The Winter Olympics - an 'expert's' view

Despite it basically being a collection of increasingly madcap ways of getting down a frozen hill really, really fast, the Winter Olympics are something amazing.
Tales of triumph over adversity, the very real chance of catastrophic injury for the competitors, the glory, the very real chance of catastrophic injury for the competitors, the political animosity, the very real chance of catastrophic injury for the competitors, the back stories, the very real chance of catastrophic injury, the token athletes from countries where snow has only ever been read about and the very real chance of catastrophic injury for the competitors.
But the best thing about it is, much like the summer Games, you can become an 'expert' in the sports you are watching within 20 minutes of first tuning in.
Take, for example, the slopestyle snowboarding this morning which consisted of 12 very dude-ish dudes going down a massive hill very fast on a five-foot-long piece of plastic with an American dude out dude-ing all the over dudes to take home the gold medal.
At first, you watch it and have pretty much no idea what is going on. There are "frontsides" and "bolts" and "triples" and "1260s" and lots of blond hair in a whirlwind of snow, blue sky and over-excitable commentary.
The only two vaguely normal - and so, by extension, ridiculously incongruous- things witnessed were at one stage, someone knitting at the top of the slope and most of the boarders having their gloves tied to their jackets, like Dougal in Father Ted does.
To add to the confusion, the scoring system is stupid and subjective with judges marking the dudes down for slight technical deficiencies like issues with their shoulder position or maybe a hair is out of place or their jacket wasn't baggy enough or something.
Anyway, fast forward about a dozen jumps and you find yourself saying "Oh he didn't nail the bolt-on there; that will cost him" or "That was such an awesome triple" or "What a perfect rodeo". Being British, one then gets terribly embarrased.
The other thing about being British is you buy into backing your countrymen (one of whom was second at one point and so I got that horrible hopeful feeling and another who was competing without a cruciate ligament - an item of the human body I've always considered pretty important). Given they are British and this is the Winter Olympics, one imagines they probably train by buying a Hobby Craft-ful of that fake snow stuff at Christmas time and taking a trip to their local park.
But that is all the fun of the Games - lesser-known athletes enjoying themselves on the biggest stage after four years of hard work and the audience finding out more about sports they have never seen before and perhaps getting really into them. Like we didn't with Greco-Roman wrestling and synchronized swimming at London 2012...

Man of Steel - 12A - 5 out of 10

Superhero films in the 2000s are a bit like what I imagine grunge music was like in Seattle in 1990; a boom inspired by some stand out examples of the genre followed by a whole heap of underwhelming nothingness.

Every comic book hero seems to have been rebooted this decade. Hell, there is even a Hercules film pencilled in for next year with Dwayne Johnson starring. I'll leave you to make pre-judgements on that one yourselves.

However, Man of Steel is the reboot of the big guy. The man. Superman to be exact.

As such, there automatically comes with a hope it will deliver a standout alternative from the general dredge and with Christopher Nolan on production, the expectation rises.

The film explores the formative years of Kal-El/ Clark Kent/ Superman, all-American hero, played by Jersey's own Henry Cavill, who kind of resembles George Osborne's beefed up cousin, only with less laughs.

We see how he grew up from a boy blasted to Earth from his doomed home planet Krypton by parents ultra-British Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer where he grows from a shy, retiring child afraid of his powers to a bit of a boring man with arms the size of foundry chimneys.

Dubbing him boring is of course unfair on Cavill as the role demands that despite wearing a Zorro-style cape and a suit that totally isn't spandex but might as well be spandex, some base form of dull decorum is required, a bit like a hench Spock.

Its not that he plays the character badly, on the contrary, just the character itself is so boring.

This isn't the only character issue.

Amy Adams' Lois Lane veers from intrepid, gritty reporter for the Daily Planet in the opening half hour of the film to screaming damsel in distress in quicker time than you can say “comic book style cliché".

Superman's nemesis General Zod is, however, a perfect imagining of the villain by Michael Shannon; cold, calculating, but not necessarily evil, more a victim of his own circumstances.

Man of Steel suffers from the same problem every big budget action film now has in trying to outdo the previous big budget action film by adding more carnage and explosions until it resembles a clashing of a scrapheap and a fireworks factory inside a tumble dryer.

In a similar vein, the climatic fight scene between Superman and Zod resembles the long-running joke in Family Guy of Peter Griffin fighting the Giant Chicken in the sense it is scripted, extended and essentially a oneupmanship contest for who could throw their opponent through the most amount of skyscrapers.

Its not only the climatic scene which is like this, its every scene in which Superman fights a fellow Kryptonian just this was the final scene, the highlight of the movie. Mix it up a little bit!

In that sense I suppose it was a suitable ending for the film given what had gone before, but rather aptly given the content, its only suitable crashing right through the other side of pointless and gratuitous.

Another similar recurring course it follows is looking into the backstory of the hero to find out what makes him fight for justice and all that malarkey (turns out its Earth-dad Kevin Costner and a love for the glorious cornfields and other assorted attractions of Kansas).

Every superhero film now makes their champion into a broody, sullen, world-weary individual – as well they should be what with all the pressure they're presumably under for being the world's go-to-guy– but Superman is historically the cheesiest of all the comic book heroes so it basically feels like painting him with an emotion brush for the pure sake of it.

And then he's still dull and a bit of a drone. Some work.

All in all, Man of Steel isn't a bad film. Its an interesting if not riveting reboot of a classic story and so given the current state of superhero films which it essentially apes, it is something of a monotone retelling of a story in a format audiences are now tired and cynical of unless it is truly remarkable. Which it isn't.

In a way, its something of a triumph as it leaves the audience wanting it to be longer to add some more emotional meat to the bones of the plot, but also desperate for it to be shorter as to have less interminable fight scenes where characters are basically used as wrecking balls in an amateur attempt at city planning.

Oh, and don't fork out for 3D. You shouldn't anyway for any film, but Man of Steel has about as much use for it as one would wearing the ridiculous glasses out in the real world.

The genesis of this season's success

I’ve just finished reading Graham Hunter’s insightful and interesting book “Barca; The Making of the Greatest Team in the World” where he takes a magnifying glass to everything at the Catalan club from the La Masia academy and the background politics to the lives and histories of key personnel like Pep Guardiola, Xavi Hernandez and Lionel Messi.

One of the key themes in the book is the huge impact that Johan Cruyff had on the club, particularly in his stint as manager in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The theory goes that the current success of the club under Guardiola’s management has its genesis in the almost complete overhaul of the Catalan club that Cruyff instigated.

The two key facets of Cruyff’s policy were the implementation of an offensive 4-3-3/3-4-3 formation on the first team with Guardiola in the pivote role and then ensuring that this formation was used at every level of the club youth development system (obligatory use of the phrase La Masia) to ensure that the best young players would be schooled to know how to play in their respective position and so slot seamlessly when they made the jump to the first team. Cruyff would go on to win a record 11 trophies at the club, including their first European Cup in 1992.

The influence on the current ‘Pep team’ is blindingly obvious as the formation and attacking intent is very similar (with Sergio Busquets performing the Guardiola role) and the number of cantera graduates coming through the system who, upon graduation to the first team, slot into their respective positions with no fuss. From Xavi and Iniesta through Messi and Busquets to the current crop of Cuenca and Tello, the fruits of Cruyff’s labours are plain to see. Guardiola has since surpassed Cruyff’s trophy record.

In between these two epochs was the success of Frank Rijkaard’s teams which took the influences of the Cruyff formation in addition to the young generation coming through (particularly Iniesta, Valdes and Messi) from La Masia. However, the Rijkaard team failed as it’s generally seen that the team lost its hunger for success; a lesson Guardiola is keen to avoid and has to a certain extent, though time will tell.

In the same way that Rijkaard and Guardiola’s success can be traced back to the seeds sown twenty years beforehand(thus creating the ‘Barcelona way’), the successful season that Reading have had can very conceivably be seen in seeds sown by Brian McDermott’s predecessors starting over a decade ago. And this isn’t just promotion giddiness talking, going and comparing Reading to Barcelona.

Whilst there has been no large scale restructuring of the club ala Cruyff, key themes and elements of this successful Reading side can be seen in the last two times we were successful in this division, with refinements and evolution over the years.

The play-off defeat of 2002/03 team of Alan Pardew, the 2005/06 Championship-winning squad of Steve Coppell and this season’s incarnation under McDermott all share distinctive similarities in their respective on-field and off-field demeanours and styles.

The playing style of each team is very similar; reliant for creativity on wingers (from John Salako and Luke Chadwick through Glen Little and Bobby Convey to Jobi McAnuff and Jimmy Kebe), hard-working almost to the point of self-sufficient strikers (Nicky Forster, Kevin Doyle, Noel Hunt, Jason Roberts) and a solid, uncompromising, ever-present base of central defence and centre midfield to launch attacks from. If there is a ‘Reading style’ of football, this is it and it has been it for the last ten years since Pardew was manager.

The teams of Coppell that failed to get promoted in 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2008/09 as well as being relegated n 2007/08 all played in this manner and, despite McDermott being absolutely right in saying that he has created three different teams in his time as Reading manager, each of them broadly played in the same manner. Each time the system was found out, it has been refined but the same basic premise remains.

The other key reason for the successes of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott, and for the interspersed failures indeed, has been the utilisation of team spirit to create a ‘greater than the sum of our parts’ playing staff. Pardew’s style was to create something of a siege mentality, Coppell’s may well have been something of an accident created by some players that really got on well mixed with success (as in evidence by the capitulation of 2007/08 and the subsequent clear loss of team spirit) whilst this season’s team looks genuinely like they get on well and are a supremely united unit as in evidence by their celebrations together but, more importantly, their socialising together all through the season. We did say that about the 2005/06 vintage mind, when finding factors to attribute their initial Premier League success to.

Lessons from the 2005/06 team to the current generation, both in terms of positives built upon and negatives learned from, can also be seen in a similar fashion to how Guardiola has learnt from Rijkaard.

The way McDermott handled the media this season by playing things down and the fallback line of “we’re just concentrating on the next game” is a carbon copy of how Coppell spoke to the press and TV throughout the 106 points season. Meanwhile, the decline of that team and the way the team spirit fell apart is something McDermott will seek to avoid when recruiting players this summer.

The fact that McDermott has been around the club for so long and picked up the best bits of each of his predecessors can be seen as instrumental to this year’s success, in addition to Nicky Hammond’s years of service to maintain stability and preserve an identity on the playing side of the club.

Sir John Madejski in his role as Chairman has a very powerful say in the direction that the club will follow and his role in this evolution should not be underplayed either. His choices of manager and his desire to run the club on a budget have had a large impact on how the three teams analysed were made and developed. But additionally, his desire to not be an overbearing Chairman has allowed the distinctive Reading manner outlined earlier to flower by giving managers the time and space to refine the system that had become stale under their predecessors. *It should be hoped that Anton Zingarevich will continue this and quotes like these give a good indication that he will.

Overall, this post isn’t about comparing Reading to Barcelona as every club enjoying success for an extended period of time (which Reading have relatively over the last ten years) can trace that success back through its ‘family tree’ to see where its roots lay and the evolution that the club has been on in that time by building on past successes and learning from failures in a stable environment.

The success of this season can be traced back through Coppell and Pardew’s team building, their style of play and their own personalities’, combined with the understated role of Hammond as a pillar of the club, all under the influence of Madejski’s stable ownership regime.

To say that this season has been the culmination of a decade-long project is wrong but the DNA this team possess has traces of Coppell, Pardew, Hammond and Madejski in it and whilst the success is hugely attributable to McDermott, his coaching staff and the playing staff, how they all got there and the way in which their success has been achieved has its roots a lot further back than the start of the season.

*Incidentally, the one manager who wasn’t given the time, Brendan Rodgers, was the one manager who seemed to attempt to branch out from the successful model of the last decade in his style of football and Madejski appeared to notice the mistake swiftly and rectify it.

"Wettest drought I've ever seen" lolz

‘Begin self-aware rant’

You may have noticed that it’s been a little bit wet these last few days. You may also have noticed that there is currently a hosepipe ban and we are in the middle of a drought that has been declared in most parts of the England.

Cue many insightful people putting the highly amusing Tweet or Facebook status along the lines of “wettest drought I’ve ever seen” implying all droughts should be accompanied by ‘mad-dogs and Englishmen’ levels of heat. Ho ho. How we all chuckled at such a pithy jest at the situation we currently find ourselves in; there is lots of rain but no water for us to use. Oh the paradox and so on.

But no, just no.

A drought is defined as an extended period of dry weather (unless it’s used in a football context when it’s just another cliché in the lexicon) and that’s exactly what we are in, despite the rather wet April we have experienced so far. A drought doesn’t have to be synonymous with heat.

The reason we are in a drought is due to “two consecutive winters of below average rainfall which has led to exceptionally low river flows and groundwater levels across much of England”, to quote this website. A higher than average amount of rainfall in one month isn’t going to sort out this problem for reasons explained below. But first, a metaphor break.

It’s a bit like pouring out a near full glass of vodka, adding a smidgeon of coke and remarking “well blow me down, this is a bit strong, I thought this was a vodka and coke” when actually what you have is just vodka really with that tiny bit of coke that isn’t going to alleviate the rather large initial problem that you have way too much vodka/not enough groundwater.

It takes a long while to refill the groundwater aquifer (go learning about the water cycle every year at school from Year 1 to Year 12), particularly when some areas of England have their lowest groundwater levels in 50 years as water does not go straight into the ground, particularly in cities where it runs off of concrete, into our drains and back into the rivers. This is even before you go into the issues of stupid privatised water companies/ the regulator Offwat losing up to 3,300,000,000 litres of water a day through leaky pipes.

The increase in rain has eased the problems but with summer coming up (where there is less rain in the other months, madly), the reason for pre-emptive decisions is pretty solid; after all, what’s a hosepipe ban now to prevent something like a flush ration (I’ve not idea if this is a real thing) later on?

So, there’s my sledgehammer taken to the walnut of an off-hand remark seen on social media sites. Move along.

‘Cease self-aware rant’

Thoughts and feelings the night after the night before

Nearly 24 hours on from the night before, promotion has just started to sink in and the memories from last night are still fresh in the mind.

What follows is a series of thoughts and emotions, some personal and some applicable to all Reading fans which are just as much to keep my memories and experiences alive for future reference as well as a typical ‘article’ on this blog.

So here goes…

The three ‘M’s

There are three people who deserved last night more than most and they all have surnames beginning with ‘M’.

Firstly, John Madejski who signed off his reign as owner of the club in fine style. He has his detractors but he has always had the best interests of the club at heart, to make us self-sufficient, to find the right investor and to keep us at a solid base level at the very least. Over the years he has grown to love this club, not as a businessman but as a fan and his joy from some pictures last night showed this.

Secondly, Jobi McAnuff was not everyone’s choice when he was appointed captain at the start of the season but he has showed just how inspirational he is. He isn’t a shouting captain but what he does is lead by example, covering every blade of grass, tracking back, providing jolts of quality here and there and being an eloquent speaker off of the field. The video going round of him and his reaction to being promoted is one of my favourites thus far. After a career spent in the Championship, he has served his time and on an individual level, has earned his promotion.

Thirdly, Brian McDermott who has built a third outstanding team at this level in two and half years at the club on a small-ish budget and having to sell his best players every summer. To bounce back from the play-off final defeat last year, to identify players like Kaspars Gorkss, Adam le Fondre, Jason Roberts and Hayden Mullins, to inspire his team, to make game-changing subs, to keep the pressure off them, he has done it all.

The whole club deserved last night but these three leaders each have their special reasons for last night.

Promotion to the top flight a second time

Nothing will ever beat getting promotion to the Premier League at Leicester back in 2006 as it was the first time we had done it but last night was damn close for a multitude of reasons.

Doing it at home and so the resultant pitch invasion is one, our game kicking off 15 minutes later the one at Ashton Gate thus giving us the knowledge of what we needed to do to make promotion a reality, the last five minutes of the game itself with the clearance off the line and Forest hitting the bar and the extraordinary run that led up to last night. Seriously, if you had said in November we would win promotion with two games to spare, you’d have been sectioned.

Atmosphere

More often than not, and rightly so, Reading fans and the Madejski Stadium gets a bad press for a lack of atmosphere and quiet home fans but last night, you could literally feel the floor shaking.

Admittedly, so it should be on a night when promotion is on the cards but the stadium really was rocking last night, particularly in the second half when the racket was unrelenting. The clap banner things were rightly neglected in the East Stand as you cannot make a solid noise with them (and the fact they’re a bit ghey) but elsewhere in the ground, they made a right din and looked good too when utilised.

It is very rare to come out of the Madejski with no voice but last night was one of those occasions.

Bus banter

Everyone has their own little stories from football that make the whole experience unique and special to them on a personal level. This is mine.

From 2004 to 2008, I had a season ticket sat next to my Dad and two of my uncles. By 2008, I had gone to university so took the decision to not renew my ticket and haven’t had the finances to do so since. Every game we went to then and every game I go to now, we get the bus from one of our local pubs.

However, I went to the game last night and I was sat close to them last night and we got onto the pitch together (and with other family members too, more on which later) before losing one of our number.

After half an hour or so on the pitch, we ambled out of the ground to find our bus back to the pub had departed without us. We marched on cheerfully to the buses back to the town centre, skipped onto one without paying (sssshhhhh) and took seats at the back of the top deck.

So ensued a superb journey to the bus station with non-stop singing of “West Ham United, it could have been you”, “we’re not going to Wembley”, “We’re the left side” and “We are going up” with a bunch of random fans I had never met before. Football has this effect of unifying people who do not know each other to make unforgettable and unique experiences for those people.

Purple Turtle

The unofficial Reading promotion party location for the third successive promotion now with Madejski and McDermott ending up there in the early hours of this morning, played the event well as the numbers built up which got the noise and singing back. One of the more unusual memories of a horde of football fans invading a decidedly alternative place is testament to the way football can cross societal boundaries, albeit as it is the one late night drinking establishment in Reading for celebrating.

Family and friends

As alluded to earlier, going to football has been a family experience for me for the vast majority of my footballing life with my companions to games usually being some combination of cousins or uncles.

Last night, sat within about a fifty metre radius of each other were myself, my cousin, my dad, three uncles, my cousin’s mate, another cousin and his daughters and when coming down the stairs to get on the pitch, I turned around to see another one of my uncles who was promptly bundled.

Sharing a massive group hug in Row BB Y26 followed by individually hugging everyone and jumping up and down and shouting was one of the best moments of the night, as was sharing the half hour or so on the pitch with them. After the whole family going through a great deal of loss and pain in the last 18 months, to have a lot of us together for a joyous moment was a wonderful moment and almost something of a closer.

To top it all off, when leaving the ground in this group, I saw a friend of mine who has moved away from Reading this season so I do not get to see often enough. Immediately upon seeing him, I ran and jumped on him and the shouting and singing started again. Another golden moment.

The team

Anyway, enough personal memories, back to the football.

Last night was another one of those team performances that has epitomised our season where we gritted our teeth and got through it through sheer force of will as a strong unit, this time for the ultimate prize.

Two moments stand out in this regard; the three players on the line to block Forest’s goalbound effort with five minutes to go showing the commitment of every single player in that team (the fact that one of those players on the line was Jimmy Kebe only adds to it).

The second moment of showcasing the team spirit of this incarnation of Reading is Jem Karacan discharging himself from the Royal Berks, still visibly worse for wear, to join in the festivities like being pushed around in his wheelchair by Noel Hunt in his underpants. He got a hug off McDermott and McAnuff, naturally as his captain and skipper, but also from Benik Afobe; a player who has only been at the club a matter of weeks but is clearly a big part of the team judging by how much he wanted to see Karacan. A clear embodiment of the team’s attitude and unity.

The club

Lastly, as has been said elsewhere “I love this club”. There is a Reading way (explained here) and the connection between the fans, the players, the management and the owners of the club are clear to see and this factor enhanced the feelings of last night, topped off by Madejski’s speech at the Turtle in the early hours.

 I’m probably biased but the way we go about things as a club is quite unique and long may it continue to bring nights like yesterday.

We are going up. And that is all that matters.

All but there

The great, but also not so great, thing about football is that it can make your weekend or make going into work the next day that little bit easier. Having an emotional investment in somebody or something does that to you as putting a bit of yourself in is the gamble and whether it pays off or not, in euphoria or disappointment, is the outcome.

With football, putting your faith and emotional investment into a team has a pretty straight forward payoff; more often than not there will be a win or a defeat that affects your mood and subsequent desirability to be around the following day or so. There are three set outcomes unlike emotional investment in a fellow person which has at least 1,145,189 different outcomes.

However, as the season wears on and some wins become more equal than others, the impact on one’s mood becomes more profound. Suffice to say, after last night’s result, work today and tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that has been and will be a lot easier to bear.

The simple reason for that is, for all intents and purposes, we are there; we are promoted to the Premier League. It does not feel right at all saying those words as anyone who has read this blog before (here, here and here are three examples) knows this blogger is naturally ultra-pessimistic and uber-cautious when it comes to anything Reading FC-related.

This probably stems from experiences such as the 2008/09 capitulation to play-off defeat, missing out on the play-offs in 2003/04 and 2004/05 after promising starts and the horrendous ‘9 draws in ten games’ closing stages of the 2001/02 season where guaranteed promotion was almost blown. The one common factor in each of these years being the incredible start followed by the pressure getting to us/other teams working us out leading to a flattering to deceive season where so much was rightly expected, followed by crushing disappointment (almost, in the case of 01/02).

This year, on the other hand, it feels…it feels different as, in keeping with every season under Brian McDermott, we’ve hit our stride as the season as worn on, not tripped over our own shoelaces.  Thus, the level of expectation hasn’t been there all season and we’ve managed to sneak up pretty much under the radar to now top the league at a time of the season that is very much our time.

But it’s not just this change of pattern in how our season has panned out that’s got this blogger feeling unnaturally and unerringly confident.

The main reason for this is the manner in which Reading have gone about their business since the start of 2012. As written about before, tight wins built on a solid defence only look really convincing when looking back at them towards the end of an ultimately successful season.

It was quite conceivable to say that Reading were a lucky team back in February when winning by the odd goal and keeping it tight at the other end. However, two months on from then and it clearly isn’t luck anymore, no matter what managers such as Nigel Adkins and Sam Allardyce say about all the goals we score being lucky. No matter what anyone says, a 46-game season evens out the impact of random chance.

The run we’ve been on since November, but from January particularly, has been built on quality, resilience, confidence, team work, determination, spirit and a plan. A plan based on a refined version of “smash-and-grab” remains a plan as it entails a strong defence (as exemplified by the best defensive record in the league) and the ability to get goals when it matters, as shown by the spread of goals across our squad which is a strength and not a weakness in the manner in which we play.

Furthermore, these last two weeks has shown that this team can take the pressure at this stage of the season. 12 points from four games against West Ham, Leeds, Brighton and Southampton is beyond any fan’s expectations and the latter two superb away wins have come with huge injury problems in the squad.

There remains a tiny seed of doubt but common sense says that the form team in the league for two thirds of the season should not blow it from a position of six points clear with nine left to play for and I have no reason to doubt common sense, despite the inbuilt pessimism garnered over the years.

This team is the most effective at gathering points remorselessly whilst sticking to a plan at this level (and arguably in the country right now) and we will get promotion this season which sounds easy to say with three games left to play and such a lead that we hold but the past’s ghosts don’t shift easily.

How good is Brian McDermott's transfer acumen?

The Reading sixteen involved away at Brighton on Tuesday night consisted of four Steve Coppell signings, two from Brendan Rodgers regime, three products of the youth system and seven Brian McDermott signings.

Due to McDermott’s long association with the club at various levels, he would be well acquainted with all of those players but with less than half being his own signings*, just how good has McDermott been in the transfer market in his time as manager of the club?

With a background in player scouting, McDermott should have a well trained eye when it comes to recognising the requisite skills he requires in a player to fill a problem position or to improve the starting XI but does the hard evidence support this theory?

Below are a list of all of the players McDermott has signed as manager or during his time as caretaker of Reading, grouped into three categories (success, failure, somewhere in between) and a sentence or two explaining why I feel they fall into that category.

Successes

Andy Griffin- signed January 2010 initially on loan but permanent deal made permanent that summer- added much needed experience to a shaky defence and provided a consistent, dependable presence

Zurab Khizanishvili- signed January 2010 initially on loan to end of the season which was made a year-long loan that summer- see above and also built a superb partnership built with Matt Mills last season that our post-January form was built on

Ian Harte- signed Summer 2010- probably initially seen as a one year solution to the left back hole vacated by Ryan Bertrand’s departure but has been just as important this season defensively and in terms of goals and assists

Mikele Leigertwood- signed on loan January 2011 until the end of the season, made permanent in Summer 2011- the turning point of our 2010/11 season and has been just as huge a presence in the centre of midfield this season

Kaspars Gorkss- signed August 2011- brought out the best in Alex Pearce to create arguably the best central defensive pairing in the division and chips in with some handy goals too

Adam le Fondre- signed August 2011- qualified success has he has yet to cement a permanent place in the starting XI but can think of three games this season off of the top of my head he has won us all three points (Watford and Milwall away, Leeds at home)

Jason Roberts- signed January 2012- in a similar fashion to Gorkss, has allowed someone else to shine (Noel Hunt in this case) and has been just as important for his experience and bringing a focal point to our attack, as well as being a focal point for a media coverage come to that

Matthew Connolly- signed January 2012- qualified success again due to his injury problems but brought in as cover for the last four months of the season and has been solid when called upon

Hayden Mullins- signed March 2012- same as above, brought in to add squad depth to see our thin squad through to the end of the year and has been capable at right back and centre midfield

Failures

Gunnar Thorvaldsson- signed January 2010 to end of the season- qualified failure as he was only on a short-term deal to provide cover and was never expected to make it long term at the club

Marcus Williams- signed Summer 2010- genuine mistake by McDermott but one that was quickly realised hence signing of Harte and offloading of Williams after one season

Matthieu Manset- signed January 2011- see above, potential seen but failure to get required fitness levels saw the striker replaced and quickly shown the door

Bongani Khumalo- signed on loan July 2011- see above again, genuine mistake that was alleviated by Gorkss signing and his hasty departure from the club

Somewhere in between/too early to tell

Ethan Gage- signed January 2011- young and on the cheap with time on his side

Erik Opashl- signed January 2011- see above

Cameron Edwards- signed May 2011- see above

Ryan Edwards- signed May 2011- see above

Joseph Mills- signed August 2011- potential is there and has a good tutor in Harte but injury problems hampered progress thus far

Cedric Basseya- signed September 2011- cheap punt that looks like being a failure but for next to no cost

Karl Sheppard- signed January 2012- young and promising striker for the future

Tomasz Cywka- signed January 2012- cheap cover signing that could still prove useful

Benik Afobe- signed March 2012- a short-term loan deal to diversify our attacking options a bit in the run in that hasn’t paid off 100% as of yet

Using crude numbers, that’s nine successes, four failures and nine somewhere in betweens which works out very favourably when the majority of the latter players are young professionals who were probably not expected to have an impact at this stage of their Reading FC careers.

There appear to be three very important points to take from this (admittedly subjective) analysis.

Firstly, McDermott’s ability to identify early on when he has made a mistake when signing a player and making moves to rectify it very quickly, as can be seen in the Williams, Manset and Khumalo signings where they were shipped off after less than a season with us and replaced with players who have paid off (Mills, to a certain extent, Roberts and Gorkss).

Secondly, McDermott’s nose for a potential short term problem developing, solving it and that problem then becoming a long term strength. As can be seen with the signings of Griffin, Harte and, in particular, Leigertwood, McDermott appears to take cheap punts on experienced players who still have something to prove to fill a gap but these players seem to become key components not only in the starting XI but around the club as a whole. It is very conceivable that given time, Gorkss and Roberts will perform a similar role as could Mullins and Connolly if they are given permanent deals. Whether the same will happen to the vast majority of players in the ‘in between’ list who were signed with a view to the future remains a key question regarding McDermott’s otherwise impeccable transfer market record.

Thirdly, the very small amount of money spent on the 22 players listed. With exact transfer fees hard to come by it is difficult to estimate how much the total cost of these signings has been but it is safe to say it is not a great deal, particularly compared to the outgoings seen at Reading the last few years.

McDermott clearly has the skill to pick out, on the cheap or loan, a player that not only has the footballing skills to improve the team but also the personal skills to contribute to the team spirit in evidence at the club during his tenure. Team spirit is the illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory, Steve Archibald famously observed and victory has been a common theme of McDermott’s reign. But the “greater than the sum of our parts” approach, to this season’s team particularly, is a key reason why we are where we are and the fact that McDermott appears to be able to identify factors in a prospective signing that would aid this spirit is crucial to his whole managerial ethos.

As mentioned earlier, it remains to be seen whether the young players McDermott has signed will prove to be as successful as their more senior pro counterparts but the fact that this doubt is the only real, conceivable blot on McDermott’s transfer record so far is testament to the skill of the man after only two and a half seasons in charge.

*this is something of a red herring due to the number of injuries we had going into the game

Does Fleetwood's impending records undermine ours?

There are a few other more important Reading FC-related things going on right now what with the promotion push, going top of the Championship for the first time in six years on Friday, away games at Brighton and Southampton this week, the continued fallout from the Leeds battle and the ongoing takeover of the club.

However, something a little lighter to alter the mood somewhat concerning our one remaining record in English football*; the most points accrued in a single season in any English professional league with the 106 points gained in the incredible 2005/06 season.

One of the common threads on internet messageboards since that season has been “106 watch” where the possible challengers to this record are ticked off one by one has the current season unfolds, leaving our record untouched once again.

This year, all of the contenders in the Football League have faded away and Premier League teams can never compete as they play eight games less in their season.

However, there remains an interesting challenger in the form of Fleetwood Town in the Blue Square Premier division who have racked up 101 points so far this season with four games remaining.

Despite games against second-placed Wrexham (second-placed but 11 points behind albeit with a game in hand) and play-off chasing Luton to come, Fleetwood should still manage to get at least two wins to go past our 106 point benchmark.

Fleetwood’s record this year is quite amazing, particularly away from home where they have picked up 56 points from a possible 66 so far and averaged nearly two and a half goals a game. Amazingly, they still haven’t guaranteed promotion as of yet due to the equally relentless form of chasing Wrexham who could also break the 100 point barrier and not even get promoted.

The wording of Reading’s record is “the most points in a single season in any English professional league” which eliminates the challenge of Fleetwood as, despite going full-time for the2010/11 season, play in a division in which all of the participants are not professional and largely semi-pro.

Furthermore, in recent seasons, there have been huge points totals accrued in the lower leagues as clubs like AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester distort the playing field at the levels they operated, despite their good intentions as institutions. I also seem to recall seeing on the Sky Sports News sidebar a few seasons ago a team with a huge points to game ratio but cannot remember for the life of me what league it was or who the team were.

Clearly, the records of these teams and Fleetwood should they break the 106 barrier does not invalidate the Reading record due to the wording but does it put an asterix next to it due to the increasingly professionalization of the Blue Square Premier division and the fact that no club (not even Crawley last season with 105 points) broke our record since the division went to 24 teams in 2006/07.

It shouldn’t do but as it is the first time a team from a league recognisable to most football fans has broken the 106 barrier since the 2005/06 season and the record has been in the conscious of Reading fans, it might feel a little bit undermined.

*Edwin van der Sar broke Steve Death’s record for the longest time without conceding a league goal a few years ago. Death retains the Football League record in this field but that does not mean he holds the record in English football

Robo-ref is no team morale builder

Another match weekend, another case of referees getting more than their fair share of the blame in key games up and down the divisions in England.

Firstly, we go to Stamford Bridge and the case of certainly one and possibly both of Chelsea’s goals in their victory over Wigan being wrongly awarded after both looked offside (according to the press, radio and TV of course), prompting usually mild-mannered Wigan boss Roberto Martinez to label the decisions “disgusting”.

Secondly, to the Madejski Stadium yesterday afternoon where a bad-tempered game with tackles from Leeds United players flying in almost worked as gameplan enough to stop Reading but could have easily resulted in three Leeds players seeing red (the card, the mist they had already seen). Disclaimer, this blogger is a Reading fan so may be somewhat biased though the evidence of the match clearly speaks for itself. In the post-match interviews, Leeds manager Neil Warnock said that it was hard for a referee to officiate in a difficult atmosphere where Reading players constantly surrounded him.

Clearly, these are two very different cases which can each be bracketed into the four main areas of contention when it comes to modern day refereeing; insufficient quality (Chelsea-Wigan), perceived big-club bias (Chelsea-Wigan), player influence on referees (Reading-Leeds) and blaming the officials whether justly or not (both games).

Many, many words and airtime minutes will be dedicated to whether or not the decisions were right, the standards of refereeing in contemporary football and players crowding referees but I feel as if the last point is somewhat overlooked in media analysis despite it probably being heard in 2/3s of managerial quotes.

As mentioned earlier, these are two very different cases involving two very different contexts with one being a pair of offside calls and another being about red cards but the contrasts can help outline a salient point that both cases demonstrate.

Casting aside important points such as the difference in team quality between Chelsea and Wigan which affects the chances of success for either side in the match, every managerial quote that blames the officials for their own team’s failure to succeed (and success is not just winning but a draw or even a close defeat depending on the opposition) is a manager’s attempt at deflecting pressure off of their players.

“My players were not good enough/are not good enough/ did not get their jobs right on the day, therefore we lost” is rarely used when it comes to a manager’s analysis of his team’s performance for reasons such as morale and team-building. Ergo, an exterior factor is identified and fingered with the blame and the key exterior factor is the officials as they have no right of reply either in the media or on the pitch itself.

Martinez and Warnock may well have been just in blaming the officials (for my money, the former is justified in doing so thanks to television evidence, the latter is not using the same evidence showing how reckless and dangerous some of tackles by Leeds players were) but the fact is that neither of their teams were good enough to achieve their goals on the day. The difference in quality between teams, perceived bias and so on are factors but the bottom line is, their teams were not good enough.

So here’s a thought; should technology be introduced in football to ensure that decisions on issues such as offsides, red cards, the ball crossing the line and so on are correct as often as possible, what exterior factor do losing managers blame to deflect attention from their team’s failings if the official's decision would be as near as makes no difference correct 100%?

Be careful what you wish for, perhaps?

The Hunger Games- 12A- 8 out of 10

To begin a frank admission; I have not read the Hunger Games trilogy of books. Now, go straight to the bottom of this post and put the various reasons why my opinion is no longer valid in the comments section.

Done? Good, now let us begin.

The Hunger Games (the opening book and the film, not the trilogy. This could get confusing) introduces us to the world of Panem; the North American landmass in the future following what would appear to be a hugely destructive civil war. The protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, comes from one of twelve backwater districts, reliant on primary industry to get by, which lost the civil war and, as a result, are subjugated by the Capitol as punishment for their treason.

One of their punishments is for each district to offer up a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 every year for a televised death match (The Hunger Games) with only one winner, broadcast in the Capitol and each of the districts. The winner’s district gets a reward of food, hence the name of the game.

Much like (I imagine of course) the book, the film is dripping with themes and gosh is it overt in showcasing these themes; in your face is an understatement.

A satirical swipe at reality television is an over-arching idea present as the Hunger Games is basically the X-Factor meets Love Island meets Survivor (albeit a far more violent version) in a Truman Show reality. The building-up of the back stories of the participants in the Hunger Games is exactly the same as all of the aforementioned reality shows. The residents of the Capitol (exquisitely dressed, snobbish and aristocratic) watch to see the humiliation and the inhabitants of the districts (grubby workers) cannot help themselves but watch, which sounds familiar.

Another theme, more underlying than the reality TV satire is of a class struggle with an exploited, looked down upon underclass forced to work for the Capitol, an idea exacerbated by the momentum gathered throughout the film of a rebellion and unity among the districts stirred by the actions of Katniss in the Games.

In a nutshell, The Hunger Games can be seen as Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror’s take on reality television added to the dystopian class struggle of 1984; not as powerful and epoch-defining as the latter but certainly with a similar message for the 21^st century.

Anyway, back to the film and the opening scene of the film almost set me up to dislike it from the very beginning. A three minute long sequence of the protagonist running through a forest and field shot with a handheld camera for the shaky-cam effect; a style I find difficult to focus with. However, once you get used to it, it is the best style for the film to go with the rough and tumble of the action sequences later on. Kudos director Gary Ross.

Speaking of, as impressively shot as the action sequences were, the 12A certificate left them feeling a little empty. Whilst blood is overused in modern day cinema, where the film is very explicit in outlining the vicious and merciless world that the Hunger Games produces (hell, half the players died in the first four minutes), no blood being spilled kind of makes it seem not as real. It could have been more gritty and real with a 15 certificate but that alienates the early teenagers who make up a segment of the book’s target audience. But what you can and can’t get away with in different film classifications is another story for another day.

One area where a reading of the trilogy could have come in handy is judging whether the lack of character development in the film is a similar problem in the book. Weighing in at 142 minutes, The Hunger Games is lengthy but an extra twenty minutes wouldn’t have done any harm to build more character identification with the audience. As horrible as it was when Rue was killed, as we had only really known her 15 minutes (in which she saved the protagonist twice it should be noted) it didn’t feel like a huge loss. The slow burning opening hour of the film could have been cut to alleviate this problem but, to be fair, I’m no screenplay writer. I write in my room, not at Starbucks.

The area where The Hunger Games really outstrips its rivals in the young adult book adaptations (Harry Potter and Twilight)is the performances from young actors, particularly 21-year old Jennifer Lawrence s Katniss who play the strong female lead to perfection; tough but feminine in equal measure.

Overall, an enjoyable enough film and solid enough to prompt this writer to both look forward to the next instalment of the trilogy (or four films if rumours are prove to be true) by which time I shall indeed have read all of the novels, thus making my opinion worthy of blogging about. Naturally.

The Voice vs BGT

Say what you like about the state of the British tabloid newspaper and what ‘it’ regards as ‘news’ currently but it doesn’t pick a front page story if it isn’t going to engross a potential reader into picking up the paper and then parting with some change to read said story.

And lo, it came to past yesterday that a dispute between a middle-aged man, a septuagenarian man, a woman that says “beautiful” a lot and two TV shows and TV channels was splashed across the front page of the Daily Mirror as the “battle of primetime, Saturday talent shows” started to warm up.

This is the TV equivalent of Blur vs Oasis back in 1995 with Amanda Holden launching a “death slur” at Sir Tom Jones (“death slur” certainly being an out of proportion description), Jones biting back about the essential purity of his show and Cowell sitting back ala Sir Alex Ferguson, pulling the strings and making his puppety rivals, and indeed his own puppety people, do exactly what he wants them to do; generate some 'buzz'.

But here’s the thing, ITV and Cowell are obviously rattled by the BBC’s challenger for two reasons. Firstly, Cowell sat out Britain’s Got Talent last year in what was widely perceived to be a failure of a series but whose launch still got more peak viewers than last night's party starter. You don’t return from the USA to bolster a show that was still pulling in the viewers if there isn’t an exterior challenge to your superiority.

Secondly, Britain’s Got Talent historically began towards the end of April, reaching a overblown conclusion as May drew to a close. This time around, it began on exactly the same day as The Voice was launched, presumably in  a bid to nullify the effect of the latter reaching its final stages when the former begins in earnest. It’s all about viewer numbers of course.

But, well, actually, it isn’t now, what with on-demand services and Sky+. The figures may show that Britain’s Got Talent had a higher peak audience and that The Voice had more viewers in the 20-minute slot in which both shows were being broadcast but all of that is neither here nor there as, in the world of Sky+ and on-demand, people can and will watch both shows. 

There is no real winner here. Britain’s Got Talent will inevitably get a higher peak viewing figure as it’s in the optimum slot where people are not eating dinner, the kids are still awake, people on a night out are still at home and so on.

The Voice probably got that 20-minute slot of dominance as viewers wanted to watch the end of it whilst Sky+-ing through the adverts of Britain’s Got Talent to catch up. One wonders whether advertisers will continue to pay extortionate fees to advertise on Britain’s Got Talent if so many viewers of both shows (4 million or so with some basic maths and assumptions using these figures) can Sky+ through the adverts to catch up with the broadcast (hence the peak five-minute slot being around 9pm) or go on-demand, but that’s another story.

The really interesting part to come out of last night is just how different two things that are essentially the same can be.

The Voice has made a big song and dance out of its format of the ‘coaches’ (like judges but not) not being able to see the contestant and so judging them solely on their voice (an admittedly ingeniously simple idea in marketing and pitching terms). This concept of it as a ‘nice’ alternative to Britain’s Got Talent´ is continued as very few acts are sent home and even the ones that are packed off are lavishly complimented on their talent and given a handshake from will.I.am for their troubles. Perhaps the only nasty thing about it is the logo which occasionally gets spun around over the visuals, inferring a solid “up yours” directed at Cowell in the most ostentatious attempt at subtlety ever and the balls-out lying about there being no sob-stories. There was. Lots.

On the other end of the scale, Britain’s Got Talent powers on over the seas of ordinary people’s dreams, captained by the Dark Lord Cowell, crushing the hopes of people all around the country with said people giving up their time voluntarily for the privilege. Even the good ones are ridiculed for their looks before they display their depths of talent (note Jonathan the operatic singer last night), showing how Black Mirror wasn’t a dystopian parody but actually a documentary about contemporary life (to paraphrase a Daily Mail line about 1984). But hey, come on, we don’t always like ourselves for it but we come back every week as it crushing a soul underneath a size-9 does make some good TV. Michael McIntyre was just too nice and we can’t be having that so back came Cowell and in came David Walliams who does a good line in bastardry beneath the cheeky exterior.

In many ways the two shows complement each other perfectly and in whichever order one watches them (Sky+ again) can probably provide you with an insight into what kind of person you are. If you watch The Voice first, you need the dream destroying aspect of Britain’s Got Talent to get over all of the faux-niceties of the former. Meanwhile, observing them vice versa provides you with a nice fluffy detox.  It’s all up to you.

Thoughts ahead of Blackpool

A gloriously sunny day with temperatures touching 20C and a game of football to look lustily forward tomorrow can only mean one of two things; it’s August or it’s nearly April.

If it were August, we would be full of anticipation and dreaming that starry-eyed dream of glory and promotion before, nine times out of ten, those dreams are broken before the clocks go back let alone when they go forward again.

Nine times out of ten that is, if you support someone other than Reading. For someone my age, coming into this stage of the season with something to play for is to be expected rather than to be shocked at (not that I’d take anything for granted as a Reading fan). Over a decade has now passed since we haven’t had something to play for going into the last eight games of the season.

So yes, it is nearly 20C, it has been sunny all day long and we can look forward lustily to the game against Blackpool tomorrow, still with those glory-based dreams in our mind, unbroken by the bitter winter of football now passed.

But now, now its crunch time. The winter months build character in a squad of players but now is the time when that character and those lessons learned are tested to the extreme and many are found wanting.

Without wanting to put too much of a point on it, it is now crunch time big for Reading. At the very base level, there are eight games left to secure promotion. Insert squeaky bum time reference here, naturally. Eight games where the pressure is at its intense.

Factor in that of those eight remaining games, seven are against the current top twelve in the Championship and three of the away matches are at St Mary’s, Upton Park and St. Andrews. More pressure. It’s not exactly the easiest run in but you’ve got to prove you’re better than the rest and there is the opportunity; come through those with your dream still intact and you’ve earned your glory.

On top of that, Reading will be going into the game against Blackpool in a situation they haven’t faced in 11 games;  coming off the back of a defeat in their last match (against Peterborough) in addition to being the hunted rather than the hunting in the race for the two automatic promotion spts.

Blackpool will be a similar proposition to the Posh; open, expansive attacking football. One look at the stats shows this with the Tangerines knocking in more goals than anyone else on their travels but also conceding the third highest away from home. However, it wasn’t the openness that did for us on Tuesday night but some uncharacteristic bad defending.

A similar proposition to Peterborough perhaps but there is the notable added advantage of being at home. We’ve lost just once in the league at the Madejski since the middle of November (and that in dubious circumstances vs Hull).

Looking at historical precedent, 70 points is very close to being the benchmark for a play-off place but the noises coming out of the club have been anything but settling. The players sound up for the run-in and determined to see it through and the bringing in Benik Afobe to bolster the attacking ranks sends out a message to those around us that Reading are up for the fight in the sunshine, just as they were in the rain and snow.

The Anti-Social Network @9pm, Monday, BBC3- 8 out of 10

And so once again I return to a favourite reviewing ground of mine; the BBC3 documentary at 9pm on a Monday evening. Great to be back.

So, let’s run The Anti-Social Network stacks up against my BBC3 documentary checklist (patent pending). Celebrity presenter? Check. Fellow celebrity guests? Yup. Real life people like you or I interviewed? That’s there too. Content aimed at a young adult audience? Oh yeah.

Formula stuck to but that isn’t much of a problem. These days BBC3’s documentary making style has come on leaps and bounds since the bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping that was Hotter than my daughter. Hardcore issues are tackled and brought to a wider audience.

The celebrity in question hosting this show is Richard Bacon who, I’m not saying it to kiss arse, is a talented broadcaster from the hard broadcasting of Five Live in the afternoon to the slightly less hard broadcasting of...ummmm... “Richard Bacon’s Beer and Pizza club” on ITV4.

Everyone in the entire country now knows what trolling is as its no longer a phenomenon stuck to the Internet. It’s all over the national newspapers, including the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph which means old people now know what it is now and have something else to fear.

As the show explains a concept we all already know, there are two types of trolling. The first is random, usually anonymous abuse toward both celebrities and regular people over the Internet. This consists of largely mindless drivel but also real threats, all delivered from safely behind a monitor.

Most of us who post creative items on the Internet (whether as a writer or artist or whatever) have been there; this blog has a couple and another blog I write for takes on loads of awful, terrible, lame attempts at trolling. Easier enough to deal with but rather unpleasant to deal with.

However, other trolling of this type is seriously vindictive and includes abuse aimed at Bacon, his wife and his son. Elsewhere, it led to a 15 year-old boy hanging himself due to online abuse.

The other type is just as harrowing and involves tribute pages to young people who have tragically died being hijacked and causing distress to family and friends.

The documentary itself is, in a similar way to Britain’s Gay Footballers, the issues covered are largely common knowledge but greater exposure to the issue is always welcome, particularly when it’s done well.

And done well it is, aside from the frequent intermittent footage of iPad and Mac use (Apple had better of paid for this product placement) and Bacon on his phone to show off some modern technology to appeal to we yoof. Largely, the public infomercial element of the show isn’t too overbearing as to make it unbearable.

There are some fascinating insights into the murky world of trolling where there is something of an arms race between trollers and the law going on. As the former take over innocent people’s accounts, creating fake accounts, covering their tracks and so on, the police struggle to catch up with them. They’re success is obvious as only two trollers have ever been arrested under the 2003 Communications Act.

There is also the awesome sounding passion of troll hunting, such as a man by the (fake) name of “Michael Fitzpatrick” who tracks down trolls but fears for his safety as a result. The almost military planning that goes into trolling tribute pages for children Fitzpatrick outlined was particularly disturbing.

Bacon accuses suspected trollers but when they are confronted they do pretty much what they expect you to do; deny, deny, deny. Obviously it’s easier to be assertive and in your face when sat at a keyboard and not in person. Either they deny or their strange justification from trolling that largely a sympathetic comment from a random person on a tribute page isn’t right so needs readdressing. Twisted logic thy name is the Internet.

Making a statement

Ten days ago, I wrote a meandering, dreadful piece of writing about the perceptions of the 1-0 scoreline in football. Really, do not read it at all unless you do literally have all the time in the world to burn.

The main point of the piece was to talk about how 1-0 wins in football are talked up by managers, pundits and commentators (no one-size fits all use of the word “media” here, friends) as “the sign of a successful team”.

This cliché is, inevitably, bollocks. The only time a series of wins by the odd goal looks good is come the end of the season, when hindsight becomes 20:20 and one can look back at that run of wins and say “yeah, that was where the confidence was built and promotion/title was really won”. At the time of those wins, confidence is never there, in the stands at least, to think a win is inevitable.

Much more confidence in your team comes from when you give another club a real dicking. It demonstrates a marked superiority, particularly when you add a clean sheet to the offering too. You can see both on the pitch and on paper that you are a lot better than a fellow team.

And so we come to Reading.

As we’ve quietly gone about our business since the turn of the year, picking up 31 points from 39 available (or 43 points from 51 since December 10^th), we haven’t  really destroyed anyone. Largely single goal or two goal wins have been the order of the day, built on solid defensive performances.

Whilst looking impressive, multiple games in which one unlucky break or piece of magic and the story could be completely different have, for myself at least, doubted how good we might actually be.

Nothing quite breeds confidence like some good solid numbers combined with an impressive performance. Winning well whilst playing badly is good and winning at the very least is also good but a superb performance married with a huge margin of victory is the business.

But, the game against Barnsley was so much more than some confirmation that we can destroy a team when we want to. There were a myriad of other factors to consider.

With our winning run coming to an end in midweek at Doncaster, it was interesting to see how we would bounce back from the smallest of setbacks. My own theory was that the pressure might have been released a bit as the overbearing nature of wanting to keep that run going would be lifted; an extended unbeaten run is a far more common occurrence than a long winning one. That would appear to have been the case.

Secondly, as is so often said, being the hunted is quite a different kettle of fish to being the hunter and Saturday marked the first time this season we were in that position with Reading going into the game second ahead of West Ham. Against a team in a decent run of form, we responded to this new challenge by hitting four goals, taking our goal difference above that of third-placed West Ham and briefly going top of the league.

On the other hand, our East London rivals have felt the pressure and slumped to three draws in a row. It would appear our squad has taken on the experience of last-years late-season pressure and how to cope with it. Pushing on for the whole 90 minutes to grab an extra goal to secure that improved goal difference also shows this experience coming to the fore.

There is still a long way to go this season and I’d still make us third-favourites for promotion thanks to our tricky run-in and the quality of our rivals but quietly going about our business is what we do and there still seems to be some reluctance to take our promotion push based on a “better-than-the-sum-of-our-parts” team approach. Long may it continue that way.

1-0s and time-shifting perspectives

The final score in football is always the most important piece of information to come out of a game. The way in which the score is achieved is quite irrelevant. As long as you get the right result, that is all you need. Even West Ham fans with Sam Allardyce, perhaps the most contrasting manager to an assumed historical ethos around right now, appreciate that.

But the problem with scorelines are that they can be deceptive and misleading. A 1-0 win can come as a result of utter domination from one team and putting away just the one chance or utter domination from that same team and the opposition doing a “smash and grab”. That’s the thing with numbers; they only tell you so much.

In theory and on paper, a 1-0 win is the perfect scoreline for the victorious team. It would appear to indicate minimal effort expended to get the advantage and the prevention of your opponents from achieving their primary aim of scoring.

However, the now clichéd “football is played on grass not paper” argument is the correct one here as anyone who has ever sat through a 1-0 win will attest. That slender advantage is under constant threat; every time the ball gets even remotely close to your team’s penalty box your heart beats increases and your bowels get that feeling usually reserved for that split second between saying a chat-up line and finding out whether it landed or not.

This might just be my in-built pessimism, developed over 15 years of supporting Reading, kicking in but even with a resolutely and proven solid defence, a 1-0 win never looks secure until the final whistle. A team that’s conceded just the one goal in the last seven games or so should be able to hold on to the slenderest of leads as they’ve done it before.

Indeed, we have on the majority of the games in our recent winning run which looks great, once the results have been secured. Sat watching it, one can’t help but feel that the odds of probability mean the equaliser has got to come soon, even with the best teams.

It’s commonly assumed that 1-0 wins that are ground out in the middle of the season are what indicates a successful team on the march to promotion or a title. But they sure as hell don’t feel that way when these wins are being accumulated, even on a regular basis as Reading are doing right now.

Maybe just the Reading pessimism again, seeing as only in THAT season have I ever approached Reading games with a lot of confidence in a positive outcome, but I can’t shake the feeling we will get found out soon. I said the same thing last season mind and Reading are an awful lot more well rounded side than this time last year.

1-0 wins may well be the benchmark of a good team but you just don’t know if the team is really that good, at Championship level anyway, until the season is drawing to a close. Come the end of April, we may well be saying that this period right now is where we won promotion but, right now, each single goal lead still brings the same fear.

Some thoughts on KONY2012

Waking up this morning, in a cosy warm bed with the opportunity to sleep a little more, have a shower, eat some breakfast or watch some TV all available to me, I went on Facebook and Twitter, my usual way of starting the day. How modern of me.

Quite often, there is always a dominant theme going on that people are talking about. I fully expected it to be the Arsenal game last night on a nationwide trend or, more locally, the Reading game last evening (as that’s a shared interest of myself and friends) and the ongoing Student Union elections at my old university, as I remain both interested and in touch with people involved there.

However, this morning, it was none of these things that were the dominant topic on my social media networks of choice. The overwhelming focal point of interest was an embedded YouTube video entitled “KONY 2012” and accompanying messages saying how moving and powerful it was.

For the first six hours of my day, I did not watch it. The reason? My entrenched cynicism.

I could recognise it was a campaign of some sort, most probably for a good cause with universal appeal. However, my cynicism prevented me from watching it as it looked to me, initially, that it was something of a basic approach to looking deep and caring. The kind of thing people could share on their Facebook to show how in touch with issues they are. An easy, almost lazy, way of showing how right on you are and that you want to make a difference, but only if that difference isn’t too difficult to achieve and you can do it by clicking “share” on YouTube or buying yourself a bracelet. A very worthy cause taken on and popularised, very briefly I assumed, that would not go anywhere.

After a while though, I saw that this video was not going away and my interest was very much growing, in retrospect, considering the aims of the project, a very apt way of me eventually watching it.

And yes, just yes.

This is the kind of thing the Internet has the power to do, connect people across the globe on a campaign. The “Cover the Night” events are not everyone’s cup of tea but that is merely one form of the attack plan of Invisible Children, in my opinion.*

For those of us in the UK, we haven’t gone through the massive ‘getting-in-touch-with-the-politicians’ campaign that the American branch of Invisible Children did that resulted in the military advisors being dispatched to Uganda. If you see the “Cover the Night” campaign as condoning vandalism (or similar arguments) you don’t have to do that to support that event.

Get in touch with politicians or just talk about the issue with people at work or online. That’s the point, not even to spread the word of the campaign itself, but to make Kony’s name known.

Is it something of a trend? Possibly yes but that should not make one iota of difference. If turning a campaign for a good cause into something that’s trendy among people rids the world of a Joseph Kony, that end justifies this particular means a billion times over. Posering that people are jumping on a bandwagon to look cool or look worldly is neither here nor there; getting the world talking and more people caring about the subject is all that matters.

Will all of the people who have currently pledged to go on the “Cover The Night” events across the country actually turn up? The fact is that in the modern age, attention spans are short and we all have leapt from one idea to another without following the former through. But, hopefully a fair number will turn out but even a handful is a handful more than would have turned up they had not seen the video in the first place.

Will it result in Joseph Kony appearing before the International Criminal Court? I have my doubts on this due to way the world seems to work. As the video says, the pressure applied by US military advisors helped the first time around so there is hope there.

Ultimately, the best thing for Kony is not being talked about, the worst is being talked about. Make that happen.

*For the record, I myself am unsure about whether to attend a “Cover the Night” event. Deep down, I would like to think so but I am equally as sure that I am as big a product of the Twitter generation (i.e. move on from things swiftly) that I may well lose interest, a depressing self-recognition that I might be able to alter.

EDIT; And thus we have the problem with the Internet and viral marketing. Much has come to light since this blog was posted about the activities of Invisible Children and their operation. This has changed my view of the situation somewhat though I still believe there is scope for large-scale campaigns using the Internet to orchestrate them.
I most certainly got caught up in the emotional pull of it all, which was of course the aim of the situation. This is clearly a huge issue and one that the international community has been attempting to combat over the years. It is also a complex one that a single aim group would struggle to solve.
Lastly, it is a shame however that, when people show an interest in a campaign such as this (despite it's faults) they are shot down for showing passion for something by others.
Remember kids, showing an interest in something isn't cool. Apathy and lethargy are what you should aim for.

Three positives and three negatives from the new series of 10 O'Clock Live

We’re now four episodes into the new, streamlined version of last year’s hugely trumpeted, all-star casted 10 O’clock Live so now is probably a good time to see what’s been good so far this series and what could do with some improvement.

The Pluses

1. Streaming down to 45 minutes worth of content

The first series weighed in at only 10 minutes longer per episode than this series but the slim down has done 10 O’clock Live the world of good for three main reasons.

Firstly, the over-reliance on David Mitchell for both serious interviewing and humour has been reduced now that he anchors just the one leg of the show, instead of his previous three. Although this meant cutting the usually amusing “Listen to Mitchell” segment, it does allow a stronger debate with the experts section and means he can contribute to the roundtable discussions more (more on that later).

Secondly, as a result of the loss of “Listen to Mitchell”, Charlie Brooker now has the sole ‘ranty’ section of the show and with good reason to as it’s what he does best. Dropping his to-camera, fast-as-a-bullet-but-still-eloquent rants from two to one an episode has allowed him to refine his piece and the show is not overloaded with to-camera shouty-ness.

And thirdly, 55 minutes of live, largely unscripted television is a difficult enough task for long running programmes, let alone a new kid on the block. As such, the show felt overextended with not enough content spread too thin. Whilst the reduction in running time has meant certain positive elements of the programme have had to be cut, it is to the benefit of the show as a whole.

2. Increased frequency of group, roundtable discussions

Along with the reduction in running time, using a roundtable discussion (technically a square-table discussion I guess) to bookend each segment of the show before the ad breaks has given greater structure to 10 O’clock Live, helped bridge the gap between the political and the humour aspects of the show and given the presenters greater scope to showcase some rapport and eliminate any lingering clunkiness from the first series.

3. Better usage of Lauren Laverne

As the only presenter with real experience of how live broadcasting works, Laverne was given the role of leading the show in the first series of 10 O’clock Live and she has, rightly, been given even more responsibility this time around, being charged with leading the discussions and steering the show in the right directions.

Whilst her pieces aren’t quite as humorous as the other presenters (naturally, as she is a broadcaster by trade rather than a humorist) and she sometimes struggles to keep the discussions on the straight and narrow (in fairness, God’s own job with three men trying to out-humour each other), her role in the programme is the most important of all the presenters and she has risen to the challenge.

The Minuses

1. Questionable usage of Carr

The first series of 10 O’clock Live had a clear role for Carr which consisted of; get the show off to a flier with some near-the-knuckle topical jokes at the start and interview someone newsworthy that week (a skill which he proved surprisingly adept at). Towards the end of the first series, a strange, weekly attempt at putting Carr into a sketch came into place, an element of the show I was hoping would be quietly dropped seeing as Carr is a comedian and presenter, not a comic actor.

However, this second series, his interviews have been abandoned to be replaced solely by these weekly sketches which, if last night’s was anything to go by, are getting worse; even worse than that ill-conceived Vladimir Putin impersonation in the first episode, somehow.

Better use of Carr’s talents should be made. The ambiguity of his political leanings should be made better use of in an otherwise very left-leaning presenter line-up.

2. Equalling out the humour/politics ratio

Perhaps the biggest challenge still facing the show is consistently keeping a balance between the humour and political aspects that the programme wants to get across.

By vacating the Thursday 10pm slot, Channel 4 has rightly pulled 10 O’clock Live out of the firing line of juggernaut Question Time and so might be able to gain some politically-minded viewers from the rescheduling.

However, segments like the Putin sketch feel a bit too lightweight (almost patronising) for a show aiming to attract a more political audience, if indeed, that is the aim.

3. Continued issues around the live aspect of the show

Whilst this is less of an issue than in the first series, where the presenters lack of experience on live TV (despite their Alternative Election Night together) was clear to see, there still remains some slip-ups, whether it be with slight fluffing of lines or presenters appearing in the background of someone else’s piece.

But this might be something of a harsh criticism as it is live TV and there never will be a 100% gaffe-free live TV show as we’re all humans and we make mistakes. That’s why they put editing suites at TV studios…

Happy dawn of Spring day

For a person with self-diagnosed-but-unwilling-to-have-it-confirmed-as-medical-fact seasonal affective disorder (SAD indeed!), today was a quite momentous personal day.

Today marks the first day of happy weather season, medical term incidentally, for a number of reasons.

For those who mark their calendar based around sporting events, i.e. every sane person on this planet of ours, today is the football League Cup final day which, along with the first Grand Prix of the year and the end of the Six Nations, marks the dawning of Spring to cheer up our depressingly tedious little world. Largely cheering us up by allowing us to guffaw at randy farm animals boning everything that moves as we fly by on the motorway. Anywho, soon enough we’ll be hearing the sound of leather on willow and Frisbee on forehead and that’s a very warm thought indeed.

Secondly, you may have noticed that it was a tad unseasonably warm today, unless you’re from the North East in which case it’s warm all day, every day. Despite ridicule from my co-workers as I completed my exhausting 6 ¼ hour shift, I strode purposefully and manfully from my place of work to my car (which was parked at good 20 metres away) with nothing but a t-shirt to protect my skinny torso.

Amazingly, my mighty man nipples did not turn into the world’s most useless pair of orange juicers and thus, upon reaching my car, I was allowed to look magnificently cool (or a humongous douchebag, depending on your interpretation of the next few words) as I drove home with the window down and my driving arm resting on the window frame. Like I said, magnificently cool…in my mind. If only I had the foresight to have taken a pair of sunglasses. Alas.

As an aside, how nice of God (omnipotent and omnipresent Rupert Murdoch) was it to ensure that the first edition of the Sun on Sunday was met with some sun on Sunday. Way to win us all over again Rupert!

Thirdly, and most importantly as this just affected me and no-one else, the drive to work this morning was in something approaching broad daylight. The last time the sun rose before I did, the world still possessed Muammar Gaddafi, Whitney Houston and only one type of KitKat Chunky*. There is something quite uplifting about not having to graft one’s way to work through darkness so thick that it attended special classes, to deploy a rather awful metaphor.

So, I hear you not asking, how did I celebrate this wondrous day whereby the incredible changing of the seasons that our planet produces? Staying indoors all day and getting unhealthier, but of course. Money is required to be able to enjoy ciders in the sunshine and anyone who sunbathed today really should have had some funny looks aimed at them (yeah, I would have sunbathed today, but self-consciousness issues and all that).

 Happy dawn of Spring day y’all.

*For the purposes of that joke, we’re ignoring Christmas and New Year booze-induced lie-ins and any of my days off work. Why? Because I’m lazy and I’m not going to do a rewrite so there.

Blast from the past; pain with your cereal

Growing up around the dawn of the age of widespread satellite TV had many benefits; not having to go outside and the sacred ten minute freeview being two positives that immediately spring to mind.

Another advantage was the sheer breadth of viewing options covered for that vital period between waking up and going to school/college. This wealth of viewing alternatives meant you were never short of something to watch whilst you ate that retrospectively foolish chocolate-heavy cereal.

For the golden age of your childhood innocence, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon were all you need with their bright colours, jaunty theme tunes and mild flirtatious banter between the presenters that largely went over your innocent head.

However, come the age of 11 or 12, secondary school had changed the way you saw the world. Laughing at other people’s misfortune became far more fun and we hedonistically hunted for something to appease that particular urge, a skill that would come in handy again around the age of 16 when another urge began to strike.

Uniquely, Challenge TV and, less uniquely, Japan, provided the solution to our morning schadenfreude craving; a man taking a football to a place where objects travelling at a high velocity hurt (his tescticles) was the perfect addition to our somewhat more adult, though still heavily-sugared, cereal of choice.

I am indeed talking about Takeshi’s Castle, the show that (may have) saved the (probably) floundering dental and chiropractor industries in late 80s Japan.

For those select few who are not familiar with niche, Japanese game shows from nearly two and a half decades ago that were only ever broadcast on satellite TV in the UK, here is the basic premise of the show; Japanese sadists smiling, laughing and only occasionally screaming as they have pain inflicted on them in a startling varied number of cruel, mad, ingenious ways.

The pretence for the biggest public display of pain-infliction since last John Terry last took a penalty, was a fictional Count Takeshi laying down a challenge; 100+ mad Japanese folk had to storm his ‘castle’ which was constructed out of what appeared to be cardboard and firework remnants, defended by dignity-free guards armed with water guns. These water guns were later upgraded to rather sad and pathetic looking lasers, presumably to match the sad and pathetic costumes.

To sort the wheat from the chaff and to prevent 100 very 1980s looking Japanese people breaking aforementioned cardboard castle through sheer weight of numbers, a series of challenges had to be overcome by the victims/contestants/ mental patients. These challenges often included the risk of facial disfigurement, permanent limps or loss of ability to bear child. Loss of dignity was never an issue however, as this was the 80s so uni-colour jumpsuits and God-awful hair were par for the course.

What was quite remarkable about Takeshi’s Castle was the staggering number of variations on challenges and games the producers managed to twist out of the term ‘ritual humiliation’.

There was a game where people ran through a maze of doors, being chased by men who looked as if they should have been on a government-enforced register, before having their faces blackened (for no discernible reason) or running through a door into some water. The Benny Hill theme tune was thankfully absent.

Elsewhere, people lost teeth and broke ribs as they skipped along stones, risked cranial damage by having giant balls dropped on their heads, ran headlong into potentially solid walls and received footballs fired from cannons into their unwelcoming testicular zone. Sadly, the challenge where contestants wrestled

Inevitably, more fails were shown than successes because, as the internetz knows, fails equals fun. However, a handful of victims made it through to the final showdown where leader of the assault on Takeshi’s Castle, the suspiciously dark-haired and dangerously inept military leader, General Lee led to them certain failure. Only nine contestants ever won the show, meaning you probably had a better chance of winning the lottery, although the constant hope-disappointment cycle of the lottery is less painful than a one off headlong dive into some mud.

Probably the one real flaw of the show, aside from the Craig Charles commentary, was that it eventually spawned in the UK Total Wipeout, 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow and about a million other programmes with the same basic premise but all without the certain special something Takeshi’s Castle had; most likely a 1980s Japanese woman in her 20s making the peace symbol before cheerfully setting off at a brisk pace and the scene ending in her bouncing off of a wall that looked like a door.