the same time fairly clear cut. I don't think people who make a choice to act immorally should be trusted to ever act in a moral way again. I don't believe that when they have included "theft", "murder", "rape" or whatever act into their menu of possible actions during life, knowingly and consciously, they always have that potential, and the likelihood is that once you've chosen to cross the line once, it'll be easier to cross the line a second time.
When someone does something knowingly and consciously, which I consider to be abhorrent and wrong then, I am very unforgiving. Generally I regard them with at best, low-level contempt. I have cut such people out of my life before and would do so again without hesitation if circumstances warranted it. Similarly I am equally judgemental of people in the public eye.
I've never been a fan of Michael Jackson. Always found his music to be boring and a lot of glitzy American style over substance. So when it emerged that he was an enthusiastic pedophile (and we all know he was, let's face it) I had no problem condemning him as loudly as the most vitriolic tabloid. But I can appreciate that for someone who loved his music, there must have been a real moral dillemma to be faced. Do you carry on as a fan regardless, clinging onto the "it was never proved in court" argument that only carries water if you buy into the theory that rich people buying their way out of prison never happens? Or do you accept the reality and take a moral stance, not buying his records, even though you enjoy them?
I've experienced a similar ethical query with an entertainment figure recently and it's one I've found difficult to reconcile with my own beliefs. The subject of my dilemma is the American Footballer Michael Vick. In April 2007 Vick was found to be keeping a dog-fighting ring in the grounds of his enormous home in Atlanta, Georgia. Vick hosted the fights for his circle of friends and fellow dog-fighting enthusiasts. But when I say he hosted fights, we're not talking a one-off or even occasional coming toegether of two angry pets. Chez Vick was the Madison Square Garden of Dog Fighting. We're talking seated pit arenas, betting stalls and breeding programs for aggressive pit-bulls complete with "rape-racks" which allow aggressive males to mount aggressive females and produce aggressive puppies without the fear of the mother killing the father in the act. When police raided Vick's home they found the remains of hundreds of dogs that had been killed following the fights, or even weaker small dogs which had been used as warm-up acts to get the featured competitive dogs into a killing frenzy before matches. In August 2007 Vick pled guilty and spent the next 21 months in prison. Personally as an animal-lover and someone who used to work for the RSPCA, I wish they'd given him the death sentence. But that's not everyone's opinion, which I accept.
My problem is that, since release, Vick's life has pretty much returned to normal. The owner of his former team, Arthur Blank of the Atlanta Falcons, bravely refused to have him as part of his organisation and sacked the undoubtedly talented star quarterback. However, someone with Vick's talented was never going to be without a team, and the Philadelphia Eagles took him on. Vick has quickly re-established himself as one of the best players in the game and is one of the names shortlisted for the prodigious NFL Most Valuable Player of the Season Award, such has been his astounding return to the game. Following a period of bankrupcy when in prison due to the loss of his multi-million dollar salary and the astronomical costs of his legal bills, Vick is now back amongst the top-earners again.
Worse still for me is the level of forgiveness he has managed to find. Philadelphia fans cheer his name. Team mates embrace him as not only one of them, but as their leader on the field. Even Barack Obama put his two cents in, congratulating the Eagles management on giving an offender a second chance. Vick has made all the right public noises, stating his regret at his actions, donating money to animal charities and doing voluntary work, talking about hoping to one day own a pet dog again etc, etc, and people seem to be lapping this up. For me it's the product of modern P.R. and notjing more. It means nothing. It's as superficial and transitory as Nick Griffin turning up with a camera crew to film a party-political broadcast segment armed with a can of Lilt and some Reggae Reggae sauce. I'm not buying it, and I doubt in their heart of hearts whether anyone else is. Yet still society seems to be letting him back regardless, I suspect solely because he has something to offer. Vick is in his prime, playing scintillating, dynamic and winning football. If he was 36, slowing and clinging onto the last few months before retirement I doubt he'd be treated the same.
And the most galling thing of all is that I understand it. I love watching Vick play. He's by far the most exciting player in the game today and plays with an inventiveness and athleticism that can't help but drag you onto the edge of your seat when he's on the field. And I can totally understand why the Eagles fans cheer for him. After all once your teams executives have taken the decision to employ him and put him on the field of play, what choice do you have but to cheer him on as part of your team? You're not going to stop cheering your team, whom you've followed all your life just because you have some moral objections to an objective decision on a non-footballing matter taken by the current management are you? Maybe you should. But if it was me and Norwich City were to do similar I honestly don't know what I'd do. Which scares me tremendously. There's an outside chance that my NFL team of choice, the Arizona Cardinals may try and bring in Vick, who is out of contract now, although given the fees involved it would be unlikely. In pure footballing terms it would be an enormous coup and the best thing that could happen to the team. Morally, I think I would have to abandon them as my NFL team if they did however. But then I have no ties to Arizona. I simply picked them out of the 32 teams when I started taking an interest in American Football because I felt the closest allegiance to them and some of their players at the time and since then I've grown a great deal of affection for the Cards. But walking away from them to another NFL team would not be a problem if circumstances warranted it. I'd simply support my second team instead (ironically the Atlanta Falcons who sacked Vick rather than give him a second chance).
Back to the comparison with English football and Norwich City though and the problem would become infinitely more difficult. I'm tied to them through geography, history and 27 years of financial input. Christ I even own a couple of token shares in the club. And if Rooney or Ronaldo were to commit an atrocity tomorrow and ask Norwich to be their chosen club of rehabilitation after prison, how would I feel about that? Knowing that it would inevitably improve us on the field, and possibly get us back into the Premier League wouldn't be a consideration for me because I'd rather not have them and stay as we were. But if the board were to sanction the player coming in and they were there, in the yellow and green could I just walk away and stop supporting the team I love? It's a decision I never want to have to make, because I don't know what I would do. Could I accept and move on? Or would I have the fortitude to leave something that feels a part of me. I sympathise with Philadelphia fans. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. And I'm not proud of myself for saying that.
When someone does something knowingly and consciously, which I consider to be abhorrent and wrong then, I am very unforgiving. Generally I regard them with at best, low-level contempt. I have cut such people out of my life before and would do so again without hesitation if circumstances warranted it. Similarly I am equally judgemental of people in the public eye.
I've never been a fan of Michael Jackson. Always found his music to be boring and a lot of glitzy American style over substance. So when it emerged that he was an enthusiastic pedophile (and we all know he was, let's face it) I had no problem condemning him as loudly as the most vitriolic tabloid. But I can appreciate that for someone who loved his music, there must have been a real moral dillemma to be faced. Do you carry on as a fan regardless, clinging onto the "it was never proved in court" argument that only carries water if you buy into the theory that rich people buying their way out of prison never happens? Or do you accept the reality and take a moral stance, not buying his records, even though you enjoy them?
I've experienced a similar ethical query with an entertainment figure recently and it's one I've found difficult to reconcile with my own beliefs. The subject of my dilemma is the American Footballer Michael Vick. In April 2007 Vick was found to be keeping a dog-fighting ring in the grounds of his enormous home in Atlanta, Georgia. Vick hosted the fights for his circle of friends and fellow dog-fighting enthusiasts. But when I say he hosted fights, we're not talking a one-off or even occasional coming toegether of two angry pets. Chez Vick was the Madison Square Garden of Dog Fighting. We're talking seated pit arenas, betting stalls and breeding programs for aggressive pit-bulls complete with "rape-racks" which allow aggressive males to mount aggressive females and produce aggressive puppies without the fear of the mother killing the father in the act. When police raided Vick's home they found the remains of hundreds of dogs that had been killed following the fights, or even weaker small dogs which had been used as warm-up acts to get the featured competitive dogs into a killing frenzy before matches. In August 2007 Vick pled guilty and spent the next 21 months in prison. Personally as an animal-lover and someone who used to work for the RSPCA, I wish they'd given him the death sentence. But that's not everyone's opinion, which I accept.
My problem is that, since release, Vick's life has pretty much returned to normal. The owner of his former team, Arthur Blank of the Atlanta Falcons, bravely refused to have him as part of his organisation and sacked the undoubtedly talented star quarterback. However, someone with Vick's talented was never going to be without a team, and the Philadelphia Eagles took him on. Vick has quickly re-established himself as one of the best players in the game and is one of the names shortlisted for the prodigious NFL Most Valuable Player of the Season Award, such has been his astounding return to the game. Following a period of bankrupcy when in prison due to the loss of his multi-million dollar salary and the astronomical costs of his legal bills, Vick is now back amongst the top-earners again.
Worse still for me is the level of forgiveness he has managed to find. Philadelphia fans cheer his name. Team mates embrace him as not only one of them, but as their leader on the field. Even Barack Obama put his two cents in, congratulating the Eagles management on giving an offender a second chance. Vick has made all the right public noises, stating his regret at his actions, donating money to animal charities and doing voluntary work, talking about hoping to one day own a pet dog again etc, etc, and people seem to be lapping this up. For me it's the product of modern P.R. and notjing more. It means nothing. It's as superficial and transitory as Nick Griffin turning up with a camera crew to film a party-political broadcast segment armed with a can of Lilt and some Reggae Reggae sauce. I'm not buying it, and I doubt in their heart of hearts whether anyone else is. Yet still society seems to be letting him back regardless, I suspect solely because he has something to offer. Vick is in his prime, playing scintillating, dynamic and winning football. If he was 36, slowing and clinging onto the last few months before retirement I doubt he'd be treated the same.
And the most galling thing of all is that I understand it. I love watching Vick play. He's by far the most exciting player in the game today and plays with an inventiveness and athleticism that can't help but drag you onto the edge of your seat when he's on the field. And I can totally understand why the Eagles fans cheer for him. After all once your teams executives have taken the decision to employ him and put him on the field of play, what choice do you have but to cheer him on as part of your team? You're not going to stop cheering your team, whom you've followed all your life just because you have some moral objections to an objective decision on a non-footballing matter taken by the current management are you? Maybe you should. But if it was me and Norwich City were to do similar I honestly don't know what I'd do. Which scares me tremendously. There's an outside chance that my NFL team of choice, the Arizona Cardinals may try and bring in Vick, who is out of contract now, although given the fees involved it would be unlikely. In pure footballing terms it would be an enormous coup and the best thing that could happen to the team. Morally, I think I would have to abandon them as my NFL team if they did however. But then I have no ties to Arizona. I simply picked them out of the 32 teams when I started taking an interest in American Football because I felt the closest allegiance to them and some of their players at the time and since then I've grown a great deal of affection for the Cards. But walking away from them to another NFL team would not be a problem if circumstances warranted it. I'd simply support my second team instead (ironically the Atlanta Falcons who sacked Vick rather than give him a second chance).
Back to the comparison with English football and Norwich City though and the problem would become infinitely more difficult. I'm tied to them through geography, history and 27 years of financial input. Christ I even own a couple of token shares in the club. And if Rooney or Ronaldo were to commit an atrocity tomorrow and ask Norwich to be their chosen club of rehabilitation after prison, how would I feel about that? Knowing that it would inevitably improve us on the field, and possibly get us back into the Premier League wouldn't be a consideration for me because I'd rather not have them and stay as we were. But if the board were to sanction the player coming in and they were there, in the yellow and green could I just walk away and stop supporting the team I love? It's a decision I never want to have to make, because I don't know what I would do. Could I accept and move on? Or would I have the fortitude to leave something that feels a part of me. I sympathise with Philadelphia fans. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. And I'm not proud of myself for saying that.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Blog 19 - Stalking Celebrities on Twitter and causing an argument with one.
I hate Facebook. There, I've said it. Hate the damn thing.
It's a spammy, advertisement-laden, craphole of poor ideas siezed upon by idiots. The only good thing about it is that it gives you access to a (relatively) quick messaging system with your friends which is what I use it for solely. The minus side is that you get vague acquaintainces and people you hated at school shoving up friend requests which you're too polite and mature (yes, even me) to turn down and then you have to put up with their shite updates, thrown sheep, star sign updates etc. Therefore whilst I still use Facebook because my (genuine) friends are on there, I far prefer Twitter.
Quick 140 word updates of what you're doing, thinking, watching etc. It comes into it's own when you're watching a popular TV programme because many other people will be tweeting away with you at the same time about the same thing. Basically it's like watching TV with a group of friends, albeit with Twitter, you follow who you like. So as well as following the friends I have on Twitter, I also follow various famous people. The majority are writers, journalists, and comedians simply because Twitter was first adopted by the liberal, Guardian-reading contingent and so the Charlie Brooker's, David Mitchell's and Stephen Fry's are amongst the most followed and most comfortable tweeters around but it's now becoming more mainstream. Even footballers are finding Twitter a useful medium and so the likes of Norwich's own Grant Holt and Henri Lansbury are on there, tweeting about their days.
When I first started on Twitter it became a fun game to try and get a response from a celebrity. After all, they have no reason to talk to you, they have no knowledge of who you are, and they probably get responses from hundreds of people, so to get a response is a bit of a challenge. My first response was from Euan McIntosh, the bloke who played Big Keith in The Office, who's a prolific and very friendly tweeter and I can't even remember what it was about exactly but we ended up chatting about books and recommending books for each other to read. Which is not to say I'm best mates with "Big Keith of of The Office" who undoubtedly can't remember my name now, but it's an example of the kind of chat you get into with famous people. Sometimes it's easier than others like when you get Jimmy Carr asking if anyone had seen "Inception" because he was thinking about going to see it, and I'd just seen it, so I told him that if he'd seen "The Matrix" but wished it had been a little less complicated and had a pudgy-faced quasi-Italian man-boy in, then Inception was for him. He replied with "I'll add that to the "No" pile then!". Kerry and I had a competition one day to get a reply from the sexiest celebrity possible and I won with Shannon Elizabeth sending me a lovely message, including a little "x" at the end which I take to mean that she wants me badly. Bless her, I'll have to let her down gently what with this whole marriage thing...
Anyway, to cut a long story short, after two years or so on Twitter I don't make any effort to speak to celebs any more but by virtue of the fact that I follow quite a few famous people I reply to some of the things they say naturally anyway. Sometimes they acknowledge you and sometimes they don't and I don't mind either way. Today I responded to the Quarterback of my favourite American Football team, Derek Anderson of the Arizona Cardinals and actually received a reply, which was surprising as they get thousands of responses to everything they tweet because their fanbases are so huge. It's the equivalent of getting a reply from Wayne Rooney or, more likely someone human who can actually type and play football.
The background to know (and I'll keep this as brief as possible) is that Anderson replaced a legendary quarterback who retired at the end of last season and has been a disaster. He has a reputation as being a trouble-maker and I was surprised (and to be honest a little disappointed) when the Cardinals signed him. However, as bad as he's been, the whole team has had an awful season and for my money he's no more to blame than anyone else. He's made things worse for himself by appearing on TV laughing with a teammate on the bench as we were busy losing again and being characteristically fractious with the press when questioned about it, but I think that this was a lot of media fuss over very little. Anderson has been dropped once this season for a rookie QB, and then brought back in, and following a recent injury to Anderson and his back up, another rookie named John Skelton was brought in for the last two games. He played reasonably well in the first game which we won, and average-poor in the second game which we lost to the worst team in the league. Anderson is still the number one quarterback for the Cardinals when fit but is likely to lose his job at the end of the season and the Cardinals will almost certainly bring a new player in.
Derek Anderson tweeted this morning that he was in a queue at Starbucks that was moving slow as hell. I responded with "Has Skelton gone Hollywood after 2 games and sent you out for him then?!!". I didn't expect a response at all because, as I said, they get thousands of responses to everything. What I got within a minute was "U r so funny". Cool, I thought, he's obviously a nicer bloke than the media portrays him to be if he's bothered to reply. Then he sent a second tweet "Does it make you feel clever to talk shit to people you don't even know?"
What the fuck?!! I responded to say that I wasn't taking the piss out him and was just making a joke about the rookie getting ideas above his station, and to his credit he came back to apologise for being over sensitive but that he gets so much abuse every day on Twitter that he thought I was abusing him as well at first glance. I'm guessing that my sense of humour doesn't play as well in American either which probably exacerbated things but this is by the by.
The point I wanted to make is that, if you're Derek Anderson, what the hell are you doing going on Twitter? The NFL has 32 teams, all in the same league to cover the whole of the USA. Anderson has become a bit of a joke amongst the league and so 97% of fans will support other teams and will be lining up to rub his nose in it every time he posts. And of the fans of his own team, a good percentage aren't so enamoured with him either!
I looked at some of his recent posts on Twitter (you can do that, it's very high-vis is Twitter, although you do have the ability to direct message in private and block people from viewing you if you wish), and most of the time he goes on there, he gets into an argument with someone slagging him off. In fact I didn't find one positive interaction with anybody in his recent history! Understandable then that he's defensive to bad gags by hacky British tits like me. But why does he post at all? It's perfectly possible to post on Twitter under an alias and use that for friends only, which would mean that he wouldn't get abuse, but he cracks on regardless under his own name. Is it that he wants the attention in the good times? When he throws for a touchdown in a big game does he want the "way to go" tweets from overjoyed fans so much that he's willing to be abused the rest of the time? He said to one of his critics that he only comes on Twitter for fun and jokes, but his history shows that he has precious little of this when he tweets so why not use an alias and be an anonymous nobody like the majority of us? Perhaps that's the answer. There's a mild blurring of the lines between "untouchable" celebs and the rest of us when we chat together on Twitter but the line undoubtedly remains there. I think he wants to remain on his side of the line regardless of what that means.
A lot of people go on Twitter and abuse celebrities on there, and a number of high profile people have quit Twitter as a result, some returning, some not. Stephen Fry has stopped on a few occasions only to miss it and return. I don't do that. If there's someone I don't like I just don't follow them in the first place. (Katie Price is one whose musings are something I can do without, and I doubt whether I could stop myself saying something sarky in her case). Celebrities prove on Twitter how normal they are, with mundane tales of what they're having for dinner or how the snow has made their lives hell today, and they go on Twitter to kill a few minutes, to check in with friends or chat about random stuff the same as anyone else. I understand this and I join in with them and occasionally them with me. It's a relatively cosy and fun atmosphere which is why you don't spoil it by being an arse. And another reason why I prefer Twitter to Facebook.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my friends on Facebook and Twitter, and to Derek Anderson, who I hope has a better 2011 than 2010.
It's a spammy, advertisement-laden, craphole of poor ideas siezed upon by idiots. The only good thing about it is that it gives you access to a (relatively) quick messaging system with your friends which is what I use it for solely. The minus side is that you get vague acquaintainces and people you hated at school shoving up friend requests which you're too polite and mature (yes, even me) to turn down and then you have to put up with their shite updates, thrown sheep, star sign updates etc. Therefore whilst I still use Facebook because my (genuine) friends are on there, I far prefer Twitter.
Quick 140 word updates of what you're doing, thinking, watching etc. It comes into it's own when you're watching a popular TV programme because many other people will be tweeting away with you at the same time about the same thing. Basically it's like watching TV with a group of friends, albeit with Twitter, you follow who you like. So as well as following the friends I have on Twitter, I also follow various famous people. The majority are writers, journalists, and comedians simply because Twitter was first adopted by the liberal, Guardian-reading contingent and so the Charlie Brooker's, David Mitchell's and Stephen Fry's are amongst the most followed and most comfortable tweeters around but it's now becoming more mainstream. Even footballers are finding Twitter a useful medium and so the likes of Norwich's own Grant Holt and Henri Lansbury are on there, tweeting about their days.
When I first started on Twitter it became a fun game to try and get a response from a celebrity. After all, they have no reason to talk to you, they have no knowledge of who you are, and they probably get responses from hundreds of people, so to get a response is a bit of a challenge. My first response was from Euan McIntosh, the bloke who played Big Keith in The Office, who's a prolific and very friendly tweeter and I can't even remember what it was about exactly but we ended up chatting about books and recommending books for each other to read. Which is not to say I'm best mates with "Big Keith of of The Office" who undoubtedly can't remember my name now, but it's an example of the kind of chat you get into with famous people. Sometimes it's easier than others like when you get Jimmy Carr asking if anyone had seen "Inception" because he was thinking about going to see it, and I'd just seen it, so I told him that if he'd seen "The Matrix" but wished it had been a little less complicated and had a pudgy-faced quasi-Italian man-boy in, then Inception was for him. He replied with "I'll add that to the "No" pile then!". Kerry and I had a competition one day to get a reply from the sexiest celebrity possible and I won with Shannon Elizabeth sending me a lovely message, including a little "x" at the end which I take to mean that she wants me badly. Bless her, I'll have to let her down gently what with this whole marriage thing...
Anyway, to cut a long story short, after two years or so on Twitter I don't make any effort to speak to celebs any more but by virtue of the fact that I follow quite a few famous people I reply to some of the things they say naturally anyway. Sometimes they acknowledge you and sometimes they don't and I don't mind either way. Today I responded to the Quarterback of my favourite American Football team, Derek Anderson of the Arizona Cardinals and actually received a reply, which was surprising as they get thousands of responses to everything they tweet because their fanbases are so huge. It's the equivalent of getting a reply from Wayne Rooney or, more likely someone human who can actually type and play football.
The background to know (and I'll keep this as brief as possible) is that Anderson replaced a legendary quarterback who retired at the end of last season and has been a disaster. He has a reputation as being a trouble-maker and I was surprised (and to be honest a little disappointed) when the Cardinals signed him. However, as bad as he's been, the whole team has had an awful season and for my money he's no more to blame than anyone else. He's made things worse for himself by appearing on TV laughing with a teammate on the bench as we were busy losing again and being characteristically fractious with the press when questioned about it, but I think that this was a lot of media fuss over very little. Anderson has been dropped once this season for a rookie QB, and then brought back in, and following a recent injury to Anderson and his back up, another rookie named John Skelton was brought in for the last two games. He played reasonably well in the first game which we won, and average-poor in the second game which we lost to the worst team in the league. Anderson is still the number one quarterback for the Cardinals when fit but is likely to lose his job at the end of the season and the Cardinals will almost certainly bring a new player in.
Derek Anderson tweeted this morning that he was in a queue at Starbucks that was moving slow as hell. I responded with "Has Skelton gone Hollywood after 2 games and sent you out for him then?!!". I didn't expect a response at all because, as I said, they get thousands of responses to everything. What I got within a minute was "U r so funny". Cool, I thought, he's obviously a nicer bloke than the media portrays him to be if he's bothered to reply. Then he sent a second tweet "Does it make you feel clever to talk shit to people you don't even know?"
What the fuck?!! I responded to say that I wasn't taking the piss out him and was just making a joke about the rookie getting ideas above his station, and to his credit he came back to apologise for being over sensitive but that he gets so much abuse every day on Twitter that he thought I was abusing him as well at first glance. I'm guessing that my sense of humour doesn't play as well in American either which probably exacerbated things but this is by the by.
The point I wanted to make is that, if you're Derek Anderson, what the hell are you doing going on Twitter? The NFL has 32 teams, all in the same league to cover the whole of the USA. Anderson has become a bit of a joke amongst the league and so 97% of fans will support other teams and will be lining up to rub his nose in it every time he posts. And of the fans of his own team, a good percentage aren't so enamoured with him either!
I looked at some of his recent posts on Twitter (you can do that, it's very high-vis is Twitter, although you do have the ability to direct message in private and block people from viewing you if you wish), and most of the time he goes on there, he gets into an argument with someone slagging him off. In fact I didn't find one positive interaction with anybody in his recent history! Understandable then that he's defensive to bad gags by hacky British tits like me. But why does he post at all? It's perfectly possible to post on Twitter under an alias and use that for friends only, which would mean that he wouldn't get abuse, but he cracks on regardless under his own name. Is it that he wants the attention in the good times? When he throws for a touchdown in a big game does he want the "way to go" tweets from overjoyed fans so much that he's willing to be abused the rest of the time? He said to one of his critics that he only comes on Twitter for fun and jokes, but his history shows that he has precious little of this when he tweets so why not use an alias and be an anonymous nobody like the majority of us? Perhaps that's the answer. There's a mild blurring of the lines between "untouchable" celebs and the rest of us when we chat together on Twitter but the line undoubtedly remains there. I think he wants to remain on his side of the line regardless of what that means.
A lot of people go on Twitter and abuse celebrities on there, and a number of high profile people have quit Twitter as a result, some returning, some not. Stephen Fry has stopped on a few occasions only to miss it and return. I don't do that. If there's someone I don't like I just don't follow them in the first place. (Katie Price is one whose musings are something I can do without, and I doubt whether I could stop myself saying something sarky in her case). Celebrities prove on Twitter how normal they are, with mundane tales of what they're having for dinner or how the snow has made their lives hell today, and they go on Twitter to kill a few minutes, to check in with friends or chat about random stuff the same as anyone else. I understand this and I join in with them and occasionally them with me. It's a relatively cosy and fun atmosphere which is why you don't spoil it by being an arse. And another reason why I prefer Twitter to Facebook.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my friends on Facebook and Twitter, and to Derek Anderson, who I hope has a better 2011 than 2010.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Blog 18 - Strengths from Perceived Weakness
The older I get the more I realise that everyone has a cross to bear. Obviously everyone has their ups and downs in life but it becomes more and more apparant to me that very few of us come through life without some fairly hefty psychological scarring along the way.
I consider myself very lucky in this respect. Compared to a lot of people I've come through thusfar with very minor damage. There are some things I've gone through which have been trying and some people that have treated me badly along the way, but nobody I'd bother murdering as a result. (Although if Karma would like to give a couple of them facial herpes that'd be super.)
However, I have friends and loved ones who have been hurt. Not in piffling, frustrating ways, like me, but in profound ways. I have friends who have dealt with illness and injury that have been life-threatening (although thankfully, by a whisker, not fatal). I have friends who have suffered rape. I have friends who have suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse. I have friends who have suffered miscarriages and lost children. I have friends who have attempted suicide.
The moral of this story is not "Don't be friends with Andy Head or you'll end up really fucked up" however. The thing is that more and more, I realise that my friends aren't a particularly unlucky or vulnerable bunch. They are simply and unfortunately, a product of modern society, and far from being unusual, they're actually barely in the minority. I feel priviliged that those of them that have shared their tragedies and problems with me have done, but I remain more and more convinced that none of them are as alone and isolated in their experiences as they believe.
One thing I've found through observing my friends is the amazing depth of character displayed by them all. This sounds like a patronising, cheap and easy soundbite as if I'm saying "Aah, aren't they all brave" but I genuinely mean it in the case of the people I'm talking about. Human nature being what it is, not everyone who goes through major trauma is brave, or deep, or a fighter, but the people I know are. Perhaps this is due to me and the fact that I'm a fairly open book when it comes to the people I do and don't like, and empty vessels and the superficial generally get very little attention from me. Maybe it's just luck or coincidence. I have known people who regularly behave like utter arseholes and answer any criticism of this with the excuse that they were called names at school or their parents got divorced and it made them sad. I don't tend to maintain friendships with these people. This isn't to say that these things cannot have a great effect on you, but knowing other people who've been through the same as them and who haven't turned out as a cunt, or who have been through far worse and yet don't seek excuses in their past to explain their current behaviour, I struggle to connect with the excuse-makers on even a basis of superficial politeness. Maybe that's a failing of mine in that I don't give everyone the respect that they deserve for their feelings. Either way, that's my decision however. I know too many people with genuine stories.
Obviously I'm not going to name names but just to give you an idea of some of these people and what they're like I've got some examples.
1) A woman who was raped and fell pregnant as a result and after making the difficult decision to keep the baby, she then tragically lost it to miscarriage. How the hell do you cope with that? How do you come back from that? The answer is, she copes remarkably well. She has mourned and healed beyond anything I would have thought possible. She has held down jobs, she has maintained a long-term relationship and gone on to be a mother. She has her down days. She suffers depression and there will always be a shadow behind her that will remain forever, but it doesn't define her. It's part of her, but it's not the sum total of her. I'm flabbergasted by my friend. She is an actual hero in my life.
2) A guy who, having thought of himself as being perfectly fine and normal all his life, suddenly got hit full-on by severe depression. His depression, brought on by circumstance, but due to chemical imbalance at it's core, quickly became all-consuming. The problem was that he wasn't comfortable with the modern touchy-feely culture of talking about your issues, or admitting you have a problem. When he had to take time off work the public nature of having to admit to the problem, as well as all the crap that was going on in his life anyway, was too much and he tried to kill himself. Fortunately he was found just in time. His courage was not the obvious kind. His courage was in picking up his life, getting back into work and family life and doing so whilst admitting he had a problem and suffering what was for him, the greatest indignity of people knowing what had happened. Again, he will never be the same again, but rather than fold against his history, he has moved on, one step at a time.
3) A mate who surprised me hugely recently by telling me how he'd suffered severe sexual abuse as a child. He is the last person in the world I would expect to have gone through something like that, let alone be talking about it. This is a guy who is hard as nails, the life and soul of the party and the kind of person that others turn to for help and advice. The events of childhood have cast a shadow over his life however, and come out in ways that aren't immediately obvious until you peel back the layers. He IS the life and soul of the party, but as much as that's who he is, it's also a convenient cover for his problems with drink. The drink is part of a self-destructive pattern he's in which also includes violence and attempted suicide. A lot of this is recent and he's at a low point right now and struggling to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
The thing is that I know that Number 3 is as strong as Number 1 and 2. He may not feel it right now, but he is. I hope he reads this and sees that people can go through appalling tragedies and come out the other end. He has a lot of people in his life who love him and care about him, and he has all the honesty and integrity that the first two people have. I don't know the future for him, but he's done well to talk about it and I'm honoured he has trusted me and I'm glad he's taken that step. Hopefully he keeps taking steps in the right direction because he's a lovely bloke and doesn't deserve any of the shit he's been through, not that anyone does.
In some ways I think fate has a way of giving some of the strongest people some of the worst shit to deal with, if only to be an example to the rest of us. Thankfully fate knows I'm a total pussy and has left me alone to all intents and purposes and long may that continue. Numbers 1 and 2 show me the kind of person that make me believe in mankind and it's possibilities. Number 3 isn't there yet, but has everything he needs to come through the present and be an example to others of what it's possible to live through and put behind you. He's a hero waiting to happen.
Thankyou to all the heroes in my life. You have strength that stretches further than you think.
I consider myself very lucky in this respect. Compared to a lot of people I've come through thusfar with very minor damage. There are some things I've gone through which have been trying and some people that have treated me badly along the way, but nobody I'd bother murdering as a result. (Although if Karma would like to give a couple of them facial herpes that'd be super.)
However, I have friends and loved ones who have been hurt. Not in piffling, frustrating ways, like me, but in profound ways. I have friends who have dealt with illness and injury that have been life-threatening (although thankfully, by a whisker, not fatal). I have friends who have suffered rape. I have friends who have suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse. I have friends who have suffered miscarriages and lost children. I have friends who have attempted suicide.
The moral of this story is not "Don't be friends with Andy Head or you'll end up really fucked up" however. The thing is that more and more, I realise that my friends aren't a particularly unlucky or vulnerable bunch. They are simply and unfortunately, a product of modern society, and far from being unusual, they're actually barely in the minority. I feel priviliged that those of them that have shared their tragedies and problems with me have done, but I remain more and more convinced that none of them are as alone and isolated in their experiences as they believe.
One thing I've found through observing my friends is the amazing depth of character displayed by them all. This sounds like a patronising, cheap and easy soundbite as if I'm saying "Aah, aren't they all brave" but I genuinely mean it in the case of the people I'm talking about. Human nature being what it is, not everyone who goes through major trauma is brave, or deep, or a fighter, but the people I know are. Perhaps this is due to me and the fact that I'm a fairly open book when it comes to the people I do and don't like, and empty vessels and the superficial generally get very little attention from me. Maybe it's just luck or coincidence. I have known people who regularly behave like utter arseholes and answer any criticism of this with the excuse that they were called names at school or their parents got divorced and it made them sad. I don't tend to maintain friendships with these people. This isn't to say that these things cannot have a great effect on you, but knowing other people who've been through the same as them and who haven't turned out as a cunt, or who have been through far worse and yet don't seek excuses in their past to explain their current behaviour, I struggle to connect with the excuse-makers on even a basis of superficial politeness. Maybe that's a failing of mine in that I don't give everyone the respect that they deserve for their feelings. Either way, that's my decision however. I know too many people with genuine stories.
Obviously I'm not going to name names but just to give you an idea of some of these people and what they're like I've got some examples.
1) A woman who was raped and fell pregnant as a result and after making the difficult decision to keep the baby, she then tragically lost it to miscarriage. How the hell do you cope with that? How do you come back from that? The answer is, she copes remarkably well. She has mourned and healed beyond anything I would have thought possible. She has held down jobs, she has maintained a long-term relationship and gone on to be a mother. She has her down days. She suffers depression and there will always be a shadow behind her that will remain forever, but it doesn't define her. It's part of her, but it's not the sum total of her. I'm flabbergasted by my friend. She is an actual hero in my life.
2) A guy who, having thought of himself as being perfectly fine and normal all his life, suddenly got hit full-on by severe depression. His depression, brought on by circumstance, but due to chemical imbalance at it's core, quickly became all-consuming. The problem was that he wasn't comfortable with the modern touchy-feely culture of talking about your issues, or admitting you have a problem. When he had to take time off work the public nature of having to admit to the problem, as well as all the crap that was going on in his life anyway, was too much and he tried to kill himself. Fortunately he was found just in time. His courage was not the obvious kind. His courage was in picking up his life, getting back into work and family life and doing so whilst admitting he had a problem and suffering what was for him, the greatest indignity of people knowing what had happened. Again, he will never be the same again, but rather than fold against his history, he has moved on, one step at a time.
3) A mate who surprised me hugely recently by telling me how he'd suffered severe sexual abuse as a child. He is the last person in the world I would expect to have gone through something like that, let alone be talking about it. This is a guy who is hard as nails, the life and soul of the party and the kind of person that others turn to for help and advice. The events of childhood have cast a shadow over his life however, and come out in ways that aren't immediately obvious until you peel back the layers. He IS the life and soul of the party, but as much as that's who he is, it's also a convenient cover for his problems with drink. The drink is part of a self-destructive pattern he's in which also includes violence and attempted suicide. A lot of this is recent and he's at a low point right now and struggling to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
The thing is that I know that Number 3 is as strong as Number 1 and 2. He may not feel it right now, but he is. I hope he reads this and sees that people can go through appalling tragedies and come out the other end. He has a lot of people in his life who love him and care about him, and he has all the honesty and integrity that the first two people have. I don't know the future for him, but he's done well to talk about it and I'm honoured he has trusted me and I'm glad he's taken that step. Hopefully he keeps taking steps in the right direction because he's a lovely bloke and doesn't deserve any of the shit he's been through, not that anyone does.
In some ways I think fate has a way of giving some of the strongest people some of the worst shit to deal with, if only to be an example to the rest of us. Thankfully fate knows I'm a total pussy and has left me alone to all intents and purposes and long may that continue. Numbers 1 and 2 show me the kind of person that make me believe in mankind and it's possibilities. Number 3 isn't there yet, but has everything he needs to come through the present and be an example to others of what it's possible to live through and put behind you. He's a hero waiting to happen.
Thankyou to all the heroes in my life. You have strength that stretches further than you think.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Blog 17 - ADHD
I have to have a rant.
Years ago, when you had a naughty kid, he was known as a naughty kid. He was naughty at school and the teachers told him off, he was naughty playing out in the streets and a policeman would cuff him on the ear and send him home, he was naughty at home and the parents would probably do nothing which is why he was naughty in the first place. It was simple. Some kids would stay naughty and end up in prison. Some would grow out of it naturally and grow up all right. And some, by becoming known as naughty kids, would shame their parents into taking an interest and the family would develop together.
Nowadays nobody has to bother. If you have a naughty kid, you don't have to discipline them. If you're a school, you do a quick referral to a specialist who then sends them to a doctor who diagnoses ADHD in 5 seconds flat following a series of tests that 95% of the population would find makes them an ADHD "sufferer" (More of this later). If you're a policeman and Little Johnny is attempting arson at the age of 8 you don't cuff him because you'll get sued, or take him to the parents because if they had any sense he wouldn't be out firestarting at 8, so you take him to the station, get a referral to Social Services who pass him onto a doctor to diagnose ADHD. And if you're a parent of a naughty child, rather than admit they're naughty and that might reflect poorly on your parenting skills, you take the quick fix option. "Doctor, as soon as I've finished pouring a gallon of Sunny Delight down Johnny's throat when he gets home from school he goes a bit mental and runs around bouncing off the walls". 5 seconds later there's a prescription for Ritalin in Mummy's hand. A doctors endorsement that you're not a crap, lazy parent. It couldn't possibly be your fault that whilst you're watching back-to-back Jeremy Kyle, Little Johnny is busy feeding the hamster a months supply of Cillit Bang.
The worst thing is that some people genuinely have ADHD. They have my deepest sympathy. Because whilst they struggle with concentration issues and the frustration of completing tasks that most of us simply find a dull chore, they must know that virtually everyone they tell that they have ADHD is thinking, "bollocks, you're just a naughty kid making excuses".
I'd love to see some statistics on the socio-economic status of those diagnosed with ADHD. If ADHD were correctly diagnosed every time you would expect it to be as prevalent in every social grouping. How many people on a higher income have children with ADHD? In a social class where there is still a stigma surrounding these things, I suspect that there are far fewer occurrences of ADHD. That's not to say their kids are any better behaved than those raised by families on low incomes, just that the stigma of the class is likely to mean that they are less likely to want to label their child with "the naughty disease". The further down the economic ladder you go, the more likely you are to find families with ADHD children. The stigma of having an ADHD child is less if you already know other families who have ADHD children. And thus it becomes the norm rather than the exception. If nobody at the school has a go at Little Billy's Mum when he scribbles on the classroom walls because he's got ADHD, then why can't Johnny have ADHD too? Then they'll stop moaning at me when he repeats what he saw on the hardcore dvd's that I can never be arsed to put away at night. I might even get him diagnosed with Tourette's as well! Wonder if the Social will give me disability money for that?
Read through some court reports. We now have a generation of people in their late teens starting to emerge as petty criminals. Usually minor incidents involving drink, drugs, violence, criminal damage. And look at how many of those claim to have ADHD. Instant excuse. Get out of Jail Free Card. "I can't possibly be held responsible for my actions, M'Lud. It's this disease I'm cursed with that makes me an arsehole". And all the while genuine ADHD sufferers struggle with their condition trying NOT to use it as an excuse and make the best of their lives.
More work needs to be put into the diagnosis of ADHD. The doctors who diagnose it so quickly and easily aren't doing so because they want the current situation to be perpetuated, but because they're under pressure to get through all the appointments that are thrown at them, and the current ADHD tests are so broad and non-specific that virtually anyone can come out with a positive ADHD result. I've done an online test, as have friends of mine and we all came out with scores in excess of 75% positive for ADHD. Mine was 87%. I have an honours degree, have had several jobs where I've managed people and held considerable responsibility, have never had any run-ins with the law, or had any issues concentrating. I am however, a lazy bastard, and at times I can be a feckless twat, particularly when under the influence, and be driven to acts of minor mischief. I'm perfectly aware of this, and although I might not act like such a berk when I'm sober, it's not alcohols fault for whatever I get up to. It's mine for being a greedy bastard and drinking too much of something that I know has the capacity for sending me loopy. But according to the online test, I could easily blame it on ADHD. I'm not saying the online test is an exact match for that administered by a doctor, but from what I've been told by a friend whose child was tested and diagnosed and has taken the online test themselves, it's actually more in-depth than the doctors. We now have a generation of people who think they have an easily acquired licence to break the rules.
Years ago, when you had a naughty kid, he was known as a naughty kid. He was naughty at school and the teachers told him off, he was naughty playing out in the streets and a policeman would cuff him on the ear and send him home, he was naughty at home and the parents would probably do nothing which is why he was naughty in the first place. It was simple. Some kids would stay naughty and end up in prison. Some would grow out of it naturally and grow up all right. And some, by becoming known as naughty kids, would shame their parents into taking an interest and the family would develop together.
Nowadays nobody has to bother. If you have a naughty kid, you don't have to discipline them. If you're a school, you do a quick referral to a specialist who then sends them to a doctor who diagnoses ADHD in 5 seconds flat following a series of tests that 95% of the population would find makes them an ADHD "sufferer" (More of this later). If you're a policeman and Little Johnny is attempting arson at the age of 8 you don't cuff him because you'll get sued, or take him to the parents because if they had any sense he wouldn't be out firestarting at 8, so you take him to the station, get a referral to Social Services who pass him onto a doctor to diagnose ADHD. And if you're a parent of a naughty child, rather than admit they're naughty and that might reflect poorly on your parenting skills, you take the quick fix option. "Doctor, as soon as I've finished pouring a gallon of Sunny Delight down Johnny's throat when he gets home from school he goes a bit mental and runs around bouncing off the walls". 5 seconds later there's a prescription for Ritalin in Mummy's hand. A doctors endorsement that you're not a crap, lazy parent. It couldn't possibly be your fault that whilst you're watching back-to-back Jeremy Kyle, Little Johnny is busy feeding the hamster a months supply of Cillit Bang.
The worst thing is that some people genuinely have ADHD. They have my deepest sympathy. Because whilst they struggle with concentration issues and the frustration of completing tasks that most of us simply find a dull chore, they must know that virtually everyone they tell that they have ADHD is thinking, "bollocks, you're just a naughty kid making excuses".
I'd love to see some statistics on the socio-economic status of those diagnosed with ADHD. If ADHD were correctly diagnosed every time you would expect it to be as prevalent in every social grouping. How many people on a higher income have children with ADHD? In a social class where there is still a stigma surrounding these things, I suspect that there are far fewer occurrences of ADHD. That's not to say their kids are any better behaved than those raised by families on low incomes, just that the stigma of the class is likely to mean that they are less likely to want to label their child with "the naughty disease". The further down the economic ladder you go, the more likely you are to find families with ADHD children. The stigma of having an ADHD child is less if you already know other families who have ADHD children. And thus it becomes the norm rather than the exception. If nobody at the school has a go at Little Billy's Mum when he scribbles on the classroom walls because he's got ADHD, then why can't Johnny have ADHD too? Then they'll stop moaning at me when he repeats what he saw on the hardcore dvd's that I can never be arsed to put away at night. I might even get him diagnosed with Tourette's as well! Wonder if the Social will give me disability money for that?
Read through some court reports. We now have a generation of people in their late teens starting to emerge as petty criminals. Usually minor incidents involving drink, drugs, violence, criminal damage. And look at how many of those claim to have ADHD. Instant excuse. Get out of Jail Free Card. "I can't possibly be held responsible for my actions, M'Lud. It's this disease I'm cursed with that makes me an arsehole". And all the while genuine ADHD sufferers struggle with their condition trying NOT to use it as an excuse and make the best of their lives.
More work needs to be put into the diagnosis of ADHD. The doctors who diagnose it so quickly and easily aren't doing so because they want the current situation to be perpetuated, but because they're under pressure to get through all the appointments that are thrown at them, and the current ADHD tests are so broad and non-specific that virtually anyone can come out with a positive ADHD result. I've done an online test, as have friends of mine and we all came out with scores in excess of 75% positive for ADHD. Mine was 87%. I have an honours degree, have had several jobs where I've managed people and held considerable responsibility, have never had any run-ins with the law, or had any issues concentrating. I am however, a lazy bastard, and at times I can be a feckless twat, particularly when under the influence, and be driven to acts of minor mischief. I'm perfectly aware of this, and although I might not act like such a berk when I'm sober, it's not alcohols fault for whatever I get up to. It's mine for being a greedy bastard and drinking too much of something that I know has the capacity for sending me loopy. But according to the online test, I could easily blame it on ADHD. I'm not saying the online test is an exact match for that administered by a doctor, but from what I've been told by a friend whose child was tested and diagnosed and has taken the online test themselves, it's actually more in-depth than the doctors. We now have a generation of people who think they have an easily acquired licence to break the rules.
Blog 16 - Dad Stuff - Swearing
Anybody who knows me knows that I love a good swear. Is it because I'm an emotionally stunted man-child that uses adult language to cover up his developmental failings in an attempt to seem more mature than he is? Fucked if I know.
However, nowadays I'm a Dad, and so I have to take a view on swearing. Is it something I want my kids doing? How do you police it? Do you allow some words and not others? How much do I allow myself to swear around the kids?
I know the accepted view of society is that swearing is bad and kids should neither do it or be exposed to it. The problem is that I don't subscribe to the theory. Never have, never will. Swearing, for me, is wonderful. I love language, particularly the English language which is so rich in it's breadth and variety, and anything that can add to that is increasing something that's already brilliant. How many variations are there on the word "pissed"? "He pissed in the toilet", "I got so pissed last night", "I am so pissed off with my friend" "I didn't bring my umbrella and wouldn't you know, it pissed down". Marvellous.
The important thing with swear words is that they have power. Far greater power than the millions of mundane words that make up the bulk of normal language. Stand in the middle of a W.I. whist drive and say "profiterole" and nobody bats an eyelid. Even "bomb" or "fire" wouldn't make much of an impression unless you screamed it. But say "Piss-stained cuntflaps" and you'd better believe you have an audience. Instant power.
Which is not to say that I support using random swearwords for attention (although god knows, that's fun on occasion). In fact, I'm actually opposed to swearing too much because the more powerful words are used, the less effect they have. If I say "fuck" people are less surprised than if my Mum, who very rarely swears, does, and so when she swears it has far greater impact. My problem is that I can't help myself - I'm a swear glutton. I'm the Vanessa Feltz of cursing. I can't help myself.
Which begs the question then, how do I deal with this around the kids? The one thing I don't believe in is the hands-over-the-ears "la la la if I just say those words are bad then they won't swear" method which a lot of parents seem to subscribe to. It's naive and it's a parenting cop-out. The fact is that swearing is a part of the world around us. As soon as they get to school the kids all begin passing round new words they've learned and the coolest kids are the ones who know the most swear words. The fact is that my kids are going to swear. To them it's cool and grown up. I was the same at their age. Plus I still swear now, so it's hypocritical to say there are words I can say but you can't.
Recently we had the situation where during a car ride we played "I-Spy" and I saw a parcel. Nobody guessed it and when I announced "It's a parcel", Kerry (half-asleep) misheard and said "did you just say 'arsehole'?" in hushed tones. Bailey (3) overheard that and shouted "IS IT AN ARSEHOLED?" which she thought was hilarious because everyone else in the car fell about laughing when she said it. I've since answered questions from the eldest two as to what an arsehole is, but to be honest I was actually only confirming what they pretty much knew. Any child who has grown up with 2 parents who haven't had a break from changing nappies at all hours of the day and night for the past 7 years will have heard the phrase "stinky arsehole" on at least a few occasions I guarantee.
Rightly or wrongly, the view I'm following is that I'm going to allow them to swear in front of me. My reasoning is that I don't find swearing offensive, and they're going to do it anyway, so why have the pretence that I had with my parents? The only rules I'm going to apply to the situation are that a) they need to understand what the words mean and b) they need to know when and where they can use these words. At the age my kids are (6,5,3 and nearly 1) they don't know many swear words anyway, but they're picking them up all the time. Take "Shit" for example (and anyone who's worked for the government knows that you have to do that on a regular basis anyway #littlebitofpolitics). My kids know what shit means. If I was to ask Lauryn (6) whether her baby brother had done a shit, she's sniff his bum and tell me the answer. The fact is that I don't use that terminology and neither does she on a general basis because we usually refer to it as "poo" or "poo-poo". Because we have Bailey (3) who has not long been potty-trained, we've spent a considerable amount of time talking about "poo" in the past few months and as a result it's... well it's kind of stuck. I wouldn't have a problem if the kids were to say "Shit" in front of me because they know what it is, they know the right context to use it in, and they are aware that it's a swear word and that they shouldn't say it in front of certain people. I just don't think they need to make an effort not to say it around me.
The sexualised swear words are somewhat different. My kids (hopefully) don't have a clue what a Wanker is, and it's not something they'll understand for a few years, so I'd question them if they said that in front of me, and likewise I try not to use that in front of them myself. Cunt is one that I'll allow (although hopefully that won't come up for a few years), because at the end of the day, it's only a reference to a part of the body. The codicil with this is that they have to understand that society regards this as the "Nuclear" swearword (for reasons I've never quite understood) and that they have to be exceptionally careful when using it. Fuck however, is a tricky one. It's regarded as one of the worst swear words (The F-Bomb), and it is a sexual swear word, but it's also one of the most prevalent. People are always saying "I hate my fucking job" but unless they work in the pornography industry, they're not using the word in a sexualised way. "Fuck You" is an insult, not an invitation.
Cee Lo Greens new song "Fuck You" is about to explode when it's released. It's all over the internet already and it's one of the catchiest tunes I've heard in years and it's sweetened all the further by liberal sprinklings of swear words. If you haven't heard it already, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av3e
Fantastic song, right? And although a tame version has been released for radio play ("Forget you" substitutes for the title, and "Ain't that some shit" is replaced by "ain't that some shhhh"), you know that EVERYONE will sing the rude version regardless of which one they're listening to. My kids will become exposed to this and will sing it because that's the media age we live in. The song is going to be huge and will be everywhere. So do we pretend it doesn't exist for children, like a BFG that only adults can see or hear? Or do we be honest with our children, let them know that some words are swear words which will upset some people, but let them join in the fun of a catchy song that they'll hear about regardless of whether we like it or not? I'm letting them hear it, dance to it anhd even sing along to it if they want. They know they mustn't sing it at school or to anyone outside the house, but pretending it doesn't exist is a far bigger crime to me than saying a few words that other people don't like around people who don't mind them.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me on this, and to be fair I don't think my view totally reflects the Mrs' but it's my view all the same. I think most parents seem to make a lot of fuss about swearing when kids are young but as they gradually comprehend that they can't stop their kids awareness of swear words or the fact that they use them every day at school or around friends, they simply stop making the effort to correct them and allow it to happen in a gradual malaise of their own standards. I prefer to take the long-term view now and be open about it, but a lot of people will probably think this makes me the worst parent since Joseph Fritzl. However, a lot of people are fuckwits so I'm not that fussed.
However, nowadays I'm a Dad, and so I have to take a view on swearing. Is it something I want my kids doing? How do you police it? Do you allow some words and not others? How much do I allow myself to swear around the kids?
I know the accepted view of society is that swearing is bad and kids should neither do it or be exposed to it. The problem is that I don't subscribe to the theory. Never have, never will. Swearing, for me, is wonderful. I love language, particularly the English language which is so rich in it's breadth and variety, and anything that can add to that is increasing something that's already brilliant. How many variations are there on the word "pissed"? "He pissed in the toilet", "I got so pissed last night", "I am so pissed off with my friend" "I didn't bring my umbrella and wouldn't you know, it pissed down". Marvellous.
The important thing with swear words is that they have power. Far greater power than the millions of mundane words that make up the bulk of normal language. Stand in the middle of a W.I. whist drive and say "profiterole" and nobody bats an eyelid. Even "bomb" or "fire" wouldn't make much of an impression unless you screamed it. But say "Piss-stained cuntflaps" and you'd better believe you have an audience. Instant power.
Which is not to say that I support using random swearwords for attention (although god knows, that's fun on occasion). In fact, I'm actually opposed to swearing too much because the more powerful words are used, the less effect they have. If I say "fuck" people are less surprised than if my Mum, who very rarely swears, does, and so when she swears it has far greater impact. My problem is that I can't help myself - I'm a swear glutton. I'm the Vanessa Feltz of cursing. I can't help myself.
Which begs the question then, how do I deal with this around the kids? The one thing I don't believe in is the hands-over-the-ears "la la la if I just say those words are bad then they won't swear" method which a lot of parents seem to subscribe to. It's naive and it's a parenting cop-out. The fact is that swearing is a part of the world around us. As soon as they get to school the kids all begin passing round new words they've learned and the coolest kids are the ones who know the most swear words. The fact is that my kids are going to swear. To them it's cool and grown up. I was the same at their age. Plus I still swear now, so it's hypocritical to say there are words I can say but you can't.
Recently we had the situation where during a car ride we played "I-Spy" and I saw a parcel. Nobody guessed it and when I announced "It's a parcel", Kerry (half-asleep) misheard and said "did you just say 'arsehole'?" in hushed tones. Bailey (3) overheard that and shouted "IS IT AN ARSEHOLED?" which she thought was hilarious because everyone else in the car fell about laughing when she said it. I've since answered questions from the eldest two as to what an arsehole is, but to be honest I was actually only confirming what they pretty much knew. Any child who has grown up with 2 parents who haven't had a break from changing nappies at all hours of the day and night for the past 7 years will have heard the phrase "stinky arsehole" on at least a few occasions I guarantee.
Rightly or wrongly, the view I'm following is that I'm going to allow them to swear in front of me. My reasoning is that I don't find swearing offensive, and they're going to do it anyway, so why have the pretence that I had with my parents? The only rules I'm going to apply to the situation are that a) they need to understand what the words mean and b) they need to know when and where they can use these words. At the age my kids are (6,5,3 and nearly 1) they don't know many swear words anyway, but they're picking them up all the time. Take "Shit" for example (and anyone who's worked for the government knows that you have to do that on a regular basis anyway #littlebitofpolitics). My kids know what shit means. If I was to ask Lauryn (6) whether her baby brother had done a shit, she's sniff his bum and tell me the answer. The fact is that I don't use that terminology and neither does she on a general basis because we usually refer to it as "poo" or "poo-poo". Because we have Bailey (3) who has not long been potty-trained, we've spent a considerable amount of time talking about "poo" in the past few months and as a result it's... well it's kind of stuck. I wouldn't have a problem if the kids were to say "Shit" in front of me because they know what it is, they know the right context to use it in, and they are aware that it's a swear word and that they shouldn't say it in front of certain people. I just don't think they need to make an effort not to say it around me.
The sexualised swear words are somewhat different. My kids (hopefully) don't have a clue what a Wanker is, and it's not something they'll understand for a few years, so I'd question them if they said that in front of me, and likewise I try not to use that in front of them myself. Cunt is one that I'll allow (although hopefully that won't come up for a few years), because at the end of the day, it's only a reference to a part of the body. The codicil with this is that they have to understand that society regards this as the "Nuclear" swearword (for reasons I've never quite understood) and that they have to be exceptionally careful when using it. Fuck however, is a tricky one. It's regarded as one of the worst swear words (The F-Bomb), and it is a sexual swear word, but it's also one of the most prevalent. People are always saying "I hate my fucking job" but unless they work in the pornography industry, they're not using the word in a sexualised way. "Fuck You" is an insult, not an invitation.
Cee Lo Greens new song "Fuck You" is about to explode when it's released. It's all over the internet already and it's one of the catchiest tunes I've heard in years and it's sweetened all the further by liberal sprinklings of swear words. If you haven't heard it already, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av3e
Fantastic song, right? And although a tame version has been released for radio play ("Forget you" substitutes for the title, and "Ain't that some shit" is replaced by "ain't that some shhhh"), you know that EVERYONE will sing the rude version regardless of which one they're listening to. My kids will become exposed to this and will sing it because that's the media age we live in. The song is going to be huge and will be everywhere. So do we pretend it doesn't exist for children, like a BFG that only adults can see or hear? Or do we be honest with our children, let them know that some words are swear words which will upset some people, but let them join in the fun of a catchy song that they'll hear about regardless of whether we like it or not? I'm letting them hear it, dance to it anhd even sing along to it if they want. They know they mustn't sing it at school or to anyone outside the house, but pretending it doesn't exist is a far bigger crime to me than saying a few words that other people don't like around people who don't mind them.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me on this, and to be fair I don't think my view totally reflects the Mrs' but it's my view all the same. I think most parents seem to make a lot of fuss about swearing when kids are young but as they gradually comprehend that they can't stop their kids awareness of swear words or the fact that they use them every day at school or around friends, they simply stop making the effort to correct them and allow it to happen in a gradual malaise of their own standards. I prefer to take the long-term view now and be open about it, but a lot of people will probably think this makes me the worst parent since Joseph Fritzl. However, a lot of people are fuckwits so I'm not that fussed.
Monday, 6 September 2010
Blog 15 - NFL 2010-2011 Season Preview
As you may or may not know, American Football has become a recent passion of mine and with the new NFL season starting this week, I thought I'd do a quick season preview for anybody else with similar interest.
I got into it a couple of years ago, but this is the first year that, since the Superbowl, I've stayed in touch with what's happening with the teams offseason, and with the draft, and so I'm fascinated to see how the Rookies perform as it's my first real draft class I'm watching.
So without further ado, here are my season predictions:
AFC East
1. New York Jets - The favourites for the division should win out. They've added some strong firepower in the offseason and moved some older names out. I can't see them going far in the postseason though and they'll be lucky to get a repeat of last years Conference Final.
2. New England Patriots - Have lost ground in the last year or two and a lot will depend on whether Brady can revitalise his passing game and if Wes Welker can get fit enough to make an impact. They're too good not to be a threat however and they've got a shot at a Wild Card.
3. Miami Dolphine - A lot of experts have them as dark horses within the division but I don't think they're quite there yet. Won't roll over for anyone but breaking teams down will remain a problem.
4. Buffalo Bills - If they're not selecting first in next years draft I'll be very surprised. Their team has more holes than a pikeys cardigan. Unbelievably when given a prime opportunity to sign a franchise quarterback in Clausen or Tebow in the draft they instead went for RB C.J. Spiller providing cover in what was not one of their biggest areas of weakness and ignoring the fact that they have the weakest selection of any team in the NFL in the most important position on the team.
AFC NORTH
1. Baltimore Ravens - Always strong, I can't see past them in the division and could be a good outside bet to win the whole shebang. They've managed to keep hold of good players and have probably the strongest backroom set-up of any team in the NFL.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - I fancy them to make it to the postseason as a surprise package. The Batman and Robin antics of Ochocinco and T.O. will take the headlines but it will be the consistency of Cedric Benson and Carson Palmer that will make or break the season.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Big Ben kerfuffle has overshadowed the whole club and I'm surprised they haven't attempted a trade to give both parties a fresh start. The first four games without Rothlisberger will be tremendously difficult as they don't have quality back-up. I think it's going to be a messy season for the Steelers and I can't see them getting past the normal season this time.
4. Cleveland Browns - Mangini already looks like a sitting duck and I'd be surprised if he was still in a job at Christmas. The Browns are not untalented but they struggle with consistency over the course of a game let alone a season.
AFC SOUTH
1. Indianapolis Colts - Efficient, professional, rarely over elaborate, and always in the mix at the end of the season, the Colts are to the NFL what Germany are to the World Cup. Probably one of the reasons I find no affinity with them at all! Led by the Iceman, Peyton Manning, with metronomically regulated passing, they will undoubtedly be playing long into the postseason.
2. Tennessee Titans - They have the best running back in the league and if Vince Young can produce the kind of season he is capable of at QB, then I can see them being a surprise package. My Wild Card for a Wild Card.
3. Houston Texans - Another team that experts are expecting big things of and I can't see it myself. Any team that signs Leinart has to be at a lower ebb than was first thought!
4. Jacksonville Jaguars - The line appears to have been drawn in the sand now and the Jaguars are not going to make too much of an effort until they're in a new city with a fitting fanbase. Del Rio is a good coach and they have some decent players but they drafted on conservative wages rather than on talent and they can't expect to be a competitve force as a result.
AFC WEST
1. San Diego Chargers - A no-brainer in this division. Drafted well and Ryan Matthews looks set to have a huge rookie year. Could feature at Conference Final level but not sure they have enough to go all the way.
2. Denver Broncos - Tebow. You can't look past him when it comes to the Bronco's even if most observers believe his role will only be peripheral this season. A marmite character, I think he'll be the biggest thing in the sport within 4 years. Equally I agree that his contribution will be limited this year, but he has a galvanising presence and the club is on the up, and they have an underrated team which should do well.
3. Kansas City Chiefs - Quietly improving as a franchise, the signing of Eric Berry will be a long term aquisition of high value. They won't trouble the playoffs but should hold-off the Raiders in the Division.
4. Oakland Raiders - Had one of the best drafts of any team in the NFL and finally put Al Davis' wacky ideas on the back-burner. It will take a while for it all to gel however and next year will be one of slight but noticeable imporovement.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys - Could go all the way if they keep key men fit and if Romo can pull out a big season. He has the tools and Dez Bryant could be a major player if given a chance.
2. Philadelphia Eagles - Second best in an uncharcteristically weak division for me this year. I think the once-formidable Eagles are slipping and I can see them struggling to make the post-season.
3. New York Giants - Started last season well only to collapse down the track, I can't see things getting better before they get worse for NY. Not enough tools to mount a serious challenge.
4. Washington Redskins - Big changes at work and they look a million times better than they were a year ago. However, the changes will take a while to settle and it's a season of consolidation rather than dramatic advances in DC.
NFC NORTH
1. Minnesota Vikings - Favre's back for last season number 63, but equally the Vikings remain a force to be reckoned with. A really tight division between the top 2 teams, I fancy them to win out by a short head, although it'll be equal opportunities in post-season.
2. Green Bay Packers - Should comfortably make the play-offs and if things go their way a Conference Final or a Superbowl are not impossible. Consistency the key.
3. Detroit Lions - Traditionally amongst the worst they have been clever in recent seasons with the quality of player they have brought in. Franchise QB Matt Stafford has a decent rookie year under his belt and Ndamukong Suh has shown the kind of form in pre-season that could earn him a Pro Bowl call-up in his rookie year. They're still light years away from a play-off shot but one year at a time they're getting better.
4. Chicago Bears - With no 1st Round Draft pick they went all out in free agency and made some high profile signings, not least Julius Peppers. However there are so many issues that need addressing that even Peppers will be a band aid over a gaping wound.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints - The team to beat now they're reigning Superbowl Champs, they'll find it an awful lot more difficult defending the trophy than winning it in the first place. I can't see them repeating and I think they'll do well to win a playoff game, but they're good enough to win in a weak division nonetheless.
2. Atlanta Falcons - Another fancied darkhorse, they'll have a shot at a Wild Card but they're very much a work in progress and don't have the personnel or determination as yet.
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Fancy them for a better run this season but still a long way from challenging within the division. McCoy is an excellent addition but they have too many holes and not enough matchwinners.
4. Carolina Panthers - An average team of average players who should perform average at best. If ever a team needed a marquee player to come in and act as a catlyst, this is it.
NFC WEST
1. Arizona Cardinals - My team. They've lost some big names since last season and mostly replaced them with adequate if unspectacular alternatives. The draft was a success and the addition of Dan Williams is a cause for excitement. However the cloud over the club is the retirement of legendary QB and leader Kurt Warner, the implosion of the ever-disappointing Leinart as his aire-apparant, and the aquisition of the boom or bust Derek Anderson as the new leader of the offence. Personally I have enormous doubts about Anderson but I would love to be proved wrong. We still have the best defensive lineman in the league in Darnell Dockett and the best receiver in Larry Fitzgerald, but the QB hole is simply too big for us to get any further than the first round of playoffs. Only the lack of strength in the division will see us progress.
2. San Francisco 49'ers - Most people have them as the probable winners after a few years of Cards dominance, and they have worked the pre-season well in terms of personnel changes. However, as always, changes take time to implement and they will still have work to do to catch the Cards this season.
3. St Louis Rams - Another team with a world of improvement neccesary but if Bradford can perform they could have an unexpectedly average season.
4. Seattle Seahawks - A difficult fixture list will see them struggle and I think the Rams may even squeeze them out into 4th. Lots of work to do.
I think the winners overall will come from the Ravens or the Colts in the AFC and the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers in the NFC. At a push I'll plump for the Ravens to beat the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Although if the Cards want to surprise me, that's fine!
I got into it a couple of years ago, but this is the first year that, since the Superbowl, I've stayed in touch with what's happening with the teams offseason, and with the draft, and so I'm fascinated to see how the Rookies perform as it's my first real draft class I'm watching.
So without further ado, here are my season predictions:
AFC East
1. New York Jets - The favourites for the division should win out. They've added some strong firepower in the offseason and moved some older names out. I can't see them going far in the postseason though and they'll be lucky to get a repeat of last years Conference Final.
2. New England Patriots - Have lost ground in the last year or two and a lot will depend on whether Brady can revitalise his passing game and if Wes Welker can get fit enough to make an impact. They're too good not to be a threat however and they've got a shot at a Wild Card.
3. Miami Dolphine - A lot of experts have them as dark horses within the division but I don't think they're quite there yet. Won't roll over for anyone but breaking teams down will remain a problem.
4. Buffalo Bills - If they're not selecting first in next years draft I'll be very surprised. Their team has more holes than a pikeys cardigan. Unbelievably when given a prime opportunity to sign a franchise quarterback in Clausen or Tebow in the draft they instead went for RB C.J. Spiller providing cover in what was not one of their biggest areas of weakness and ignoring the fact that they have the weakest selection of any team in the NFL in the most important position on the team.
AFC NORTH
1. Baltimore Ravens - Always strong, I can't see past them in the division and could be a good outside bet to win the whole shebang. They've managed to keep hold of good players and have probably the strongest backroom set-up of any team in the NFL.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - I fancy them to make it to the postseason as a surprise package. The Batman and Robin antics of Ochocinco and T.O. will take the headlines but it will be the consistency of Cedric Benson and Carson Palmer that will make or break the season.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Big Ben kerfuffle has overshadowed the whole club and I'm surprised they haven't attempted a trade to give both parties a fresh start. The first four games without Rothlisberger will be tremendously difficult as they don't have quality back-up. I think it's going to be a messy season for the Steelers and I can't see them getting past the normal season this time.
4. Cleveland Browns - Mangini already looks like a sitting duck and I'd be surprised if he was still in a job at Christmas. The Browns are not untalented but they struggle with consistency over the course of a game let alone a season.
AFC SOUTH
1. Indianapolis Colts - Efficient, professional, rarely over elaborate, and always in the mix at the end of the season, the Colts are to the NFL what Germany are to the World Cup. Probably one of the reasons I find no affinity with them at all! Led by the Iceman, Peyton Manning, with metronomically regulated passing, they will undoubtedly be playing long into the postseason.
2. Tennessee Titans - They have the best running back in the league and if Vince Young can produce the kind of season he is capable of at QB, then I can see them being a surprise package. My Wild Card for a Wild Card.
3. Houston Texans - Another team that experts are expecting big things of and I can't see it myself. Any team that signs Leinart has to be at a lower ebb than was first thought!
4. Jacksonville Jaguars - The line appears to have been drawn in the sand now and the Jaguars are not going to make too much of an effort until they're in a new city with a fitting fanbase. Del Rio is a good coach and they have some decent players but they drafted on conservative wages rather than on talent and they can't expect to be a competitve force as a result.
AFC WEST
1. San Diego Chargers - A no-brainer in this division. Drafted well and Ryan Matthews looks set to have a huge rookie year. Could feature at Conference Final level but not sure they have enough to go all the way.
2. Denver Broncos - Tebow. You can't look past him when it comes to the Bronco's even if most observers believe his role will only be peripheral this season. A marmite character, I think he'll be the biggest thing in the sport within 4 years. Equally I agree that his contribution will be limited this year, but he has a galvanising presence and the club is on the up, and they have an underrated team which should do well.
3. Kansas City Chiefs - Quietly improving as a franchise, the signing of Eric Berry will be a long term aquisition of high value. They won't trouble the playoffs but should hold-off the Raiders in the Division.
4. Oakland Raiders - Had one of the best drafts of any team in the NFL and finally put Al Davis' wacky ideas on the back-burner. It will take a while for it all to gel however and next year will be one of slight but noticeable imporovement.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys - Could go all the way if they keep key men fit and if Romo can pull out a big season. He has the tools and Dez Bryant could be a major player if given a chance.
2. Philadelphia Eagles - Second best in an uncharcteristically weak division for me this year. I think the once-formidable Eagles are slipping and I can see them struggling to make the post-season.
3. New York Giants - Started last season well only to collapse down the track, I can't see things getting better before they get worse for NY. Not enough tools to mount a serious challenge.
4. Washington Redskins - Big changes at work and they look a million times better than they were a year ago. However, the changes will take a while to settle and it's a season of consolidation rather than dramatic advances in DC.
NFC NORTH
1. Minnesota Vikings - Favre's back for last season number 63, but equally the Vikings remain a force to be reckoned with. A really tight division between the top 2 teams, I fancy them to win out by a short head, although it'll be equal opportunities in post-season.
2. Green Bay Packers - Should comfortably make the play-offs and if things go their way a Conference Final or a Superbowl are not impossible. Consistency the key.
3. Detroit Lions - Traditionally amongst the worst they have been clever in recent seasons with the quality of player they have brought in. Franchise QB Matt Stafford has a decent rookie year under his belt and Ndamukong Suh has shown the kind of form in pre-season that could earn him a Pro Bowl call-up in his rookie year. They're still light years away from a play-off shot but one year at a time they're getting better.
4. Chicago Bears - With no 1st Round Draft pick they went all out in free agency and made some high profile signings, not least Julius Peppers. However there are so many issues that need addressing that even Peppers will be a band aid over a gaping wound.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints - The team to beat now they're reigning Superbowl Champs, they'll find it an awful lot more difficult defending the trophy than winning it in the first place. I can't see them repeating and I think they'll do well to win a playoff game, but they're good enough to win in a weak division nonetheless.
2. Atlanta Falcons - Another fancied darkhorse, they'll have a shot at a Wild Card but they're very much a work in progress and don't have the personnel or determination as yet.
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Fancy them for a better run this season but still a long way from challenging within the division. McCoy is an excellent addition but they have too many holes and not enough matchwinners.
4. Carolina Panthers - An average team of average players who should perform average at best. If ever a team needed a marquee player to come in and act as a catlyst, this is it.
NFC WEST
1. Arizona Cardinals - My team. They've lost some big names since last season and mostly replaced them with adequate if unspectacular alternatives. The draft was a success and the addition of Dan Williams is a cause for excitement. However the cloud over the club is the retirement of legendary QB and leader Kurt Warner, the implosion of the ever-disappointing Leinart as his aire-apparant, and the aquisition of the boom or bust Derek Anderson as the new leader of the offence. Personally I have enormous doubts about Anderson but I would love to be proved wrong. We still have the best defensive lineman in the league in Darnell Dockett and the best receiver in Larry Fitzgerald, but the QB hole is simply too big for us to get any further than the first round of playoffs. Only the lack of strength in the division will see us progress.
2. San Francisco 49'ers - Most people have them as the probable winners after a few years of Cards dominance, and they have worked the pre-season well in terms of personnel changes. However, as always, changes take time to implement and they will still have work to do to catch the Cards this season.
3. St Louis Rams - Another team with a world of improvement neccesary but if Bradford can perform they could have an unexpectedly average season.
4. Seattle Seahawks - A difficult fixture list will see them struggle and I think the Rams may even squeeze them out into 4th. Lots of work to do.
I think the winners overall will come from the Ravens or the Colts in the AFC and the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers in the NFC. At a push I'll plump for the Ravens to beat the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Although if the Cards want to surprise me, that's fine!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)