I really thought that the suggestions that there could – or should – be some cap on the number of non-British players/quota of home-grown players, along the lines proposed by Fifa president Sepp Blatter, were just plain daft and would be quickly forgotten. But Sir Alex Ferguson has chipped in, Steve Coppell has added his six-pennyworth, followed by Steve Gerrard (who took the prize for simplistic, incoherent drivel) and now Paul Parker. No doubt there will be others either side of England’s (probable) failure to qualify for Euro 08.
Can they all be wrong? Well, yes. As a lifelong atheist (no, not an agnostic) I don’t have a problem with the idea that a large chunk of society is simply misguided (or to put it another way I disagree with them). And of course there are some vested interests - Ferguson enjoys a dig at his peers, just think where the wages of the best English players will go if there were strict quotas, and Fifa has its own agenda for promoting international over club tournaments – as well as other dissenting voices, most obviously Arsene Wenger.
It would seem that the prospect of England not qualifying for a major tournament (shock horror: I was at Wembley for the Poland game many moons ago, it happened before and no doubt will again) has sparked some navel-gazing. Well, someone’s got to be to blame and the head of Steve McClaren clearly just isn’t enough for some. Of course, if Russia don’t win in Israel and England squeeze through all of this will be forgotten, just like the booing at Charlton after we went 2-0 down against Sheff Wed.
Not long ago many were assuming that this period would be a golden era for the England team, given the array of talent coming through around the turn of the century. If not the 2006 World Cup then Euro 2008 was a realistic target for a trophy. Of course, when England screwed up in the former it was the fault of having a foreign manager (no, I’m not overlooking his poor squad selection). Now we’re probably not even going to qualify for the latter where do we pin the blame? Up goes the shout: something has to be done.
It is a failure; England will probably fail to qualify. But is there really a problem other than that a group of players and a management team have together not been better in a period of time than those of two other countries? And is it just easier to blame a dark external force than to actually examine where we went wrong, in terms of team selection, formation, management, motivation etc? Heaven forbid, if the latter we might actually learn from mistakes rather than waste time and effort on windmills.
I guess it just depends on your priorities. If it is collectively decided that the performance of the England team is the be all and end all then - ignoring for now the practicalities - we could look at keeping English clubs in English ownership, ensuring that club owners bow to the wishes of the England management on all matters (including resting players, postponing games, ensuring that team formations echo that adopted by England), and adopt best corporate practise by bribing when appropriate. Hey, why not prevent non-UK nationals from attending games? After all, their loyalties might not be reliable.
It’s all at best unworkable nonsense and at worst veers towards the disgusting. Of course, some may say, this is going too far, there just needs to be a correction to a situation which has become unbalanced and is in danger of becoming even more warped. Well, that is a matter of opinion. All markets have a tendency to overshoot – and usually to self-correct. Personally I will be disappointed if England don’t qualify, and don’t doubt that it would detract from my enjoyment of the actual tournament if we don’t make it. But there are no divine rights here, let’s just try to do better next time. Much as I’d love to alter the system to ensure that Charlton always won the Champions League (OK, occasionally we wouldn’t win it, just so we didn’t get complacent) others just might object. Same with England.
Equally if someone asks ‘are you in favour of Charlton and other clubs developing local, home-grown talent?’ the answer is of course ‘yes’. There is a special delight in a player coming through the ranks. But if there is a further question ‘do you favour distorting the system to try to achieve this?’ that’s a ‘no’ for me – unless someone can come up with a means which does not have undesirable side-effects. It’s a bit like being canvassed over the phone by The Torygraph: ‘Do you believe that you have a right to defend yourself if attacked by a frenzied, drugs-crazed, axe-wielding lunatic?’ OK, yes. ‘So therefore you believe you have a right to keep sub-machine guns in your house?’)
Basically I’m not convinced that there is a genuine, structural problem with English football, at least not one which could be ‘cured’ by artificial quotas – unless you simply find having ‘our football’ open to overseas investment and influence disturbing. I don’t. Of course an open approach and the massive influx of money and foreign players have implications and effects, not all of which are considered desirable by everyone all of the time. But that’s the nature of change. The art is to try to adapt to make the best use of change. The England manager may find himself having to choose a team from only around 90 Premiership players rather than say 300. Is that so difficult? I don’t think England’s problems have been due to a lack of players; rather it’s been about getting the best out of them.
Also, the top club teams are simply better than national teams, which inevitably devalues internationals (just as gradually national governments are becoming increasingly impotent – a trend which has much further to go). Just learn to live with it.
Why don’t we instead celebrate having one of the most exciting and affluent leagues in the world (albeit one which has suffered a setback due to the temporary absence from the top-flight of it’s greatest club), one in which the best English players come through on merit, rather than a sport that through a mixture of hooliganism, lack of investment, and a blinkered, nationalistic approach was dying on its feet not so long ago? As Wenger questioned, exactly what did the England team achieve during 1970-96?
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Smokescreens
I suppose I just feel like a rant. This is probably raking over old ground that nobody else cares about any more. And it really isn’t just an excuse to take issue with something else attributed to Peter Varney. But sometimes I can’t let things rest (like the Tevez affair and West Ham still being in the Premiership) and I take issue when the truth (of which I am of course the sole arbiter) is being trifled with.
So first prize for resurrecting a seemingly resolved issue and lying in pursuit of an ulterior motive at a public venue goes to the stadium announcer at the Gravesend & Northfleet/Ebbsfleet/Myfootballclub stadium. The ground capacity we are told is a few thousand and on Monday night there were around 100 present. Yet we were informed not just that the stadium was a non-smoking venue but that this policy was indeed “for our own benefit”.
Leaving aside the fact that I would have had to seek out other spectators if I was intent on imposing some passive smoking (which as a non-smoker would have been difficult), I do not need some muppet deciding for me what is and is not in my own interest – or rather trying to present spurious reasons for a decision. I have no problem if that club decides that it’s entire stadium is a no-smoking venue, just don’t try to suggest that such a decision has been taken on my behalf. You didn’t ask me and you don’t know what is in my best interest.
For the record I am not (I hope) some sad ‘libertarian’ defending some simplistic form of personal liberty. I am a former smoker (no, I didn’t stop because of the new legislation; I look forward to the day when it no longer matters and I can resume puffing on outsize cigars as port and/or brandy just don’t feel the same without them). I am well aware of the very real health risks. I was/am opposed to the ban on smoking in pubs – on the grounds that these are commercial enterprises and nobody has any ‘right’ to go into one.
Most of all I am disgusted by the way that the anti-smoking legislation was presented as something other than a way of saving the state money. What was wrong with an open and informed debate on the issue – other than that it would necessarily have had to encompass other, less comfortable (for the authorities) aspects of health spending? Instead we were force-fed a stream of sanctimonious twaddle by people who for reasons of their own opposed smoking. The most offensive were pen-pushers talking in terms of how many lives would be saved. Sorry, no lives are saved, only extended. To the best of my knowledge the death rate in this world has always been 100% (the as yet unsubstantiated case of one J.Christ notwithstanding).
Come to think of it, I wasn’t asked about The Valley becoming a non-smoking venue either. I remember being unconvinced by the ‘Valley Smokescreen’ defence of the new policy in the Sheff Wed programme and thought I’d take another look. Yup, thought so. It’s half-truths dressed up to try to form a poor (I believe) argument (I should add here that Charlton are no more ‘guilty’ on this matter than any other Football League club).
“It’s the law of the land – and the club itself will be fined if fans refuse to abide by the national no-smoking legislation that came into force last month”. Well, it’s undoubtedly true that we are all obliged to comply with the law of the land, and there is no doubt that as The Valley has been designated a complete no-smoking venue the club would be fined if it did not impose the rule. But does the law of the land require a smoking ban in all football stadiums? Well, no it doesn’t.
“The change in the law means we can no longer allow smoking within the confines of the stadium …. This means the entire stadium is a no-smoking venue once fans are through the turnstiles or gates, or inside any area of the building”. So said Varney. I don't think that strictly speaking this is true. Rather The Football League in early 2007 took the decision to go further than was required by the incoming legislation and to opt for a complete smoking ban within the confines of all Football League member stadiums. So Varney could have been correct to say that Charlton can no longer allow smoking within the confines of the stadium and remain compliant members of The Football League – which is of course a perfectly reasonable line of defence. But not that the change in law requires this.
The Charlton article went on to expose its own shortcomings. “The new laws, which came into force on July 1st, mean there is no room for compromise – and indeed, The Football League has introduced even more strict guidelines affecting member clubs”. I’m confused here. If the new legislation left no room for compromise, why would The Football League feel obliged to introduce stricter guidelines? And how could it? How can you have a ‘stricter guideline’ than one that allows ‘no room for compromise’?
My reading of the actual legislation, taking account of the FA booklet outlining the implications for sporting stadiums, is that there could be smoking areas within stadiums (indeed, if there was ‘no room for compromise’ why did the FA produce a booklet for guidance?). The law is not (not could it be) precise about every instance/area where smoking might be allowed; the broad rule is that such an area is not enclosed or substantially enclosed. So a club not bound by self-adopted Football League rules could I believe introduce a smoking area within its stadium having checked that the area in question is not at odds with the enclosed/substantially enclosed requirement. I imagine that this would involve getting approval from the authorities, take time and effort and require signposting. But it could be done.
The Charlton article – which echoes wording from just about every other Football League club – went on to peddle the line that a blanket no-smoking policy in all areas of stadiums was popular among supporters. “In a survey conducted by the league last season, almost 80% of fans advocated the introduction of some form of smoke-free policy at matches, with half of all fans supporting an outright ban”. Sounds convincing? Well, not really. Put another way, there was a clear majority in favour of limiting smoking in stadiums but a 50-50 split on an outright ban. So the policy adopted by The Football League is one which by its own admission was opposed – or at the least not supported - by half of the people canvassed.
I’m dubious about all the claptrap regarding clubs wanting to encourage healthier living, a new breed of supporter etc. So what could be the real motive for introducing a ban that clearly was not demanded by legislation and which was not supported by a majority of fans? Doesn’t take much imagination does it? I imagine it saves money in areas such as insurance and cleaning and avoids any danger that clubs could fall foul of the new legislation. Why not just say so? It’s exactly the same reason why it is now apparently illegal to smoke on the platform at Blackheath railway station – which is as open air as it is possible to get. (When I remember I’m going to buy some cigars and stand on the platform and pretend to be smoking without lighting up; try proving in court that I was actually smoking.)
Again, I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t have a problem with Charlton deciding that The Valley is a no-smoking venue (I have no ‘right’ to attend matches). I do have a (small) problem with the way a decision taken by The Football League, after (it says) consultation with the clubs, for as yet undisclosed reasons, is presented as something other than it is and used as a smokescreen. (Ha ha.)
So first prize for resurrecting a seemingly resolved issue and lying in pursuit of an ulterior motive at a public venue goes to the stadium announcer at the Gravesend & Northfleet/Ebbsfleet/Myfootballclub stadium. The ground capacity we are told is a few thousand and on Monday night there were around 100 present. Yet we were informed not just that the stadium was a non-smoking venue but that this policy was indeed “for our own benefit”.
Leaving aside the fact that I would have had to seek out other spectators if I was intent on imposing some passive smoking (which as a non-smoker would have been difficult), I do not need some muppet deciding for me what is and is not in my own interest – or rather trying to present spurious reasons for a decision. I have no problem if that club decides that it’s entire stadium is a no-smoking venue, just don’t try to suggest that such a decision has been taken on my behalf. You didn’t ask me and you don’t know what is in my best interest.
For the record I am not (I hope) some sad ‘libertarian’ defending some simplistic form of personal liberty. I am a former smoker (no, I didn’t stop because of the new legislation; I look forward to the day when it no longer matters and I can resume puffing on outsize cigars as port and/or brandy just don’t feel the same without them). I am well aware of the very real health risks. I was/am opposed to the ban on smoking in pubs – on the grounds that these are commercial enterprises and nobody has any ‘right’ to go into one.
Most of all I am disgusted by the way that the anti-smoking legislation was presented as something other than a way of saving the state money. What was wrong with an open and informed debate on the issue – other than that it would necessarily have had to encompass other, less comfortable (for the authorities) aspects of health spending? Instead we were force-fed a stream of sanctimonious twaddle by people who for reasons of their own opposed smoking. The most offensive were pen-pushers talking in terms of how many lives would be saved. Sorry, no lives are saved, only extended. To the best of my knowledge the death rate in this world has always been 100% (the as yet unsubstantiated case of one J.Christ notwithstanding).
Come to think of it, I wasn’t asked about The Valley becoming a non-smoking venue either. I remember being unconvinced by the ‘Valley Smokescreen’ defence of the new policy in the Sheff Wed programme and thought I’d take another look. Yup, thought so. It’s half-truths dressed up to try to form a poor (I believe) argument (I should add here that Charlton are no more ‘guilty’ on this matter than any other Football League club).
“It’s the law of the land – and the club itself will be fined if fans refuse to abide by the national no-smoking legislation that came into force last month”. Well, it’s undoubtedly true that we are all obliged to comply with the law of the land, and there is no doubt that as The Valley has been designated a complete no-smoking venue the club would be fined if it did not impose the rule. But does the law of the land require a smoking ban in all football stadiums? Well, no it doesn’t.
“The change in the law means we can no longer allow smoking within the confines of the stadium …. This means the entire stadium is a no-smoking venue once fans are through the turnstiles or gates, or inside any area of the building”. So said Varney. I don't think that strictly speaking this is true. Rather The Football League in early 2007 took the decision to go further than was required by the incoming legislation and to opt for a complete smoking ban within the confines of all Football League member stadiums. So Varney could have been correct to say that Charlton can no longer allow smoking within the confines of the stadium and remain compliant members of The Football League – which is of course a perfectly reasonable line of defence. But not that the change in law requires this.
The Charlton article went on to expose its own shortcomings. “The new laws, which came into force on July 1st, mean there is no room for compromise – and indeed, The Football League has introduced even more strict guidelines affecting member clubs”. I’m confused here. If the new legislation left no room for compromise, why would The Football League feel obliged to introduce stricter guidelines? And how could it? How can you have a ‘stricter guideline’ than one that allows ‘no room for compromise’?
My reading of the actual legislation, taking account of the FA booklet outlining the implications for sporting stadiums, is that there could be smoking areas within stadiums (indeed, if there was ‘no room for compromise’ why did the FA produce a booklet for guidance?). The law is not (not could it be) precise about every instance/area where smoking might be allowed; the broad rule is that such an area is not enclosed or substantially enclosed. So a club not bound by self-adopted Football League rules could I believe introduce a smoking area within its stadium having checked that the area in question is not at odds with the enclosed/substantially enclosed requirement. I imagine that this would involve getting approval from the authorities, take time and effort and require signposting. But it could be done.
The Charlton article – which echoes wording from just about every other Football League club – went on to peddle the line that a blanket no-smoking policy in all areas of stadiums was popular among supporters. “In a survey conducted by the league last season, almost 80% of fans advocated the introduction of some form of smoke-free policy at matches, with half of all fans supporting an outright ban”. Sounds convincing? Well, not really. Put another way, there was a clear majority in favour of limiting smoking in stadiums but a 50-50 split on an outright ban. So the policy adopted by The Football League is one which by its own admission was opposed – or at the least not supported - by half of the people canvassed.
I’m dubious about all the claptrap regarding clubs wanting to encourage healthier living, a new breed of supporter etc. So what could be the real motive for introducing a ban that clearly was not demanded by legislation and which was not supported by a majority of fans? Doesn’t take much imagination does it? I imagine it saves money in areas such as insurance and cleaning and avoids any danger that clubs could fall foul of the new legislation. Why not just say so? It’s exactly the same reason why it is now apparently illegal to smoke on the platform at Blackheath railway station – which is as open air as it is possible to get. (When I remember I’m going to buy some cigars and stand on the platform and pretend to be smoking without lighting up; try proving in court that I was actually smoking.)
Again, I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t have a problem with Charlton deciding that The Valley is a no-smoking venue (I have no ‘right’ to attend matches). I do have a (small) problem with the way a decision taken by The Football League, after (it says) consultation with the clubs, for as yet undisclosed reasons, is presented as something other than it is and used as a smokescreen. (Ha ha.)
Monday, 12 November 2007
Down With The Stiffs
I’m not sure if it was the euphoria of three wins on the spin, guilt over my miserable failure to date to get to an away game (a run which will continue through the Preston game as that’s the next scheduled Lyon weekend), the fact that for the first time in a couple of weeks I feel OK (after cold etc exacerbated by rainy nights in Amsterdam – no, the trip was work-related), or just the attraction of being able to write total nonsense about a game with little fear of contradiction. But I felt an overwhelming desire to go and watch the reserves turn over the Palace stiffs, to get a feel for how some of the players that are bound to be called upon at some point are shaping up.
This desire did ease a little when I realised that reserve games are being played at Gravesend & Northfleet. But after a quick check it seemed the journey could be done by train in less than an hour – and it’s an easy way to notch up another ground at which I’ve seen Charlton play (and one which some fellow Addicks who tot up these things may struggle to match).
I don’t have particularly good memories of Gravesend. (Yes, I know that to go to the game you get the train to Northfleet; I’ve just been there for Christ sake. It’s a little poetic licence to use an anecdote or two – and let’s face it nobody on this planet, even those who currently reside there, can have any recollections of Northfleet. I’m a city dweller and don’t trust places without copious street lighting or with these dinky little stations that still give you the impression you’ve landed in the middle of nowhere. Taxi mate? There’ll be one along next week.)
I lived there for a few years after my parents decided that the fresher air away from London would be better for my father and my sister’s asthma (they were wrong). My abiding memory is that in the sprawling semi-circular avenue in which we lived every house had a front garden. Every front garden was a lawn. Except one. Ours. Ours had rose bushes. Now I don’t remember the thought process that led up to the events of the afternoon in question (I was too young for it to have been alcohol). But suffice to say that my heroic levelling of the rose bushes (aided by my toy rifle) was matched by a smack of the belt from my father for every rose left lying on the ground. I’d have made a fortune in compensation today.
More recently trips to Gravesend (and Gillingham) have not been voluntary. You know the score. Trashed in town, just make the last train back. Your conscious as the train pulls out of Lewisham but are desperately hanging on, knowing that there’s just a couple of minutes to go. Then you come too with a jolt and immediately realise something is wrong. The train doors open and there’s the sign: ‘Welcome to Gravesend’.
So going to Gravesend has become associated for me with ‘please rewind my life’. Maybe in the future there will be a good reason to go back there. I just can’t for the life of me imagine what it could be. Maybe just to tear down that bloody sign.
The line-up as announced was Elliot in goal, Sankofa and Solly as the full-backs, Bougherra and Aswad Thomas in central defence, the returning Matt Holland and Racon in central midfield, Wagstaff and Lozano-Calderon on the flanks, and Varney and McLeod as the front two.
Mixed team for my purposes. Where were McCarthy and Moutaouakil, two players that I most wanted to see, or even Christensen? The first two both last appeared for the second-string at the end of October against QPR, missing the following game against Watford. Are they injured? I haven’t seen any announcement to that effect. I was particularly keen to see how McCarthy was getting on, even in a meaningless match (no, CAFC website, reserve matches do not make amends for anything). I’m still inclined to assume that Pardew expected him to be his general in defence, but so far he has looked error-prone and rusty. I wanted to see if he was knuckling under and waiting for his chance or sulking. Yassin we all expect to see back in the first-team sooner or later, so I just wanted to see whether he looks fully fit.
No matter. With a spine of Bougherra, Holland, Racon, Varney and McLeod most if not all of us were assuming that the team would have too much for Palace reserves (too much indeed for any side that they could put out). It just didn’t turn out that way. I’m not a regular watcher of reserves games, so this may have been a classic. But I doubt it. It was a mishmash of poor passes and incoherent play which had 0-0 written all over it well before the final whistle.
Charlton too often relied on a long ball forward in the expectation that a Palace defender would make a mistake or Varney would flick on to McLeod or vice versa. The trouble was when it worked for Varney he blew two one-on-ones – the first early in the game he shot at the keeper, the second late on saw him with a long run in and an embarrassing failure to even get in a shot – and when McLeod found himself in good positions he had run offside.
I had hoped for a little chemistry between the two. It was more like magnetism of the wrong sort. I don’t think they even looked at each other during the game, let alone talked. And both looked miserable and low on confidence. Come on guys. It’s only a reserves game, you don’t have a real match for another couple of weeks. What’s wrong with some evidence that you are doing something you like? These are at present our only two striker options if Iwelumo is not available. I know you shouldn’t draw strong conclusions from a run-out for the stiffs on a cold November evening. But it wasn’t inspiring.
Bougherra dealt comfortably with what came his way. Sankofa had a couple of iffy moments early on but otherwise was sound if not spectacular (there was no sign of him getting forward). Racon looked a cut above the others in midfield without really imposing himself on the game. Matty Holland? He looked like, well, just what you’d expect. He lasted an hour before giving way to Arter. Another couple of run-outs and Holland should be ready to do a job once more.
The game became more interesting once Arter had come on and Uchechi had replaced Lozano-Calderon on the left wing. They added greater urgency going forward – but at the same time the Palace midfield found it a lot easier to run past Arter than they had Holland and for a period it was like QPR all over again. Palace had three or four shots which went narrowly wide or were saved by Elliot in a short spell. The just left Varney’s late fluff and widespread groans from the shivering support when it was announced that there were three additional minutes to play (yes, everything's still coming in threes - and we're back down to third).
This desire did ease a little when I realised that reserve games are being played at Gravesend & Northfleet. But after a quick check it seemed the journey could be done by train in less than an hour – and it’s an easy way to notch up another ground at which I’ve seen Charlton play (and one which some fellow Addicks who tot up these things may struggle to match).
I don’t have particularly good memories of Gravesend. (Yes, I know that to go to the game you get the train to Northfleet; I’ve just been there for Christ sake. It’s a little poetic licence to use an anecdote or two – and let’s face it nobody on this planet, even those who currently reside there, can have any recollections of Northfleet. I’m a city dweller and don’t trust places without copious street lighting or with these dinky little stations that still give you the impression you’ve landed in the middle of nowhere. Taxi mate? There’ll be one along next week.)
I lived there for a few years after my parents decided that the fresher air away from London would be better for my father and my sister’s asthma (they were wrong). My abiding memory is that in the sprawling semi-circular avenue in which we lived every house had a front garden. Every front garden was a lawn. Except one. Ours. Ours had rose bushes. Now I don’t remember the thought process that led up to the events of the afternoon in question (I was too young for it to have been alcohol). But suffice to say that my heroic levelling of the rose bushes (aided by my toy rifle) was matched by a smack of the belt from my father for every rose left lying on the ground. I’d have made a fortune in compensation today.
More recently trips to Gravesend (and Gillingham) have not been voluntary. You know the score. Trashed in town, just make the last train back. Your conscious as the train pulls out of Lewisham but are desperately hanging on, knowing that there’s just a couple of minutes to go. Then you come too with a jolt and immediately realise something is wrong. The train doors open and there’s the sign: ‘Welcome to Gravesend’.
So going to Gravesend has become associated for me with ‘please rewind my life’. Maybe in the future there will be a good reason to go back there. I just can’t for the life of me imagine what it could be. Maybe just to tear down that bloody sign.
The line-up as announced was Elliot in goal, Sankofa and Solly as the full-backs, Bougherra and Aswad Thomas in central defence, the returning Matt Holland and Racon in central midfield, Wagstaff and Lozano-Calderon on the flanks, and Varney and McLeod as the front two.
Mixed team for my purposes. Where were McCarthy and Moutaouakil, two players that I most wanted to see, or even Christensen? The first two both last appeared for the second-string at the end of October against QPR, missing the following game against Watford. Are they injured? I haven’t seen any announcement to that effect. I was particularly keen to see how McCarthy was getting on, even in a meaningless match (no, CAFC website, reserve matches do not make amends for anything). I’m still inclined to assume that Pardew expected him to be his general in defence, but so far he has looked error-prone and rusty. I wanted to see if he was knuckling under and waiting for his chance or sulking. Yassin we all expect to see back in the first-team sooner or later, so I just wanted to see whether he looks fully fit.
No matter. With a spine of Bougherra, Holland, Racon, Varney and McLeod most if not all of us were assuming that the team would have too much for Palace reserves (too much indeed for any side that they could put out). It just didn’t turn out that way. I’m not a regular watcher of reserves games, so this may have been a classic. But I doubt it. It was a mishmash of poor passes and incoherent play which had 0-0 written all over it well before the final whistle.
Charlton too often relied on a long ball forward in the expectation that a Palace defender would make a mistake or Varney would flick on to McLeod or vice versa. The trouble was when it worked for Varney he blew two one-on-ones – the first early in the game he shot at the keeper, the second late on saw him with a long run in and an embarrassing failure to even get in a shot – and when McLeod found himself in good positions he had run offside.
I had hoped for a little chemistry between the two. It was more like magnetism of the wrong sort. I don’t think they even looked at each other during the game, let alone talked. And both looked miserable and low on confidence. Come on guys. It’s only a reserves game, you don’t have a real match for another couple of weeks. What’s wrong with some evidence that you are doing something you like? These are at present our only two striker options if Iwelumo is not available. I know you shouldn’t draw strong conclusions from a run-out for the stiffs on a cold November evening. But it wasn’t inspiring.
Bougherra dealt comfortably with what came his way. Sankofa had a couple of iffy moments early on but otherwise was sound if not spectacular (there was no sign of him getting forward). Racon looked a cut above the others in midfield without really imposing himself on the game. Matty Holland? He looked like, well, just what you’d expect. He lasted an hour before giving way to Arter. Another couple of run-outs and Holland should be ready to do a job once more.
The game became more interesting once Arter had come on and Uchechi had replaced Lozano-Calderon on the left wing. They added greater urgency going forward – but at the same time the Palace midfield found it a lot easier to run past Arter than they had Holland and for a period it was like QPR all over again. Palace had three or four shots which went narrowly wide or were saved by Elliot in a short spell. The just left Varney’s late fluff and widespread groans from the shivering support when it was announced that there were three additional minutes to play (yes, everything's still coming in threes - and we're back down to third).
Sunday, 11 November 2007
Sunday Musings
Everything does seem to be coming in threes these days: three defeats followed by three wins, the latest by three goals and with a third clean sheet in a row. What happens next is anybody’s guess, but since the game three things have made me chuckle (would be four if I included the news that West Brom have lost Kevin Phillips for a while at least, but that would be just plain nasty).
First, the photo. Is it me or does Danny Murphy look like the bloke from the pub who has turned out every Sunday for the past 40 years and refuses to hang up his boots?
Second, the dance down the annals of history that is the ‘On This Day’ page in the programme. I previously took delight in the glib description of the liberation of Paris. Now we are informed that on this day (10 November) in 1971 journalist and explorer Henry Morton Stanley located missing explorer and missionary Dr David Livingstone. I would have been at school at the time but don’t remember the news filtering through (and could have sworn that there was already something in the history books about this one). You’d have thought it would have got a mention as Dr Livingstone, who was born in 1813, would have been 158 years old at the time.
Third, the relief that I didn’t agree in total with Peter Varney’s latest musings. His plea for consistency in the application of the laws by referees must have everyone’s backing (and he included a very timely observation that we were “due a change of fortune regarding refereeing decisions” – it was indeed Fortune whose tackle in the first half could easily have been given as a penalty by a different ref). But he went on to express his reservations about the possible introduction of ‘sin bins’ in football.
Varney argues that their use “would presumably mean the introduction of a new card ranked between yellow and red that results in a spell in the sin bin” and that “this would lead to further disputes regarding the offences that deserve two yellow cards and a sending off, and those that don’t”. Sorry, but I don’t see why.
I always thought the sin bin would be used alongside the current yellow and red cards. In rugby a single yellow card means a spell in the bin, a red means dismissal. Such a set-up could be replicated in football - or alternatively a second yellow means a spell in the sin bin (and presumably a third yellow after the player returns would be a red card). There is no reason why the use of sin bins introduces a new card or new type of offence. Varney and others may be against sin bins (and there are clearly pros and cons) but the reasoning he outlines doesn’t stand up.
What are we trying to achieve? I think it’s reasonable to say that too many games are ruined by players picking up two yellows for run-of-the-mill fouls – and that the punishment in these cases exceeds the crime. If we want to change this either the referees have to be instructed to show some greater leniency when giving out cards, perhaps with more use of warnings, or a less onerous punishment than losing the player for the remainder of the game is introduced.
Of course, if one yellow means a spell in the bin there is the danger that games turn into a farce – a team could have four or five players in the bin at the same time. The fact is that the use of yellow cards in football and rugby is different and referees behave accordingly. If sin bins were introduced for two yellows the danger is that refs start handing out cards even more liberally, knowing that there is a stage between a second and outright dismissal. But this set-up looks to me as if it could work.
It may be that the size of the perceived problem doesn’t merit introducing sin bins. But it’s worth a general discussion, even an experiment.
One law in football that I feel really does need changing is the requirement that players treated for injury have to leave the pitch. It was brought in for good reason: play-acting was wasting time, players simply couldn’t be trusted, and it was/is unfair to expect referees to be able to decide when a player is putting it on. But the habit of feigning injury is much less prevalent than it was, while we have become much more used to refs adding on several minutes at the end of the game. On Saturday Cardiff had a corner and we had to defend it without Sodje and Iwelumo, who had received treatment, while Cardiff also had a player who had to leave the pitch. This is a form of punishment - you could even say a very short-lived sin bin - where most if not all of the time no crime has been committed.
First, the photo. Is it me or does Danny Murphy look like the bloke from the pub who has turned out every Sunday for the past 40 years and refuses to hang up his boots?
Second, the dance down the annals of history that is the ‘On This Day’ page in the programme. I previously took delight in the glib description of the liberation of Paris. Now we are informed that on this day (10 November) in 1971 journalist and explorer Henry Morton Stanley located missing explorer and missionary Dr David Livingstone. I would have been at school at the time but don’t remember the news filtering through (and could have sworn that there was already something in the history books about this one). You’d have thought it would have got a mention as Dr Livingstone, who was born in 1813, would have been 158 years old at the time.
Third, the relief that I didn’t agree in total with Peter Varney’s latest musings. His plea for consistency in the application of the laws by referees must have everyone’s backing (and he included a very timely observation that we were “due a change of fortune regarding refereeing decisions” – it was indeed Fortune whose tackle in the first half could easily have been given as a penalty by a different ref). But he went on to express his reservations about the possible introduction of ‘sin bins’ in football.
Varney argues that their use “would presumably mean the introduction of a new card ranked between yellow and red that results in a spell in the sin bin” and that “this would lead to further disputes regarding the offences that deserve two yellow cards and a sending off, and those that don’t”. Sorry, but I don’t see why.
I always thought the sin bin would be used alongside the current yellow and red cards. In rugby a single yellow card means a spell in the bin, a red means dismissal. Such a set-up could be replicated in football - or alternatively a second yellow means a spell in the sin bin (and presumably a third yellow after the player returns would be a red card). There is no reason why the use of sin bins introduces a new card or new type of offence. Varney and others may be against sin bins (and there are clearly pros and cons) but the reasoning he outlines doesn’t stand up.
What are we trying to achieve? I think it’s reasonable to say that too many games are ruined by players picking up two yellows for run-of-the-mill fouls – and that the punishment in these cases exceeds the crime. If we want to change this either the referees have to be instructed to show some greater leniency when giving out cards, perhaps with more use of warnings, or a less onerous punishment than losing the player for the remainder of the game is introduced.
Of course, if one yellow means a spell in the bin there is the danger that games turn into a farce – a team could have four or five players in the bin at the same time. The fact is that the use of yellow cards in football and rugby is different and referees behave accordingly. If sin bins were introduced for two yellows the danger is that refs start handing out cards even more liberally, knowing that there is a stage between a second and outright dismissal. But this set-up looks to me as if it could work.
It may be that the size of the perceived problem doesn’t merit introducing sin bins. But it’s worth a general discussion, even an experiment.
One law in football that I feel really does need changing is the requirement that players treated for injury have to leave the pitch. It was brought in for good reason: play-acting was wasting time, players simply couldn’t be trusted, and it was/is unfair to expect referees to be able to decide when a player is putting it on. But the habit of feigning injury is much less prevalent than it was, while we have become much more used to refs adding on several minutes at the end of the game. On Saturday Cardiff had a corner and we had to defend it without Sodje and Iwelumo, who had received treatment, while Cardiff also had a player who had to leave the pitch. This is a form of punishment - you could even say a very short-lived sin bin - where most if not all of the time no crime has been committed.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Happy Bunnies
I think we’d have settled for that before the game: three goals, another clean sheet, JFH substituted after a virtuoso performance of ineptitude, and back up to second in the table (at least ahead of the West Brom game). It wasn’t perfect, but it was good enough.
Approaching half-time I thought the game was pretty much level on points. Cardiff had had a good chance blocked and a shot from a well-worked free kick saved splendidly by Weaver. We had had a Chris Iwelumo effort just over and the ball in the net (disallowed for a push or for offside, I wasn’t sure). We were doing OK without dominating against a Cardiff team that looked competent but short of pace (how could it be otherwise Jimmy?). Then came the few minutes that decided the outcome.
Many moons ago I was involved in a (very) small music publishing and independent record label business. One piece of advice we had was: ‘and when you get a number one, the best thing is to follow it up with another, and then another’. Hard to disagree. So after Sam Sodje had put away a poor defensive header to put us one up, the next minute or so saw Iwelumo running on to another poor defensive header to shoot home from outside the box.
It wasn’t exactly game over, but in the second half we were able to showboat a little and avoided having to chase the game. Cardiff had some half-chances – and as in the first half some magnificent blocks were put in by the defence. But they didn’t really threaten consistently and we looked capable of scoring again. We duly did when Zhi was allowed to head home from a corner. Cue extended singing and happy chappies going home (with the exception of what looked like some rather charmless Cardiff supporters).
Player ratings:
Weaver – 8. May seem a little high but perhaps I was unfair after QPR if it was after all a foul on him for their goal. Had little to do but was decisive and safe on crosses and made one an excellent save.
Mills – 7. Looked sound and given the scoreline wasn’t under pressure to do much in the second half. Surprisingly enough he seemed to rankle their supporters (can’t believe he did anything untoward).
Sodje – 8. The defence with him in doesn’t suddenly look rock-solid, but maybe he’s just lucky. Nudged up from a 7 because of the goal.
Fortune – 7. No obvious mistakes or major contributions, but I’m not going to criticise defenders after three successive clean sheets.
Basey – 6. Gave away a free kick in a dangerous position in the first half. Sound thereafter, but like Mills didn’t get forward much in the second half (presumably under instructions as there was no need to).
Semedo – 7. Overall another good game, but one error (air kick in our own area) could have been punished and the game would have been very different if they had scored first.
Reid – 7. Mixed performance. Some sublime moments but some wayward passes and shots too. Remains central to what we are doing.
Zhi – 7. Though he was having an indifferent game, not really playing in the hole and not influential, but then he did score.
Sam – 6. A little disappointing. Struggled to have an impact. Looked dangerous when he had the ball, but too often was unable to create space and make himself available. No decent crosses I can remember.
Iwelumo – 8. Battled manfully again and took his goal well. Deserves a good rating for the week he has had.
Thomas – 8. I’m pleased to say my man of the match. Until recently I though he’s been letting us down. At this level he should be a shoo-in and be a key element of the extra quality that Pardew talks about to help us get back up. But he has looked distracted, churlish and uncommitted. I didn’t see him at Southampton or Bristol but the reviews were better and I thought today he was lively, dangerous, and up for the challenge. In the first half he was blocked off in a good position and I thought should have had the free kick. But the referee waved play on and this time he got up and got on with the game. I hope this is a sign of renewed application because if he plays to his potential he will be a big factor in whether we go back up.
Subs: Couldn’t really rate them. Ambrose came on for Sam but the game was won by then; Varney and McLeod were late replacements for Iwelumo and Zhi.
A word for the ref. I thought he had an excellent game. One or two decisions were wrong (ie they went against us) but he was consistent with his application of yellow cards for professional fouls and let the game flow. The big criticism of the officiating was not really his fault (I assume). He applied the letter of the law to players leaving the pitch after treatment and this nearly cost us dear when Cardiff had set pieces. In the second half they had a corner and Sodje and Iwelumo had to leave the pitch, along with one Cardiff player. It was 2-0 at the time and the game would have changed if they had pulled one back because we were short of numbers/height through no fault of our own. The rule of making players leave the pitch after treatment has run its time and needs to be scrapped (or amended).
Overall impressions? It was in the end another game that was heavily influenced by who scored first. I can’t say that we were bossing it before we went in front; clearly we did through most of the second half with a two-goal cushion. If I was in the mood to be overly-critical (which my bloody toothache inclines me to be) I still have the impression that we are one-paced. With Sam and Thomas there should be greater verve about our play. And a Reid-Zhi-Semedo trio in central midfield was not entirely convincing. Zhi too often was playing as a second forward, while Semedo was doing the defensive donkey work. A midfield trio in a 4-5-1 should work as a unit, going forward and back, and there was no real evidence that the players were on the same wavelength. And the defence still panics in the absence of an effective leader in the pack.
But ha ha. We won. WBA have lost Kevin Phillips. I can watch the highlights, read the papers. Basically I’m a happy bunny.
Approaching half-time I thought the game was pretty much level on points. Cardiff had had a good chance blocked and a shot from a well-worked free kick saved splendidly by Weaver. We had had a Chris Iwelumo effort just over and the ball in the net (disallowed for a push or for offside, I wasn’t sure). We were doing OK without dominating against a Cardiff team that looked competent but short of pace (how could it be otherwise Jimmy?). Then came the few minutes that decided the outcome.
Many moons ago I was involved in a (very) small music publishing and independent record label business. One piece of advice we had was: ‘and when you get a number one, the best thing is to follow it up with another, and then another’. Hard to disagree. So after Sam Sodje had put away a poor defensive header to put us one up, the next minute or so saw Iwelumo running on to another poor defensive header to shoot home from outside the box.
It wasn’t exactly game over, but in the second half we were able to showboat a little and avoided having to chase the game. Cardiff had some half-chances – and as in the first half some magnificent blocks were put in by the defence. But they didn’t really threaten consistently and we looked capable of scoring again. We duly did when Zhi was allowed to head home from a corner. Cue extended singing and happy chappies going home (with the exception of what looked like some rather charmless Cardiff supporters).
Player ratings:
Weaver – 8. May seem a little high but perhaps I was unfair after QPR if it was after all a foul on him for their goal. Had little to do but was decisive and safe on crosses and made one an excellent save.
Mills – 7. Looked sound and given the scoreline wasn’t under pressure to do much in the second half. Surprisingly enough he seemed to rankle their supporters (can’t believe he did anything untoward).
Sodje – 8. The defence with him in doesn’t suddenly look rock-solid, but maybe he’s just lucky. Nudged up from a 7 because of the goal.
Fortune – 7. No obvious mistakes or major contributions, but I’m not going to criticise defenders after three successive clean sheets.
Basey – 6. Gave away a free kick in a dangerous position in the first half. Sound thereafter, but like Mills didn’t get forward much in the second half (presumably under instructions as there was no need to).
Semedo – 7. Overall another good game, but one error (air kick in our own area) could have been punished and the game would have been very different if they had scored first.
Reid – 7. Mixed performance. Some sublime moments but some wayward passes and shots too. Remains central to what we are doing.
Zhi – 7. Though he was having an indifferent game, not really playing in the hole and not influential, but then he did score.
Sam – 6. A little disappointing. Struggled to have an impact. Looked dangerous when he had the ball, but too often was unable to create space and make himself available. No decent crosses I can remember.
Iwelumo – 8. Battled manfully again and took his goal well. Deserves a good rating for the week he has had.
Thomas – 8. I’m pleased to say my man of the match. Until recently I though he’s been letting us down. At this level he should be a shoo-in and be a key element of the extra quality that Pardew talks about to help us get back up. But he has looked distracted, churlish and uncommitted. I didn’t see him at Southampton or Bristol but the reviews were better and I thought today he was lively, dangerous, and up for the challenge. In the first half he was blocked off in a good position and I thought should have had the free kick. But the referee waved play on and this time he got up and got on with the game. I hope this is a sign of renewed application because if he plays to his potential he will be a big factor in whether we go back up.
Subs: Couldn’t really rate them. Ambrose came on for Sam but the game was won by then; Varney and McLeod were late replacements for Iwelumo and Zhi.
A word for the ref. I thought he had an excellent game. One or two decisions were wrong (ie they went against us) but he was consistent with his application of yellow cards for professional fouls and let the game flow. The big criticism of the officiating was not really his fault (I assume). He applied the letter of the law to players leaving the pitch after treatment and this nearly cost us dear when Cardiff had set pieces. In the second half they had a corner and Sodje and Iwelumo had to leave the pitch, along with one Cardiff player. It was 2-0 at the time and the game would have changed if they had pulled one back because we were short of numbers/height through no fault of our own. The rule of making players leave the pitch after treatment has run its time and needs to be scrapped (or amended).
Overall impressions? It was in the end another game that was heavily influenced by who scored first. I can’t say that we were bossing it before we went in front; clearly we did through most of the second half with a two-goal cushion. If I was in the mood to be overly-critical (which my bloody toothache inclines me to be) I still have the impression that we are one-paced. With Sam and Thomas there should be greater verve about our play. And a Reid-Zhi-Semedo trio in central midfield was not entirely convincing. Zhi too often was playing as a second forward, while Semedo was doing the defensive donkey work. A midfield trio in a 4-5-1 should work as a unit, going forward and back, and there was no real evidence that the players were on the same wavelength. And the defence still panics in the absence of an effective leader in the pack.
But ha ha. We won. WBA have lost Kevin Phillips. I can watch the highlights, read the papers. Basically I’m a happy bunny.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Booing Debate Sorted: Welcome Back JFH
Seems that once Suzanne’s favourite grandmother smiles on you she really does the business. Two last-minute goals to give two away wins. I’d like to congratulate Pardew and the team (along with those who actually went to either game) for a great response to the problems and criticisms post-QPR, but I know where the credit really lies. Please Marie just make sure that as with pre-blanquette de veau disasters our triumphs come in threes – and then let me know what I’ve got to cook to keep the run going. If we win on Saturday and I hear nothing more I’ll assume that it’s one meal gets us three wins and plan accordingly.
Despite the triumphs, the booing issue is bound to crop up again on Saturday. And this time I’ll be on my feet howling along with the best of them. Welcome back Jimmy Floyd. Most of the time I can’t be bothered to get at returning players. Scott Parker probably deserved the initial reaction from the Valley faithful but took it on the chin and for me that was good enough (although if he comes back with West Ham I’ll be booing them generally as if there was any fair play in the Premiership they would have been relegated, quite possibly instead of us). And let’s face it Danny Mills would get a hard time when he came back but we’re quite happy now to cheer him to the rafters.
There’s just something that still sticks in the throat about JFH. He was the signing that was going to get the best out of Darren Bent, they guy that would give us the craft that had been missing. It isn’t necessary to go over what we actually got: an unfit, load-mouth waste of space. He stirred himself to score against Chelsea and Middlesboro. If it hadn’t been for him and Marcus Bent we would have brought in someone else. Whoever that might have been he couldn’t have done a worse job for us.
It’s not as if Jimmy has shown any contrition (if he had any sense he would expect a very rough ride on Saturday and perhaps say something in advance about sometimes moves just not working out for both parties etc). In one of the Championship highlights early this season on Cardiff he was talking about strikers sometimes only being rated on what they did in their most recent season. Damn right they should be. If you score on Saturday please don’t expect a repeat of the polite applause that you got at Stamford Bridge. If there’s any justice Jimmy you’ll just play your normal game. That’ll be bad enough for us.
Had a glance through one of the Cardiff supporters’ sites just to see if they are disgusted with him yet. Seems not yet. Complaints seem to focus on the drawbacks of playing Fowler and Hasselbaink together rather than the latter’s inability to run. The impression was that there is something of a crisis going on at Cardiff, with many fans calling for Dave Jones to be sacked and with Ridsdale locked in a legal dispute over the financing of the club. It looks very much like a case of disappointed expectations with discontent growing, not surprisingly, following a failure to beat even Palace.
That said, Cardiff’s away form isn’t bad, with two wins and three draws out of six. They’ve scored more (10) away in fewer games. But the two away wins came early in the season, against QPR and Norwich, and in the last four they’ve lost one and drawn three. It looks to me like a game in which if we score first (something we failed to do in the three lost recently) we should go on to win.
Two away wins in a row and suddenly we do have something in common with our last promotion season. More points secured away than at home. But Pardew must have some selection problems. Presumably Semedo will come back in for Racon, but the big decision is whether playing one up front is acceptable at home. Given available resources I think it has to be, assuming all are fit. Having finally put one in the net with his head Big Chris must be feeling good having repeated the experience last night. Varney has played his part. But the facts are that one up front allows us to play Reid inside without being overrun and with only three first-choice strikers 4-4-2 means our only option being to bring on McLeod.
On the subject of options, the BBC reported Gillingham manager Mark Stimson as being ‘full of praise’ for the in-form Chris Dickson after the forward's goalscoring display in the draw with Doncaster. “Chris has got natural talent, a natural talent to put the ball in back of the net and he scored a great goal," Stimson said. "He is a very good athlete, he causes defenders problems with his style. He has now scored five goals in six games and when you have somebody on form like that, you have to play him."
This does sound a little strange from a manager who recently was pleading with Pardew to allow Dickson to stay. I would have expected more of the ‘he needs the games and the experience’ line. I know the standard’s different, but without Todorov we need another forward. Either it’s a loan signing, or the chequebook comes out in January, or Dickson comes back after his loan and gets a chance, presumably at least at first on the bench as a late impact player.
Despite the triumphs, the booing issue is bound to crop up again on Saturday. And this time I’ll be on my feet howling along with the best of them. Welcome back Jimmy Floyd. Most of the time I can’t be bothered to get at returning players. Scott Parker probably deserved the initial reaction from the Valley faithful but took it on the chin and for me that was good enough (although if he comes back with West Ham I’ll be booing them generally as if there was any fair play in the Premiership they would have been relegated, quite possibly instead of us). And let’s face it Danny Mills would get a hard time when he came back but we’re quite happy now to cheer him to the rafters.
There’s just something that still sticks in the throat about JFH. He was the signing that was going to get the best out of Darren Bent, they guy that would give us the craft that had been missing. It isn’t necessary to go over what we actually got: an unfit, load-mouth waste of space. He stirred himself to score against Chelsea and Middlesboro. If it hadn’t been for him and Marcus Bent we would have brought in someone else. Whoever that might have been he couldn’t have done a worse job for us.
It’s not as if Jimmy has shown any contrition (if he had any sense he would expect a very rough ride on Saturday and perhaps say something in advance about sometimes moves just not working out for both parties etc). In one of the Championship highlights early this season on Cardiff he was talking about strikers sometimes only being rated on what they did in their most recent season. Damn right they should be. If you score on Saturday please don’t expect a repeat of the polite applause that you got at Stamford Bridge. If there’s any justice Jimmy you’ll just play your normal game. That’ll be bad enough for us.
Had a glance through one of the Cardiff supporters’ sites just to see if they are disgusted with him yet. Seems not yet. Complaints seem to focus on the drawbacks of playing Fowler and Hasselbaink together rather than the latter’s inability to run. The impression was that there is something of a crisis going on at Cardiff, with many fans calling for Dave Jones to be sacked and with Ridsdale locked in a legal dispute over the financing of the club. It looks very much like a case of disappointed expectations with discontent growing, not surprisingly, following a failure to beat even Palace.
That said, Cardiff’s away form isn’t bad, with two wins and three draws out of six. They’ve scored more (10) away in fewer games. But the two away wins came early in the season, against QPR and Norwich, and in the last four they’ve lost one and drawn three. It looks to me like a game in which if we score first (something we failed to do in the three lost recently) we should go on to win.
Two away wins in a row and suddenly we do have something in common with our last promotion season. More points secured away than at home. But Pardew must have some selection problems. Presumably Semedo will come back in for Racon, but the big decision is whether playing one up front is acceptable at home. Given available resources I think it has to be, assuming all are fit. Having finally put one in the net with his head Big Chris must be feeling good having repeated the experience last night. Varney has played his part. But the facts are that one up front allows us to play Reid inside without being overrun and with only three first-choice strikers 4-4-2 means our only option being to bring on McLeod.
On the subject of options, the BBC reported Gillingham manager Mark Stimson as being ‘full of praise’ for the in-form Chris Dickson after the forward's goalscoring display in the draw with Doncaster. “Chris has got natural talent, a natural talent to put the ball in back of the net and he scored a great goal," Stimson said. "He is a very good athlete, he causes defenders problems with his style. He has now scored five goals in six games and when you have somebody on form like that, you have to play him."
This does sound a little strange from a manager who recently was pleading with Pardew to allow Dickson to stay. I would have expected more of the ‘he needs the games and the experience’ line. I know the standard’s different, but without Todorov we need another forward. Either it’s a loan signing, or the chequebook comes out in January, or Dickson comes back after his loan and gets a chance, presumably at least at first on the bench as a late impact player.
Saturday, 3 November 2007
Ave Maria
New York Addick may have had a much better claim to responsibility for recent form, but ain't nobody going to deny me the credit for the (massive) victory. I had cooked the blanquette de veau for Suzanne, we ate while watching the scores with the radio on. She took the last mouthful and commented that "yes, it was as good as cooked by my favourite grandmother Maria". At that moment BBC announced a goal at St Mary's. Need I say more.
Doesn't take much to make us happy does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)