Richard Hammond’s Journey to…@ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC1- 7 out of 10

First things, first, technically the name of the show isn't correct as Richard Hammond doesn’t actually journey to the bottom of the ocean, merely to a couple of hundred feet. I say merely, it’s probably about a couple of hundred feet further down than I’ll ever go seeing as my record is six feet at a beach by which time my head was submerged so I aborted, retreated to the beach and had a beer.

Anyway, there is a good reason he does not go down to the bottom of the ocean as only two men ever have been to deepest point on Earth (the Marianas Trench in the Western Pacific, 7 miles down as you asked). That’s ten less than the number of people to stand on the surface of the moon, for the record.

Perhaps the show should have been called “Richard Hammond hits you with some super-awesome CGI that will knock you for six” as that is basically what happens. In a big huge hangar somewhere is a big huge computer-generated Planet Earth. And a cherry picker, for some reason. From his cherry picker vantage point, Hammond can play God and God he does play. Drain all the water from the face of the Earth? No problem. Although he still interchanges between metric and imperial measurements and calls the Earth “The Earth Machine” for some reason. Perhaps I missed the memo on the rebranding of the Earth.

The content of the show is largely drawn from the chapter on the oceans from Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” which makes it both very interesting but also slightly well worn.

However, the addition of the graphics is welcome as it presents the information in an engaging and accessible way. This is combined with some wonderfully put together ‘classic’ documentary skills such as beautiful camera work (particularly of underground geysers and burning sulphur inside volcanoes) and interviews with one of the men who has reached the deepest point on Earth and the people who fix broken Internet cables on the ocean floor.

What is striking about the programme is the amount we still do not know about this area of our planet. Each trip to the bottom of the ocean using machines ends with half of the animals encountered being new to human scientific knowledge. The fact that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which forms a chain volcanoes and mountains 44,000 miles long, is one of the most active geological features in the Solar System begs more research to be done.

However, like the curtailing of the NASA missions, money is a problem when it comes to areas of discovery like this which is a crying shame.

Overall, despite the depressing but pointless apocalyptic ending thought (if it can’t happen, why show it?!) this is a very engaging and informative way to spend an hour. If not, gaze in wonder at Richard Hammond and his ongoing battle on the side of continuity errors. His hair changes from mid-life crisis long in some of his shows to short and vaguely sensible in others. Hell, even in this show it’s all over the place, changing dramatically from scenes shot on location to scenes short in the hangar. Really, check it out.

The Hour @ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC2- 8 out of 10

What are the two best things in the world? Not the two best individual things in the world cos sex and a toastie doesn’t really work together, let’s be honest here. The crumbs would get everywhere meaning the clean-up process would be a nightmare and what would you start with? Would you make the toastie first thus meaning that it would be cold once foreplay is completed? Or would you commence the sexual warm-ups and then take a break to make the toastie resulting in either loss of wood or forgetting the toastie making altogether? Such a conundrum.

Anyway, I digress. What I mean to say when I ask what are the two best things in the world is what two things, with their own relative individual merits, combine to make something truly awesome? For my money, it’s period journalism and conspiracy theories. Hells yes, I am a nerd. This brings me neatly on to the BBC’s latest drama attempt; ‘The Hour’.

For the unaware, ‘The Hour’ takes a dramatised look at the creation of a new BBC current affairs TV programme, and with it the dawning of the golden age of British TV journalism, in 1956 with a subplot involving intrigue and conspiracy and murder and general murky stuff presumably the fault of Russian spies. It is 1956 after all so the Russians are the go-to villains and scapegoats should something bad happen (the Muslims of today pretty much).

As dramas and conspiracy theories are a bad combination due to the overlap between fiction and reality, what follows is a short description of the plot of the show laying out what is real and what is fiction, just in case things need clarifying.

Basically, the show follows Freddie Lyon (fictional), played by Ben Whimshaw (real), a BBC current affairs journalist who, along with his long-time friend and target of his love (real/fictional), Bel Rowely (fictional), played by Romola Garat (real), are chosen to head up a new BBC (real) current affairs show based on real issues, called the “The Hour” (fictional). The show would showcase important news like the upcoming Suez Crisis (real) and the possibility of John F Kennedy being chosen as a running mate for Dwight Eisenhower (real), rather than the contemporary current affairs generally regarding the “outing” of young heiresses. Meanwhile, Lyons (fictional, remember) uncovers a sinister plot (fictional) involving the murder of a (fictional) academic on the London Underground (real), a murdered heiress (fictional, probably) and a man in a hat (fictiona/real) that arouses all kinds of suspicion as in a world where many people wear hats, a bowler hat stands out as evil. Further meanwhile, Lyon’s love for Rowley (and vice versa) cannot be expressed due to their own high-mindedness and history of friendship. This situation is compounded with the arrival of suave older gentleman Hector Madden (fictional) (Dominic West, real) as the anchor of “The Hour” to flirt lots with Rowley despite having the constraint of a marriage but hey, it’s the 50s, post-war laissez-faire-ism is all the rage baby. “We’re the greatest generation ever and we do what we wanna do.” was probably their catchphrase.

Played up as the British “Mad Men”, “The Hour” is something completely different. It is its own show. Yes, the casual alcoholism and the excessive smoking  and the casting of a curvy lead woman in figure-hugging dresses and the sexism (a woman producing a current affairs television show?! Heaven forefend) is all present and the fact that the show is set in the same period leads to such comparisons but that is about it.

What “The Hour” is is a very impressive drama around a very important time for British journalism when (for better or for worse) the fourth estate started questioning the establishment. This is embellished in the character of Lyon who wants to chase stories that are out from the left-field like chasing up landlords who don’t admit “blacks or Irish” onto their premises. His character may well be hot-headed and temperamental and arrogant but hey, that’s journalism and that’s journalists. His summing up of why he hates Madden (hard work vs contacts to get where they are) is a terrific summing up of the class battle of the time and the portrayals of editorial battles is wonderfully enacted.

Whilst the linking of a conspiracy theory and journalism is a good mixture as one leads naturally to the other, my one concern so far is the balancing act between the two. Both story arcs are written and directed well enough so far but it will be interesting if this is carried on to such a high standard for the rest of the series.

But other than that, there is more than enough in this show for not just journalism nerds like this writer but for everyone. The cast for every role is perfect and the writing (from Abi Morgan) is as tight as any British drama around right now with the added bonus of the stunningly ironic/suitable/well-timed plotline of the relationship between the press, the police and the government (Hell, Lyon even gives a copper a few fivers in the first episode, albeit for a look at a corpse rather than anything really bad).

Overall, “The Hour” is well worth keeping up with whichever direction the plot looks to go in and if all else fails, marvel at the very 1950s stylings of just everything; the clothes, the hairstyles, the buildings, the transport and Rowley’s suspiciously looking modern watch.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- 12A- 9 out of 10

Some eras end with a blast and a bang, like the second Millennium (hell, did you see those fireworks in Sydney?!) or the career of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, now that was a blast and a bang. Some end with a whimper after many years of slow decay, like the Soviet Union, Family Guy or the career of Jim Carrey. Well, what to make of this end of an era that defined my generation?

To start out, this is a pure, stripped out action-movie. There is little tenderness or romance (apart from THAT kiss) and, aside from a few throwaway Ron Weasley quips, very little comic relief.  Hell, even Fred and George Weasley are subdued, though that maybe due to the fact they appear on screen for approximately five seconds, total, alive or dead (SPOLIER!). Thos two-hour long cinema-going experience (hype!) is one long, heavy piece of drama and action.

Because of this, it makes the film all the better as it strips out any distractions and focuses on the plot.

It gives the cast a chance to perform without having anything else to focus on and boy do they perform. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all shine, erasing their tendency to overact that appeared in the later films. But, as usual, it is the stellar supporting cast that provides the real weight with three names in particular standing out.

Helena Bonham Carter is electric as Bellatrix Lestrange, as she has been throughout the series. Not only portraying her creepy, chilling narcissism, but also the terrific scene where she plays Hermione disguised as Lestrange, bringing together the two very contrasting characters stunningly.

Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Voldemort, shoving the most amount of intensity, menace and fear into every single word that comes out of his mouth. Surely, if you are looking for an actor to play a villain, he is your man?

And Alan Rickman; as the ultimate anti-hero. Whilst not getting as much screen time as his character deserved, he dominates every scene. In particular, the series of memories explaining to Harry how he loved Lily Potter expressing the pain and grief he had for her loss. Although, it....does....at times...seem...like...he's...having a contest....with himself...to see...how long...he...can...make...a sentence...last.

Right, to the plot. At first, I was a little disappointed how quickly the plot accelerated to the Hogwarts castle and the final showdown. I felt more time could have been used building the tension but I suppose it is a part two so all the tension was built in the first ‘episode’. However, despite spending probably around 90 minutes of the film at Hogwarts, the action never let up and the film kept coming at you.

As would be expected from the Potter franchise, no expense is spared on special effects with the battle scenes truly glorious; a veritable feast for the eyes. The fear was probably to avoid looking like a The Lord of the Rings battle scene and this was avoided. Weaving together epic battle scenes with cutaways to the ongoing individual battles of other characters such as Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville and the others would have been tricky to time together and fit in but the balance is about right.

You could see that every single little detail had the utmost care devoted to it, from the make-up to make the goblin facemasks to the sets for the Lestrange vault and the Room of Requirement. If these things were done poorly, you would rightly feel annoyed by it and aspects of the film would feel out of place. However, every single detail is done so well that the whole picture fits together perfectly with no weak link in the cinematography, musical accompaniment and the whole viewing experience.

As a Potter fanatic (nerd alert), this review could be seen as biased so, for good measure, a few criticisms, mostly stemming from the fact I re-read (for probably the tenth time, also nerd alert) the book last week. The lack of exploration of the family history (and related torment) of the Dumbledore family is largely overlooked. This was an important facet in the book as it was the mystery surrounding it that made Harry doubt the path laid in front of him by Dumbledore. Understandably, however, time constraints means some things have to be cut and the film worked as a screenplay without it.

Secondly, the scene in which Voldemort kills Snape (SPOLIER!), in a somewhat grizzly manner for a 12A, happens in what appears to be the Hogwarts boathouse which makes its first appearance in either book or film. Surely the director could have used the Shrieking Shack from the third film again to correspond with the book?

Anyway, I’m not gonna go on about discrepancies between the book and the film; that would be tedious. Perhaps, once again, this is the fanatic in me but I would have liked to have seen a longer film as two hours seemed a bit on the short side. Never thought I’d say that about any film. This led to many characters getting little onscreen time leaving the deaths of periphery characters like Fred, Lupin and Tonks not as harrowing as they are in the book. Put simply, there was not enough time to develop a bond with the characters to feel the pain of their onscreen deaths.

However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. There are some truly iconic moments in this film that did justice to the series; both the books and films. The ending drew a line under the whole thing as neatly as could be deemed possible with the whole thing essentially going full circle. Which is what I shall be doing when the film comes out on DVD; going full circle and watching all the films together back to back. Come join me; we can dress up and drink Butterbeer and do awkward Voldemort hugs. It’ll be a blast.

What Dispatches Told Us

One of the failings of sport journalism, it has often been said, is its unwillingness to call to account the powers in football. This is for a number of reasons not relevant right here right now. Which is why investigations into sport (from sport journalists or otherwise) are so important as it presents concrete evidence of wrongdoing. This is what Channel 4’s Dispatches programme set out to do on Monday night.

The investigation revolved around a ‘Football Fund’ called London Nominees which was based in Thailand and was fronted by Bryan Robson, manager of the Thai national team at the time of recording.

The reporters posed as a Chinese and Indian consortium looking to take over a lower league club, take that club to the Premier League and then sell on for a big profit. The initial investment would be £15 million (with an additional £10 million to be paid later) to London Nominees who would provide expert advice and contacts within the English game through Robson and a man by the name of Joe Sim.

SIm claimed to have a close relationship with Sir Alex Ferguson who would lend players to the club the Fund would buy to help the club rocket through the leagues, thus making the turnaround time between buying and selling considerably shorter. Sim also has contacts with the current owners of Leicester City, Cardiff City and former Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra

As it transpired, London Nominees would not put in any of their own cash but were more and advisory company. Crucially, they advised that the ‘Chinese/Indian consortium) could take over more than one English league club if they wanted to; an idea also supported by Sim.

Overall, to this viewer, London Nominees appeared to view the reporters as very naïve and were exaggerating the ease with which quick money could be made out of football. For example, they stated that it would take “two to three years” to get a club from League One to the Premier League; possible but nothing in football is as set in stone as that. Furthermore, their “expertise” included singling out Sheffield Wednesday as a good club to invest in due to its huge fanbase and current league standing; an insight any football fan could tell you and not charge £25 million for.

London Nominees appeared to be a company designed to take money off naïve investors with their ‘expertise’ persuading investors how simple it is to make a quick pound in football, whilst keeping its nose out of the whole business as much as possible. Robson was keen to stress that under no circumstances should potential investors attempt to asset strip a chosen club (of its stadium etc). Not due to the club folding and the effect it has on the local community of that club but as it would not go down well “against his name”.

The programme highlighted the real problem of financial governance and regulation in football. London Nominees way of getting round the issue of not being able to own two league clubs was simple; create two special vehicle companies and loan money into each one from the fund. From this, it becomes difficult to track down where the money is coming from. As Greg Dyke, Football League Chairman put it; “it’s not difficult to track down the owners of a football club but tracking down the owners of the owners and so on” is next to impossible. When you throw in offshore ownership and the resultant lack of tax and ownership records, the job becomes more impossible still.

As Dyke observed “a loose alliance of 72 league clubs that mostly lose money cannot pursue the sources of investment.” There is simply too much money involved and too many avenues to chase down for organisations such as the FA or the Football League to make a real impression on due to financial and time restrictions. Government regulation may be the answer but where do you draw the line on government intervention into business? Sport is a different matter but as Robson said himself; “Football isn’t a sport anymore. It is a business.”

Furthermore, when potentially dodgy investors come a-knocking, it is not in the interests of football club owners to run background checks. As most clubs do not make profits, owners who can get out of the cycle by selling to new foreign owners (who think or have been told) that they can make a profit, it is in the interest of the club’s owner to sell up as soon as possible.

The most depressing thing of the whole hour-long programme? A throwaway line from Sim speaking of the need to get a PR company in after a take over as “the fan is a headache”. No business would dare say that about their customers but in football, that’s about par for the course; we are here to be exploited and let it slide.

You can follow the Layman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/Dan_Whiteway

You can watch the Dispatches investigation here

This article appeared over at http://www.footballfriendsonline.com/blogs/

Four talent shows ideas for ITV primetime

At the start of the decade, talent shows were the sole property of failing social clubs and pubs; a desperate alternative to a raffle to raise some cash to fix the roof or repair the urinal in the men’s room or to make a fully fledged ladies bathroom.

Nowadays, they are the new reality shows for TV; cheap, cheerful and clogging the airwaves of terrestrial channels like fat in the arteries of a McDonalds addict.

They come in two distinct flavours; the first features people who have appeared in the gossip pages of tabloids (no need to apply the word ‘celebrity’ here but that’s their defining feature; exaggeration; of the standing of the competitors, of the complexity of the tasks they perform, of the whiteness of the smile of everyone, all exaggerated).

The second involves ordinary people showing off their talent (or wares) to a panel of judges begging for approval with the hope of winning a prize that will further their career and give them a living in the profession. A fantastic example of how society has moved on from a time when better off people played God with the futures of desperate lower classes...

Anywho, the latest ITV creations of this format come in the forms of Penn and Teller: Fool Us and Show me the Funny which must have been pitched by the same producers who use the ‘Find and Replace’ tool on Microsoft Word a lot. Basically, the only differences are the presenters, the judges, the prize and the fact that magicians perform in the former, comedians in the latter. Similarly, BBC3 ran more shows of this kind last year where they sought to find Britain’s best young butcher or mechanic or fellatio exponent (only two of those three are true).

Using this formula, here are four more template talent shows that ITV can have, free of charge from me (not really, I’d want at this least 24 pence, a Boost bar and a Peroni-branded beer glass).

1.    1. 'Pork sword sculptors'

Judged by a panel of MPs (for the hell of it), Ross Kemp seeks to find the best sculptors of medieval weapons from meat products. The competitors have 15 minutes to make their creations, with no bug spray allowed, before the judges deduce who has the best chicken shield, turkey mace or indeed, pork sword. Winners have their products dispalyed in Reading Museum for a week before it all gets a bit smelly.

2.   2. 'I-spy'

A series of wannabe spies show off their various methods of espionage and ways of getting hold of confidential information with the aim of getting a job in the Russian secret service. It will be judged by various members of a major media corporation (executives with red, curly hair, that sort of thing) who know this area inside out but need new exponents of the arts, hosted by David Cameron who has no idea what is going in the show but his PR guy said it might get some public support back.

3.  3. 'Britain’s most incompetent'

A kind of anti-talent show where contestants attempt to do various extraordinary talents but fail magnificently for the pure entertainment value. Points are awarded for cramming in diverse acts into one performance, for example, singing and gymnastics at the same time. Judges include notables failures like John Darwin, George Bush Jnr and Kerry Katona. Winners prize; their own Youtube channel.

4.  4. 'Football bore'

Gary Lineker hosts the longest show ever recorded by man where various keepie-uppie experts from across Britain compete to who can do this act for the longest amount of time. Broadcast nonstop, the judges (consisting of Wayne Rooney, John Terry and, the brains of the panel, a banana with a crudely-drawn face on it) can do whatever they like to distract the contestants using the contents of a bag of randomly chosen products from Tesco. Fee for advertising slots in the breaks? About a quid. The winner receives some sleep and a ticket to one night with Imogen Thomas.

James May’s Things You Need to Know @ 10pm Mondays- BBC2- 4 out of 10

In life, there a lot of things you need to know to get by. Some things you learn naturally like how to walk, how to talk and that some things (fire, sharp objects, corners on cabinets and so on) hurt when you come into contact with them etc. Other important things are taught to you; how to shave, how to operate a knife and fork and how to cook meat without spending the next two days losing an awful lot of weight one way or another.

This Monday night show isn’t designed to teach you these latter essentials but things in the world that you need to know. However, a show where James May teaches you how to shave (for both men and women) or showing the effects of food poisoning would be pretty awesome in my book; the natural next step on the road to TV replacing real world parents. Perhaps another presenter would be needed for a segment on haircuts and drinks that aren’t ale.

Anywho, what this show teaches you what you need to know is stuff about how the world operates, in particular, things that are very stereotypically British to have an interest in. For example, the first episode covered the effects of alcohol on the human body and the last episode in the series covers that most British of subjects; the weather.

The format of the half-hour information overload is simplistic; lots of diagrams and pictures on a green screen, some sound effects thrown in with May providing some voiceover work and occasionally appearing in front of the green screen looking ironically like a weather man or the people that do the hand signals for the blind on late night TV.

The plus side of this style of television show making is that the production values cost less than a Tesco sandwich but the downside is that it looks like it was designed on Adobe Flash by a 15 year old.

The show may well have been informative and might have had some interesting facts but I can’t really remember any right now which probably highlights the main problem with ‘Things You Need to Know’. For simple folk like me, the amount of information crammed in means it’s hard to keep up. Although after studying the water cycle about 76 times at various times in school, I might have just zoned out through the whole thing.

Summing it all up? It filled half an hour on BBC2’s schedule, it cost about £1.26 to put together and might have taught some people some things. For fans of getting value for money for their TV licence or lovers of James May, it’s a win. For fans of high quality television, it’s less of a win.

Tis the season for speculation

June to August; the time of the year where the words “Exclusive”, “a source” and “the breaking news yellow ticker bar thing” (seriously, what is the name for that source of misinformation?) are used as liberally as fake tan at an Only Way is Essex convention. Yes folks, its transfer rumour silly season.

It’s like Christmas everyday only with a marginally higher chance of disappointment as you open up the papers or listen to Jim “Three Phones*” White tell you who your club is going to say, only to reach the end of the day with no new signings. Or worse, you’re club has signed Luis Boa Morte.

Anywho, here is your copy-and-paste guide to transfer speculation and rumour and stuff.

Basically, transfer gossip can be split down into three groups; the ‘leftfield space filler’, the ‘saga’ and the ‘plausible but pinch of salt needed’. Using examples from today’s (Friday 1^st July) papers, let’s put some these groups into context.

Firstly, the ‘leftfield space filler’; hese are the lowest of the low rumours. Often taken from an internet forum or perhaps just taken from a similar device Family Guy use to make their jokes, this rumour involves outstanding player ‘X’ to join big, rich club ‘Y’ from smaller, less rich club ‘Z’. The likes of Javier Pastore to Chelsea (The Mirror), Giuseppe Rossi to Spurs for £35m (Mirror again) and, in a slight deviation from the norm, John O’Shea to Arsenal (Mirror, once again). Insert your own joke here about the words “Big John” and “outstanding” in the same paragraph.

Chance of these deals taking place; 0-5%.

Next up, we have the ‘saga’. Pretty simple one this; long standing interest in player ‘X’ coupled with agent seeking a pay day and/or plenty of club sources for quotes to rock the boat equals plenty of column inches. In to this category come your Cesc Fabregas to Barcelona rumours, your Charlie Adam to Liverpool gossip, your Alexis Sanchez to any club with a chequebook in Europe hearsay, your Gary Cahill and Gervinho to Arsenal speculation and so on.

Chances of these deals taking place; 35-50% just don’t hold your breath until they are actually confirmed.

Lastly, we have your ‘plausibles’ which combine a little bit of the previous two groups as they have something of the drawn at random element to them but they can also envisaged happening. For example, Fernando Llorente to Spurs (Mirror) as *cliché alert* Harry Redknapp likes a deal and likes a striker even more. Or Steve Bruce signing Wes Brown for Sunderland (Mail) or Charles N’Zogbia to Aston Villa.

Chances of these deals taking place; 10-20% as they all make sense for their respective clubs to make them happen but whether they will or not remains to be seen.

In many ways, the latter are the hardest to gauge as you know they conform to the plausibility rule and are often rubber-stamped with words like “sources say” or “insiders tell us” to give them a glean of respectability.

Here however, is the rub. A source will never be named at a football club as that source may lose their job as a result of their leaks to the press and an unnamed source is about as trustworthy as those Wonga loans adverts. Furthermore, a ‘source’ may just be the teenager who works in the club store ringing up a red-top to say he saw someone who looked like James Milner strolling into Anfield. Again, not that trustworthy.

In conclusion, rather than waiting on Sky Sports News or the papers to tell you who your club is going to sign, wait until the news is on your club’s website. What to do to pass the time until then? Ring up The Sun and say you’ve spotted Titus Bramble outside The Emirates stadium.

*Interesting sidenote, White does not actually have three phones. Phones from the production team are placed on the desk to create the ‘iconic’ image. TV fakery, albeit not on the scale of that BBC one where the Queen stormed out of a room or the one where that guy landed on the Moon.

Sport and society; Wembley and Lords

Anyone who questions the importance of sport and doubts its relevance to life as a whole is a person sorely lacking in perception and would also be in desperate need of a healthy dose of reality. Whether one likes sport or not is neither here nor there; the simple fact is that sport can both be a form of escapism but also a confirmation of ideas found outside the arena.

Sport as a representation in miniature of one’s character in life is a whole is a well worn subject, as is the socio-cultural impact of sport. However, this was all brought into sharper focus for me yesterday. What caused this dawning realisation? My very first live experience of cricket.

Having watched the sport on television for many years (the Karachi Test of 2001 with England sneaking a victory in the darkness is my first memory), it was a great shame I had never experienced the sport at first hand before with my only previous attempt to watch a game being rained off back in April last year. The plus side being I got a free roast dinner and a beer out of it from those lovely folks at Berkshire County Cricket Club (journalistic privilege at its finest).

Anyway, as part of my 21^st birthday present, two tickets to the ODI against Sri Lanka at Lords, the home of cricket TM, were received. The tickets were in the pleb section (still 75 quid a pop!) although walking around before the match and at the interval, you could hear and see many chinless wonders dressed for a day at Ascot with “Mumma and Papa”. The class make-up was more weighted towards the upper classes though not completely.

As a seasoned football fan, coming to cricket was a huge change of pace. The lack of fan segregation and being able to drink alcohol in the stands made a huge difference to the atmosphere of the day that just would not happen at a football match. This was what got me thinking about the different societal views for differing sports.

The history of violence in football that led to the enforcement of segregation between opposing fans and a ban on alcohol on the terraces is what keeps these arrangements in place; whilst football is a more middle class spectator sport these days (for a number of factors which are not worth going into here) the fear of returning to the dark days of the 1980s remains.

For one reason or another, at football, I get very caught up in the aggression involved. Perhaps it’s the emotional investment you put into your team that’s built up for so long. Or maybe it’s the tribalism between towns and cities that ratchets up the tension. For my money, it’s the intensity of a football match where it’s all action crammed into 90 minutes of narrative that gets the adrenalin (and probably testosterone) pumping.

However, at cricket, I found myself a completely different person and fan; more sedate and relaxed and generally more jolly. For example, as the Sri Lankan batsman Dinesh Chandimal approached his century, I was willing him to get it as I felt he deserved for playing so well. To contrast, I wasn’t willing Scott Sinclair to get his hat-trick in the play-off final in May. Once Chandimal got his ton, I turned to the handful of Sri Lankan fans behind me to high five and congratulate them, again, something I wouldn’t have been able to do at Wembley (both physically due to segregation and psychologically).

As explained earlier, the intensity of a football match is so much greater than a cricket game which makes the blood boil less thus there is greater friendship between spectators. Certainly, alcohol has nothing to do with it as I certainly drank more at the cricket than I would do at any football game. This is applicable beyond personal experience too as many of the fellow supporters with me in the Mound Stand looked to be of a similar class to the average football fan and they weren’t beating the shit out of any Sri Lankan fans; on the contrary, many were happily chatting away to them (as happily as English people can be talking to strangers).

Another element is the contrasting tribalism of the two sports where one is regionally based and another is nationally based. Whilst not caring for patriotism and nationalism as a general rule, sport brings that out in me but it still hurts more when my local team lose than my national team.

But, to argue against that, I wouldn’t have been upset if Berkshire lost their MCKO semi-final yesterday (they won, for the record) which suggests the emotional investment in my football team is the dominating factor but that still didn’t stop me congratulating Swansea fans on the way back home after the Wembley defeat.

In conclusion, God knows why there is such a difference in fan culture between football and cricket; anything from emotional investment, the class make-up of the support, different kinds of tribalism, match intensity and a ton of other reasons could be to blame. But, what a lot of the reasons involve is issues linked to wider society and that is why sports matters and its relationship with wider society is one of the most interesting areas to explore.