Three Men Go To Venice @9pm Tuesdays- BBC2- 8 out of 10

On BBC 2 every so often, a show is broadcast that features three middle-aged men fart arsing about, doing silly things, taking on challenges and praising the merits of a type of motorised transport. This is a show that runs along very similar lines.

The 'Three Men' series is a lot like a more refined version of Top Gear with less shouting and less casual racism. The three middle aged men who star are Dara O'Briain of 'present-of-every-other-show-on-TV' fame, Rory McGrath of 'being-more-cultured-than-he-lets-on' fame and Griff Rhys-Jones of 'don't-mention-Monty-bloody-Python' fame.

In previous episodes, they have punted up the River Thames, explored Ireland through its rivers and canals, sailed around the East of England in Jones' yacht, taken in the Western Isles of Scotland and travelled to the furthest Western point on the British Isles via the Isles of Scilly.

This time around, the triumvirate are going from the Balkans to Venice to compete in a gondola race. On the way, they go on some boats varying from ferries to yachts to converted oil tankers, do some deep-sea diving, travel in a plane, race some gondolas, take part in some cringey middle-aged man flirting (very Top Gear) and take in some heartbreakingly beautiful scenery that makes you look around your surroundings and feel about as annoyed as seeing an ex with someone infinitely more attractive than you'll ever be.

It's a very good travel type show as you learn lots of things like the histories of various islands in Dalmatia, the sheer number of tourists that Venice gets (annually, 60 tourists for every resident of the city) and that Rory McGrath can speak just about any language in Southern Europe and drink just about everything in the world that has alcohol in it. Alcohol has played a big part in the shows in the past and this time is no different, leaving Jones as the conspicuous teetotaller once again.

Points are knocked off for excessive use of the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack (yes, the show is set on the sea, we get it) and Jones getting naked on a boat with just a bag of nuts to cover his man place.

Next time, the show is off to Somalia for "Three Men go to Mogadishu" where the jovial mood of the show will be difficult to keep up.

Andrew Marr’s Megacities @ 8pm Thursdays- BBC1- 7 out of 10

Regular readers of the TV reviewing part of this blog (all two of them) will know that I have something of a soft spot for Andrew Marr, despite the whole super injunction business, and a major soft spot for anything related with statistics and facts. I like them both because they make me feel smart.

Marr's latest series involves travelling to the world's 'megacities', those metropolises with more than 10 million people in them (there are 21 to put a number on it) and exploring how life works and how stuff happens in them. The latest episode was about safety and security from natural disasters and man made threats and the solutions we have come up with to combat them. Though when these two threats combine we are really stuffed; how do you combat a rioting mudslide for example?

Marr focuses on three cities mainly in this episode, these being Mexico City, London and Tokyo. Three cities, three contrasting sets of problems from kidnapping and murder to terrorism and earthquakes. In each city, the ways in which humans take on these problems are explored and practical demonstrations are given, like in a multi-cultural school of hard knocks.

Out in Mexico City, a place 500 kidnaps occur a month and where people are plucked from the streets or their cars, a couple of men have made money out of the whole thing and they are not kidnappers. First of all, an American fellow called Tom (ex-military so you can guess what he looks like) and some Mexican men with guns who unconvincingly act like kidnappers have set up an evasive driving school. Cue Marr learning the tricks of the trade like ramming a kidnappers car and if that fails, ram it some more.

Next up is a tailor specialising in clothing that looks normal but is, in fact, bullet proof. To prove it, he sticks one of his workers in a jacket and shoots him. Customer satisfaction is probably not an issue in his business. If the item of clothing fails, the chances of the victim/customer wanting a refund are pretty unlikely.

Onwards to London, where Marr becomes the most out of place man in the world whilst training in the ultra masculine field of riot policing. Although as it turns out, all the equipment makes anyone look big and 'ard (probably not me though). Later on, he joins an Urban Search & Rescue team on one of their training exercises. The Urban Search & Rescue team consist of some men and their dogs as it turns out, though they're very well trained I'm sure.

Finally, to Tokyo where an earthquake simulation machine is Marr's next challenge. The machine which will be familiar to anyone who watched Takeshi's Castle in the past, just a little bit more high tech. He then goes to a huge underground water storage facility designed if a typhoon strikes. The chamber resembles the Grand Hall in the Mines of Moria in The Lord of the Rings. More facts are stated about how GIGANTIC the whole thing is.

All in all, it's basically Andrew Marr takes on a serious of challenges in some cities with some facts thrown in for good measure which is nice enough but the overall point is that human beings haven't really changed; our riot control is the same as the Roman legions techniques, Mexican wrestling crowds are like the masses at the gladiator fights at the Coliseum and the architectural skills behind Tokyo's Sky Tree being exactly the same as the building ideas behind temples that are 1000 years old.

Next week on the show, lots of shit cos it's about transport in cities and the waste the urban inhabitants produce, including Marr rooting through a bin for some Pepsi and a man in an old scuba suit lowering himself into some dodgy looking liquids. Tune in.

Life in Footballing Limbo

If I could have back the hours I have spent trawling through the free transfer market on various ‘Football/Championship Manager’ type games, I would have enough time to read the works of Tolstoy, build a shed AND post regularly on this website.

Such was the joys of finding a big-name player or a hidden gem for a perfectly reasonable price of zero pounds and zero pence, time gradually slipped away and day turned to night whilst one perused the offerings.

In a similar way, real managers are doing the exact same thing now and like so many things in life, the Internet has changed how the process is done.

I imagine the old way of knowing which players were on free transfers would either be agents marketing their clients to managers or the PFA creating one big list which would be sent to managers up and down the country for them to browse and make enquiries from there.

However, nowadays, the PFA offers one big list of all the free transfers that are available and wannabe managers like you and I can have a root around and see what we can find (the list can be found here). The list includes all the details you could possibly want from the player’s position, his height and weight, his D.O.B and so on.

The list in itself is a treasure trove of half forgotten names and vague memories. For example, your team could pick up one-time Bristol City cult hero Adriano Basso. Or maybe “striker” Jérémie Aliadière, all 14 goals in 10 years of him. Or ex-“next-big-thing” Giles Barnes who is only 22 remarkably. Or the journeyman’s journeyman; Marcus Bent (released by Birmingham for those who lost tabs on his whereabouts). Or people’s champion Lee Bowyer. And that’s just the ‘A’s and ‘B’s of the list!

More players you may have heard of further down the list include John Carew, Pascal Chimbonda, Michael Brown, Pablo Counago, Sol Campbell, Kieron Dyer, Nathan Ellington, Jason Euell, Abdoulaye Faye, Daniel Gabbidon, Anthony Gardner, Eidur Gudjohnsen, Marcus Hahnemann, Marlon Harewood. To be honest, I’ve only reached the ‘H’s and I’m not going to list anymore as it is getting a little boring.

The great thing about the list is you can actually make enquires about players which leaves endless scope for pranks; making an approach to Kieron Dyer from the British Medical Association perhaps?

As fun as it is to get some cheap laughs out of some out of work millionaires (and boy, it sure is fun), the other side of the issue is slightly less fun. The list is largely populated by either Academy cast-offs, deemed not good enough for the clubs, or ageing lower league players who are trying to cling on to their professional careers.

These players probably are not rich and do not know much about how the world operates outside of football. If they fail to find a club (and with the financial situation as it is lower down the league pyramid, that is a distinct possibility), these players may have to go semi-professional or drop out of the game entirely to support themselves and their families. These players probably do not have agents and rely on the work of the PFA to find them a new club and a new beginning.

Whilst players that are bombed out at the higher level (such as Thomas Cruise from Arsenal) will more than likely find another club, players like veteran Guy Branston or 19-year old Sean Geddes, released by clubs lower down the leagues, will find it harder as they are competing for fewer spots as a professional at a football club.

Just another day in the cut-throat world of football really.

This post appeared over at www.footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/

Reading season in review

Way back in August 2010, when Ryan Giggs was doing what he does in the privacy of not his own bed, Osama Bin Laden wasn’t hanging out with Spongebob Squarepants and Adam Johnson was the saviour of the England team, something depressingly predictable happened; Reading sold their star player.

With the departure of Gylfi Sigurdsson for a fee of around £6.5 million, a 20-goal a season gap needed plugging. The answer, of course, was to sign a 32-year old left back from League One for around 75 grand and hope someone else will step up to the goal scoring plate. Which is pretty much exactly what happened, in retrospect.

Essentially, Reading’s season can be broken down into thirds. The first third, in the wake of the loss of Sigurdsson, Reading were decidedly average as the management team looked for a new way to play as 4-5-1 without the Icelandic midfielder wasn’t going to work as we possessed no other player that had the talent to play in the hole. This period was characterised by uninspiring performances against the likes of Scunthorpe, a threadbare Portsmouth side and Middlesbrough.

The second third saw the team develop into a combination of great entertainers and draw specialists as the best starting XI began to take shape and Shane Long started to find his scoring boots. Superb performances such as the 4-0 win away to Burnley and the 4-1 win at home to Bristol City were mixed with roller coaster matches at the Madejski against Doncaster (4-3) and Norwich (3-3) contrasted with scoreless draws with Leeds and Coventry and a creeping fear that this team lacked the killer edge to challenge at the top of the league.

The final third of the season saw Reading become the most in form team in the league with just one defeat in the last 20 games (OK, they aren’t identically sized thirds), including eight wins on the bounce in March and April which saw us rocket into the play-off places with an outside chance of automatic promotion being reached. Whilst no opposition was really torn apart, the competency and professionalism of the performances were a sight to behold as was the power of Long, Noel Hunt, Jimmy Kebe and Jobi McAnuff to change games.

Ultimately, the play-offs ended in heartbreak, yet a-bloody-gain, but when putting the season in context, we have probably overachieved given the fact the club is now a selling club that has to pawn off its better players to survive, which will probably happen this summer too. A 5^th place finish is not to be sniffed at, particularly on our budget whilst the continuing blooding of Academy youngsters into the first team is a sight to warm all fans’ hearts.

The team ethic of Reading is important to our relative success and has been for about 5 or 6 years but there are still stand out players. Long, with his 25 goals in all competitions, grabs the headlines and rightly so as he has all the attributes to be a top striker; pace, strength, a good jump, an eye for goal and the stamina to chase and harry for 90 minutes.

However, other players are in need of a mention. Kebe for being one of the most terrifying wingers in the league and being nigh on unplayable on his day (that day being Leicester at home in April). Mikele Leigertwood for strengthening the midfield and launching us on our superb second half of the season form. Ian Harte and Andy Griffin for providing shed loads of experience in a backline that was constantly changing throughout the year and the former for his threat for set pieces. Matt Mills, not everyone’s cup of tea, but somewhere inside him lurks a top drawer defender as his performance at Everton showed. Jem Karacan coming on leaps and bounds this year, probably aided by the presence of Leigertwood next to him, and showing his potential to be a very good box-to-box midfielder with an eye for goal.

However, despite the relative succes, the argument rages about the long term aims of the club; are we doing all we can to get to the Premier League or content to be a challenger in the Championship, balancing the books and hoping to get the best out of what we have for the foreseeable future? The summer’s comings and goings will go a long way to answering that but to take this season in isolation, one can’t complain with an appearance at Wembley and a FA cup quarter-final.

This post appeared over at footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/

First and (for reasons that will become clear) last double review: Kings Speech and Black Swan- 9 out of 10

Attempting to compare and review two films as different as one about a 20^th century monarch overcoming a speech impediment and growing into an inspirational leader and another film about the mental disintegration of a ballet dancer is tricky. It's a bit like sewing together and comparing the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra at the Portsmouth Guildhall and a Motorhead gig down the road at the Pyramids; completely different audiences, completely different talents, completely different expectations and so on.

However, these two films were both nominated for tonnes of awards earlier this year (and won a ton too) so they have a point of comparison; how good are they and which one is better. In answer to the first question, obviously, if you are put forward for the 'Best Film' category at every awards ceremony from the Academy Awards to the Guildford Film Lover's awards, the film(s) must be pretty damn good.

As a point of reference, earlier this year in the same week, I watched two other 'Best Film' nominees in Inception and The Social Network. I loved them both; the former for the innovative story (yes, I'm a simpleton) and the latter for the wonderful performances from Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield. However, these two (which again I watched on the same day, maybe I'll see True Grit and The Fighter next time) and this pair absolutely knock those two of the park for quality.

First up, The King's Speech. Pretty much every possible angle of praise that is conceivable has been used for this film and rightly so. Before this film, I was already in love with the work of Tom Hooper and this just cemented that love (not an obsession, I swears!). The storyline is wonderfully laid out, the acting superb in particular Geoffrey Rush and that other bloke (though I can't really see why Helena Bonham Carter was so feted for her role as it was far too stiff for me) and the biggest bug bear of mine, historical accuracy, is remarkably good.

Onto Black Swan. Whilst the first 15 minutes left me sceptical due to the slow, plodding progress of the plot and the tracking camera angles which left me feeling a bit disorientated and sick, I soon became completely engrossed in the movie. The use of cameras that focussed on faces and tracking movement rather than a fixed vantage point helped create a feeling of intimacy which brought the story to life as it framed the isolation the character of Nina felt.

Essentially, this comparison can be boiled down to a straight out fight between Colin Firth and Natalie Portman. The result? Dead heat. Both are stunning in their respective roles. Firth's portrayal of a stammerer is perfect as you can see the words get caught in his throat as he attempts to speak and the pain this, and the pressure he is under, is clear. Meanwhile, Portman displays the descent into madness brought about by the pressure of being forced into being two different beings is frightening intense and powerful.

Overall, I just prefer Black Swan for reasons I can't quite put my finger on (cue people saying that cos I'm a bloke there is only one reason). I think I prefer the atmospheric and intimate nature of the film and just enjoy the exploration of a mental breakdown and the metaphor that runs the length of the film regarding the nature of people. Which isn't to say The Kings Speech isn't very, very good either. One second thoughts, it's like comparing a Galaxy Ripple and a lasagne, both are pretty damn great in their own ways depending on your tastes.

The Debate- The Simpsons VS South Park VS Family Guy

The year is 1989 and revolutions are taking place in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and in the world of television; Matt Groening is about to change animation forever and this revolution will be broadcast etc.

Up until this point, all successful TV animations were aimed at children. Think The Jetsons, The Flintstones, The Looney Tunes and various Hanna-Barbara classics. The Simpsons would be the trail blazer for the animation aimed more at adults with its own brand of political and social messages.

In the twenty-two years since, the genre has exploded. We’ve had Dilbert, The PJs, Futurama, American Dad!, Beavis and Butt-head, King of the Hill to name but six. But, in terms of longevity, The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy are the real success stories. So, which one is best?

If we are going on pure quality of output for the longest amount of time, The Simpsons wins hands down. It has been one of the smartest shows on TV, consistently, for over 20 years now and is, arguably, the greatest cultural product television has produced. Its characters are recognisable from LA to London, Bangkok to Basra. The quality of guest-star voice acting talent it has attracted (itself an innovation in animation) is without equal.

However, unquestionably, it has peaked and said peak was well over a decade ago now, probably between seasons 8 and 12, although it has been experiencing something of a renaissance in the last couple of years. In this time, Family Guy and South Park have certainly been funnier and, in the latter case anyway, far cleverer and satirical.

South Park, for my money, started out as a very immature show that was over-reliant on swearing and fart jokes, the stigma from which, it suffered from unfairly for a number of years. From around Season 7, the show seemed to grow up immeasurably; tackling key socio-political topics (from Scientology to sex-ed at schools), successfully satirising them whilst keeping the guilty-pleasure toilet humour.

At the other end of the spectrum (as tackled in a Season 10 episode of South Park) Family Guy does not tend to take on the social commentator role that it’s two rivals do, preferring to go for straight comedy. When it works, it is absolutely glorious, as in evidence from Season 3 to 5 when the show was, by far and away, the funniest of the three shows. However, when it doesn’t work (and, in this observers opinion, it hasn’t worked for three years or so now) it becomes something of a chore to watch. It is arguable that American Dad! has overtaken it in quality in recent years.

Clearly, 500 words is nowhere near enough space to do justice to the relative merits of each of these three very good TV shows (5000 words probably isn’t enough) but a decision must be made else this exercise has been a waste of yours and mine time.

Verdict: For longevity, originality and as it is the only one of the three which I would happily watch any episode of, The Simpsons wins with South Park running a close second and Family Guy lagging behind. As a final thought however, three years ago, I probably would have ranked The Simpsons in last with South Park topping the list; amazing how quickly perspectives can change.

This article also appeared in Issue 56 of Pugwash News

FA still just playing the game

Back in November last year, the Sunday Times and the BBC’s Panorama made allegations of corruption against certain members of FIFA ExCo committee; the power holders in the world of football governance.

In an attempt to smooth over the perceived damage the reports had done (though, in retrospect, the horse had long since bolted), the FA condemned the journalists’ responsible for these allegations, stating their belief that the leading officials of FIFA were clean and the organisation was corruption free.

It’s amazing what a slight as big as the rejection of your World Cup bid can do to your beliefs and ethical standpoint.

The FA are now compiling their own report on the alleged corruption at FIFA (in particular, four members of the ExCo committee) which the former FA Chairman Lord Triesman made at a government Select Committee hearing last month.

One of the allegations made by Lord Triesman refers to a request from the lovable, all-round nice head of CONCACAF, Jack Warner, where he asked for £2.5 million to build a school. This request was made in May 2009, a full 18 months before the World Cup hosts were announced.

If alarm bells were raised at this point of the lack of transparency in the bidding system, then they must surely have been cleared up by the time the investigative journalists from the BBC and The Sunday Times made their allegations, no?

Furthermore, in some sort of statement against the world footballing authority, the FA is to abstain from the election for the next President of FIFA (despite the allegations, still to be held on Wednesday, ridiculously). Surely, if you plan to make a stand against a body you feel is corrupt; abstaining is not the correct way to go about it. Backing an anti-corruption candidate, such as the US sports journalist Grant Wahl’s campaign, would have been a better option to back if the FA wanted to invoke the moral high ground defence.

Despite the report being filed by the FA against FIFA, the English national body are still seeking to make sure (by abstaining) that whoever wins the election, they still have some say in the corridors of power, especially now that both candidates have allegations against them. It’s a simple case of saying to the winner “Well, we didn’t support the other guy, we’re still YOUR friend.”

Rather than making a genuine stand against the corruption they feel is there, they are still dancing along to FIFA’s tune. Rather than standing up and leading the fight to expel the corrupt (allegedly!) members of the ExCo committee, they are merely sidestepping the real issue. All in the name of self-preservation and to further their own cause, whilst also neatly trying to avoid scrutiny into their own affairs about why they were aware of ExCo members being “buyable” but still dismissing the allegations made by the Panorama documentary and ploughing on regardless with an £18 million doomed bid campaign.

Perhaps they would make themselves pariahs for the cause and this would leave them even more friendless in the world of football politics but the chance is there to make a real stand. Instead, we are left with a half-arsed, halfway house response, designed with the FA’s own interests in mind at both national and international level, which leaves real football people disaffected and disillusioned. Just like in November last year, the FA is leaving football high and dry in an attempt to look after itself and its position in a not dissimilar fashion to the people they are filing their corruption allegations against.

Elsewhere, after waiting a fortnight (presumably for the whole thing to blow over a bit), the FA-appointed regulatory commission has released its 86-page report into the Alejandro Faurlin case, which you can read here if you want some Sunday reading. Remember, the club were fined £875,000 for its role in the affair.

Essentially, the club was found not guilty of the most serious charge; of playing Faurlin for 18 months up until November 2010 whilst he was under the ownership of a third-party, a company called TYP. The commission found that an agreement was made between QPR and TYP for the latter to suspend their ownership rights throughout Faurlin’s first contract with QPR.

This is the charge with which QPR were found guilty of; failing to inform the FA of this agreement which the commission found gave the club a sporting advantage as it allowed them to observe whether Faurlin was good enough to play in the Championship before signing him outright.

 This is where £800,000 of the fine comes from as it was the difference between the amount the club would have paid for him at the beginning of his contract (£200,000) and the amount he was worth once he had proven himself (£1 million) and how much QPR paid for him in November 2010 when his contract was renewed. The other £75,000 of the fine came from using an agent who was FIFA registered, but not authorised by the FA at the time.

The club were found to be acting in good faith towards the FA and it was deemed that a player such as Faurlin does not have the outstanding ability to dramatically improve a team’s performance.

What is strange is the club’s decision to say they originally signed Faurlin for £3.5 million when he first joined, a move the commission describes as either a “lie” or a “puff” to excite fans.

All in all, not the most shocking of outcomes but still an interesting insight in to how club’s operate with third-parties, particularly in South American football.

This article also appeared over at www.footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/

Why Barca aren’t for me

Securing a third Champions League title in six years to go with five La Liga championships and numerous other trophies is certainly cause enough to dub Barcelona one of the all-time great club sides.

The quality and beauty of their style of play is indeed, a wonder to behold. They are so much better than anyone else in European football right now it is almost laughable. The magic of Messi, the ingenuity of Iniesta, the power of Puyol, the passion of Pique, the verve of Villa, the athleticism of Alves, the of Xavi. They are simply incredible.

If you are a football lover, then you cannot help but admire them. Despite the play acting and diving that they partake in, the sheer entertainment value of their play is wonderful as is the success it brings. They are a tactical evolution in football; bringing together a solid backline and a scintillating attack into one wonderful package with the added bonus of the majority of their players being trained at the club’s youth academy, La Mesia, steeping these players in the ethos of Barcelona football.

However, it is when people bring in the argument that Barcelona are something wonderfully fresh and different as an institution that gets my goat.

At this point, it is probably best to differentiate between the club and the team of Barcelona. The team represents everything to do with the playing side of Barcelona; the players, the manager, the coaches and so on. This side of it, I have no problem with at all. Indeed, quite the opposite; I adore the footballing ideology.

The club, on the other hand, represents everything above that; the president, the chief executive, the marketing men and so on. Here is where my problem with the arguments of Barcelona lovers starts.

Barcelona tend to be portrayed as an antidote to the corporate football in which we live in these days; a symbol of the days when footballers and their communities had a sacred bond and the 11 men on the pitch represented escapism for the masses of the classes in the crowd.

This is multiplied when you take into consideration the unique geopolitical aspect of Spanish culture; the rivalry between Castilian Madrid and Catalan Barcelona and the historical aspect of the civil war and Franco’s quelling of Catalan and Basque nationalism. Out of this, came the ‘Mes que un club’ philosophy of Barcelona as they became an outlet for opposition to the regime of the Generalissimo.

All well and good and something I rather enjoy as a football romantic, the history of a club and a community wrapped up together.

However, it is my opinion that this philosophy has been bastardised and adopted, given new clothes and been rebranded as the anti-corporate, almost left wing side of football, sticking it to the financial man that runs Real Madrid, Chelsea and AC Milan.

For starters, going out and splashing the best part of 80 million Euros on Zlatan Ibrahimovic, deciding it wasn’t working and then spending another 34 million Euros the next summer on David Villa can only be described as beating Real Madrid at their own game. Even the historic decision to finally sell the front of their shirts for sponsorship shows this capitalism creep; charging a charity $170 million over 5 years smacks of corporate capitalism to me.

Secondly, the dirty politics that characterises football is in evidence at Barca as much as it is elsewhere. That’s the role fan ownership plays; you get wannabe presidents coming along, promising the sun and making dirty deals. It’s as much of the Barcelona model as it is the Real Madrid model.

Lastly, whilst Barcelona are wrapped up in the history of their city as much as any other club, no other club markets that fact quite as much in an effort to sell themselves. Sadly, a once poignant message has been taking over by the marketing men.

So, by all means, talk to me about the wonderful football Barcelona bring to the table, but leave the ‘Mes que un club’ bullshit at the door, please. The football of Barcelona is something different and a joy to behold but above that, they are the same as any other club. The historic philosophy, for this observer, is just another marketing tool now.