BBC Blog Network

User Profile

sweetalkinguy

Listed below are comments made by sweetalkinguy between Saturday, 9th August 2008 and Friday, 19th September 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Taming the Ryder Cup rodeo 10:21am on 19 Sep 2008 Re. Number 45:

It was widely believed at the time that Mr Woods and Mr Mickelson were not the best of friends, disliked being in each others' company and seldom missed an opportunity to do each other down. The fact that they were Numbers 1 and 2 in the world at the time was irrelevant; they were never likely to play together effectively as a team, which is essential in a four-man game of golf.

A half-decent captain would have been fully aware of this and planned his campaign accordingly. Instead he effectively handed the opposition a one-game advantage. As all the best cliché-mongers (especially snooker commentators) say, if you go one-up, it means the opponent has to win two games to take the lead.

Part of the equipment that a Ryder Cup captain should carry with him is an extensive knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of every player; which of his team-mates he gets on with, and which he would rather avoid. If the captain does not know personally, that is why he has assistants. The assumption must be that Nick Faldo has sufficient personal experience not to need assistants.

This compatibility question even extends to left/right-hander pairings: to what extent does a left-hander affect the shots his partner will probably be called on to play?

The main problem for Faldo is to ensure all twelve of his men have a meaningful game over the first two days. They need to experience the course an the ambience. Part of this is to identify pairings which will bring the best out of each other. This will help every man in the head-to-head on Sunday. The cup has been lost in the past by expecting players to debut on the Sunday against players they know insufficient about, but who are not necessarily stronger. A captain is unlikely to be stronger than his "people skills" - this has been a question-mark over Faldo thus far in his career, but it is unlikely to come into question unless Europe does badly in the first three sessions.
Hacking off Hackett 08:07am on 19 Sep 2008 If you think Terry's challenge should not have received a red card, then you are obviously watching the wrong game, and this absurd opinion renders worthless the rest of your comments.

Terry's tackle was the sort of cynical hatchet job which is too prevalent in English football. The Guthrie/Fagan tackle was another. Jo was nowhere near the goal. There was defensive cover. Terry had either (or both) of two reasons - thwarting Jo by foul means, or reacting petulantly to being beaten so easily. The longer term objective is to undermine the confidence of the attacking player, or causing injury which reduces his effectiveness. Well done referee Halsey to spot and penalise it, and shame on the FA for allowing the hatchet-men to prosper. Fergie is obviously bothered that Ronaldo will be the next target.

You accuse Fergie of puerile peevishness; pots and kettles, mate.
Club ownership: The unsolvable debate 2:59pm on 12 Sep 2008 Changing the tax regime as suggested will make little or no difference. The players would insist that their salaries are paid in another jurisdiction, such as Zug in Switzerland, beyond the reach of the UK taxman, which is what happens in showbiz.

If foreign businessmen want to spend their cash buying football clubs rather than yachts and Ferraris, then that is their privilege. The EU has laws and regulations governing ownership of companies, competition, free movement of labour, etc., and it is foolish to imagine that football can exist outside of these, or even desirable that it should. However, it is the FA which is selling the product to television, and it is within their power to distribute the proceeds more equitably, but they show little inclination to do so. If the cash was distributed a little further down the pyramid, then the top clubs would not have the resources to pay such a high premium for the top talent, and it would be spread a little further - not much, but a little, perhaps enough to open up the race to a couple more horses.
Legalise Drugs! From maverick to mainstream 6:56pm on 04 Sep 2008 "Legalising" drugs does not open up a new stream of taxation; that is a moronic idea. If there is any point to changing the legal status of recreational substances, it is to make them available at a price which undercuts any worthwhile price for unlawful suppliers. That means a price very little above the cost of production and distribution. Imposing a tax opens up a window of opportunity for illegal suppliers. They will be able to undercut the official price and make a profit, and they will already have a sophisticated production and distribution system to take advantage. The raw material is a vegetable product - dirt cheap to produce - the high price is artificially-imposed by the middlemen. Booze and baccy are legal in this country, but organised criminals are making millions out of smuggling it from lower-tax countries into the UK and by-passing the Customs man. Legalising + taxing is a formula for "no change", or more likely, making the case worse.

There is no question of "legalisation" in the sense of "anything goes". The stuff will be available, but only from licensed and regulated outlets. Heroin-users will need to use proper clinics, which will have rehabilitation as an equally-important part of their function. Thirty years ago, the NHS was doing this, it was based at psychiatric hospitals, but under Mrs T's "care in the community" policy which saw schizophrenics on the streets unsupervised, the clinics were all shut down, and now they have been recycled as blocks of flats. Cannabis presumably will be sold in standard-strength tablets or syrup manufactured to an official BP standard, possibly "branded" or "own-label" at Tesco or Superdrug. The consumer will not risk buying products which do not meet the standard. Similar will apply to manufactured products such as amphetamines. Cocaine will be more difficult to regulate in a legal framework. However, stuff like crystal meth will remain illegal.

One of the drivers of the market in recreational substances is the ingenuity of organised criminals to develop and market new products. That is why junkies shoot heroin, wheras Sherlock Holmes used to frequent opium dens. If criminals are deprived of their profits, then they will not have the resources to develop new products. They will not have the incentive for the kind of high-pressure salesmanship which propels many prospects into clients. If criminals do not make the stuff, there will be little need for anybody else to make it - nobody makes a living selling home-brewed and/or distilled liquor. There will still be addicts - the propensity for addictive behaviour is intrinsic to personality, and it is now known that this is inbred genetically. The problem for society is to recognise that there is such a thing as addictive behaviour - it is not simply a matter of whether or not the stuff is easily available - and formulating policies to minimise the effects that the behaviour of addicts has upon society as a whole. Legal sanction is part of the answer, but not the whole answer, or even necessarily the major part of it.

If you look at sources such as Martindales Pharmacopea, it is clear that the effects of recreational drugs upon the user are less in many cases than the effects of tobacco and alcohol. One never hears of doped-up smackheads rampaging around causing aggro. The fact that their effects are not as serious as popular demonology supposes is no reason to consider the prospect of changing the legal framework for recreational substances any more favourably.

The fact is that for many addicts the pain of doing without a supply is far greater than the pain involved in selling your body to pay for it. That is the reality which society has to embrace when formulating an all-round policy to deal with the problems.
Ask Bearders #176 5:11pm on 30 Aug 2008 Regarding No6, isn't that a "Mankad", named after the Indian gentleman who was roasted by the Aussie press after he ran Bill Brown out without warning (not for the first time) in a Test Match (Australia v India) just after the war. The only question is whether Don Bradman was playing. It is perfectly legal, and it is odd that it is regarded as dashed poor form when surely trying to steal a march in such a manner is cheating.
Madejski right to hit out at wages 05:38am on 21 Aug 2008 Of course he is not right, it is utter nonsense. In American professional sport at the top level, the players are paid vast amounts. $20 million a year contracts are not uncommon. It is underpinned by television money. The TV companies pay a lot of money, they want to show the top games. The clubs want part of the action, but to get it they have to attract the top talent and that means paying top dollar for the most successful (not necessarily the best) players.

In Europe, similar applies. The Champions' League is the top telly attraction. The clubs employ the top players from around the world, just as baseball, ice hockey, basketball and US football franchises do in America. The nub is in how much cash is distributed to lower levels and how it is distributed. A couple of years ago, ITV secured the Football League for silly money, but could not deliver, largely because of poor marketing and inept commercial practices. That damaged English football. The FA has failed to structure its cash-flow so that the levels below the Premier Leagues get a fair slice of the cake. The US has commissioners in charge of the whole sport, people like Bud Selig, who also has a stake in the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team. It is a lean(ish), mean(ish) fighting machine, as opposed to a congregation of stuffed blazers like the FA management committee. Rumour is that Brian Barwick has gone because he has lost out in a power struggle with Chairman Lord Triesman, but surely the power ought to be applied in the opposite direction; the Chief Executive has to be the boss. Perhaps this is the opportunity for a change in direction by the FA, but do not hold your breath.

Meanwhile, players know their value, or at least their agents do. This is from whence the cancer spreads. Agents make money when players change clubs. Therefore long-term loyalty is a loss-maker. Transfer fees seem not to be linked with any objective measure of value. Barry might be seen by O'Neill as worth no less than Carrick and Hargreaves, who he keeps out of the England starting line-up, but a Liverpool fan would not rate him as worth near to twice as much as Crouch or Alonso. However, any attempt at capping agents' fees is unlikely to be applied effectively, as is evidenced by the various alleged "bung" scandals that have been uncovered, but not acted upon.

Like anything else in life, the value of a commodity will be as much or as little as somebody is prepared to pay for it. Most markets will find a way around any attempt to interfere in their workings, football will be no different. Care will need to be taken to avoid controls on players/agents remuneration leading to an uncontrollable and corrupt black market which would leave the situation in a worse state than it is at present.
Blatter's Beijing bulletin 8:13pm on 14 Aug 2008 The 39th game is still a likely non-starter. However, a Premier League Cup played abroad is a different matter. A preliminary round to eliminate four teams, last-16, Q-final, S-final, final - nineteen games, which could be shared around eight venues in, for example, the Far East, maximum five games for the finalists, which could be fitted in at this time of the year. With television coverage, a likely money-spinner which would broaden the commercial basees of Premier League clubs. There is not much Fifa or Uefa could do to stop it.

Talk of a British team in 2012 is, at the moment, hypothetical hot air. However, as the time gets nearer and players in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland wake up to the possibility of Olympic competition, then things will change. Players will not be dictated to by officials, and will move to English clubs to make themselves eligible.
Ringing the bell for Hull 4:26pm on 12 Aug 2008 Having Hull and Stoke in the Premier League means that there is only one relegation place for Blackburn, Bolton, Fulham, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Sunderland, West Brom, West Ham and Wigan to play for. It will be nip and tuck all season until the final whistle of the final game. Thus it promises to be the most open and exciting Premier League since it came into being.

There are few British sports commentators who do not get in the way of the action. They all sound better with the mute button pressed. The best commentators on the box are ESPN's pairing of Jon Miller and Joe Morgan on Sunday Night Baseball, which is on Five every week. At least Hazel Irvine does not cover football - now that would be something to look forward to.
Hidden advertising 3:53pm on 09 Aug 2008 The BBC has always been keen to avoid playing songs containing the names of products, for example, the Jimmy Buffett song "Come Monday", a hit elsewhere all around the world, which mentions "Hush Puppies". The Coca Cola company has long used specially-written pop-songs for jingles, apart from the New Seekers teaching the world to sing, summertime was funtime for Bobby Goldsboro (but summer was the first time), but neither of those mentioned the product by name in the released version of the song.

Subliminal advertising is illegal in cinemas and on the telly. This used to involve putting an odd frame or two of advert in a 24 frame-per-second film. Subliminal means too quick to be recognised consciously. A slogan in the lyrics of a song is not the same. It lasts a lot longer. It would rely upon some prior knowledge of the slogan in question, from the same, or an alternative, medium of advertising in order for a connection to be made.

Seeking bans is ineffective. By the time the regulator has woken up and noticed that the material offends, it will have been exposed to millions of potential consumers. If it was any good, its work would have already been done. A ban is further publicity and advertising. Did anybody go into French Connection before the powers that be started giving themselves helical underwear over the puerile advertising?
Pietersen hides cracks in England batting 03:35am on 09 Aug 2008 "It is fair to say that India would probably refuse to play against England with Read in the team"

Remember when the MCC picked Basil D'Oliveira to tour South Africa and they refused to let him in. The Tour was cancelled. The MCC would not stand for another country picking and choosing their team, nor should the ECB now. However, it is fair to say that the blazers now have rather less spine than they did back then. Also, they are in thrall to Indian money. It is therefore easy to see what the outcome will be - no Chris Read, no matter how theyspin it that he is not good enough. We all will know the real reason.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

sweetalkinguy