My Top 10 Films of 2016

That I saw in the cinema.  Full logic to come later.

1 - Kubo and the Two Strings

2 - The Jungle Book

3 - Captain America: Civil War

4 - Suicide Squad

5 - Batman vs Superman

6 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens

7 - Star Trek Beyond

8 - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2

9 - Doctor Strange

10 - X-Men: Apocalypse

I know I am very part of the problem because Kubo is the only one of the films that isn't a sequel or related to an existing property.  And while I'm sure about the order down to 4, 5 through to 8 are very much in flux.

My lunatic plan for the Mercedes Second Seat

Or musical Formula 1 chairs

While I am completely in favour of whoever Mercedes pick, as long as it's Valtteri Bottas, Nico Hulkenberg or Pascal Wehrlein, this is my plan on what to do with the second Mercedes seat.

I came up with this when I realised that there were 20 races per season and 20 other non-Hamilton drivers.

You might have guessed where this is going.

The other drivers draw a number from a hat, from 1 to 20.  Each race is numbered 1 to 20.  The driver with that number gets the second Mercedes seat for that race.

While I am aware of all kind of problems with that, not least of all practise time and getting race seats fitted, think of all the fun arguments it would settle.  For instance, Hamilton vs Vettel in the same car.  Think also of the fun arguments it would start.  For instance "no fair, driver X only had the seat at race Y which gave him no chance," or "just typical, Z was in the Mercedes the time it failed."  It would mean we could actually compare say Daniil Kvyat and Max Verstappen, or argue that the two races they were in were too different to compare.

So, what's in it for the other teams?

Well, as well as driver two's points counting for Mercedes, they count for their home team too.  Which means that the fight between the teams at the back might get a bit closer, and a bit more interesting (sorry to the Manor fans I know).

The smaller teams might be able to wring more money out of their pay drivers which should help their development for 2018.

What's in it for Mercedes?

Very little, other than my eternal gratitude.  But they'd also be able to show how good their car was if they won the constructor's title despite this nonsense.

I know it's never going to happen, but wouldn't it be fun.

On Nico Rosberg's Retirement

Rosberg’s retirement didn't surprise me as much as it seems to have shocked other people. The timing surprised me, I am not Nostradamus, but not him retiring.

Rosberg has always struck me as a sensible person, in both senses of the word.  I think he knows he’s not a better racing driver than Hamilton and that one World Championship is likely to be as good as it gets.  I think he also knows that there’s no point in carrying on doing something you don’t enjoy when you’ve achieved all you can and have all the money you will ever need.  There was also a certain amount of writing on the wall about his future given how slow Mercedes were being to renew his contract in mid-season.

I have no idea what Rosberg plans to do next, but I hope he has a lot of fun.

I think part of the reason people were so taken aback by his retirement is that most of us would do any number of truly terrible things to become Formula 1 drivers. Yet, there he is, walking away from the best car in the pack, a car that’s still likely to be the best next year, even with the rule changes.

Of course, I suspect that being an F1 driver is one of those things that looks a lot more fun than it actually is.  We get to see the best bits, the actual racing, not the hours of testing, simulating, and work that goes into it.  While it’s about F1 mechanics, there was a really interesting article on the BBC website about the realities of life in Formula 1 which I would recommend.

There is a large part of me that respects Rosberg for leaving as much as anything else he’s done because there must have been great pressure on him to stay.

One thing that does interest me is the number of people who refuse to believe that Rosberg has retired because he wants to spend more time with his family.  Now I know that it’s the traditional fake reason for politicians, but look at Rosberg’s life.  He’s got a wife and a new daughter, that the job kept him away from.  He’s made all the money he’s ever going to need, so he doesn’t need the job, and the job has already killed someone he knew.  If you look at it like that, it makes a lot of sense.

I’m also interested in the way that when a female sportsperson retires to start a family or spend more time with hers, it’s treated as perfectly normal, but if a male sportsperson does it, the sportsman is lying.  People either have a really skewed view of the world, or they don’t think that men love their families as much as women do.  Either way, I feel so sorry for people who feel like that, they seem to be missing out on rather a lot of joy in their lives.

Perfectly Gentlemanly Conduct

I’ve got no problem with what Lewis Hamilton did at the Abu Dhabi grand prix. This is for two reasons :

1 - I am a Ferrari fan and while the team motto isn't “we lie, we cheat, we steal” it easily could be. I have no room to complain about anyone bending the rules.

2 - Hamilton was fighting for the world title. Nothing he did endangered anyone's safety, and Mercedes had already won the constructors World title. There was nothing wrong with what Hamilton did and I'm still not sure why the Mercedes team management tried to interfere.

My only problem comes when he tries to pretend he didn't deliberately slow down to try to help Vettel and Verstappen try to overtake Rosberg. It's like “Lewis, who do you think you’re kidding?” The superiority of the Mercedes to the other cars has been a theme for the past few seasons. It was half a second faster than the next nearest car in qualifying. You can say all you want about tire and fuel management, but there are limits. If he’d said it while tipping a wink, it wouldn’t be so bad. Instead he bald-facedly said he was driving the car at its maximum, when it was clear to everyone from team management down that he wasn’t.

Nobody would think any the less of him for trying everything he could. All of us would have done something similar for such an important prize.

So why lie? 

It’s not like Formula 1 isn’t a sport known for its skullduggery. For example Red Bull’s flexible wings, Brawn’s F-ducts and everything Ferrari did in the years 1996-2009.

I can only imagine he’s either trying to live up to his image of Senna or he’s trying to protect the Lewis Hamilton brand. I’m not sure if either of those two are reasonable.

That image of Senna bares no resemblance to the Senna I remember. The real Senna punched Eddie Irvine and rammed Prost off the road. I think everyone loved Senna with all his flaws a lot more than they would have loved the milquetoast saint he’s sometimes made out to be. For similar reasons, I’m not convinced that Brand Hamiliton wouldn’t profit from him showing a more fighting side. Because of the technical dominance of Mercedes, the last two of Hamilton's title wins have had the air of coronations about them. I think people love a fighting champ a lot more than a serene one. Being willing to show a little steel would have endeared him to people more than 'I didn't do it' does.

Doctor Strange

Doctor Strange is a brilliant example of the danger of expectations.

I expected cool SFX and Mads Mikkelsen.  I got that, and bonus Benedict Wong, so I was happy.  L expected a film that actually worked on its own merits and was left disappointed.  It is quite a flat film, that spends most of its time setting up its own sequel and whatever the Marvel Cinematic Universe equivalent of the Infinity Wars is going to be.

It's also telling that the memorable scenes are the ones with very little in the way of obvious SFX, where they give the actors are given something to do.

I want 16 films of Rachel McAdams's Nurse Palmer going 'oh FFS' at superheroics.  But then again I am entirely happy with the idea of 16 films with Rachel McAdams in.  Dear Hollywood, please cast her in more things.

Spoilers Underneath

For all that I'm supposed to think Doctor Strange is a bit much, he's not actually that much worse than several doctors I know.

I know that Marvel have said that the flyer with a broken spine is not Rhodey, but 1) I think they're lying and 2) if it's Sam Wilson, I riot.

I can't help but feel more sorry for Doctor Strange in the scene where he shouts at Christine than the film wants me to, not least because he was a lot more polite than I would have been.  I don't know if that's because I know how much time and effort you have to become a neurosurgeon, never mind one at the top of his field.  I did like the irony of other surgeons saying to him re: his condition.

One interesting thing is how much Kaecilius thinks that what he's doing is the right thing (as does Mordo, and the Ancient One).

I can see why people make the Tony Stark / Stephen Strange parallels, except it misses the important thing about them.  Tony is driven by not wanting to let his father down, while Stephen Strange is driven by his belief in his own greatness.  Strange doesn't have the same self-destructive tendencies as Tony.  Tony would happily get himself killed several times over to save the Earth or Universe, but I doubt he'd have come up with a plan that got himself out of it alive too.

They've also got very different attitudes to killing people.  I like how seriously Doctor Strange takes the whole try not to kill thing.  The fight scenes did lead to me going hallo there Scott Adkins.  He has joined that select group of people that I recognise from their shoulders.  Maybe recognise isn't the right word, because I couldn't put a name to the shoulders, but I did go 'I know those shoulders from somewhere else'.

Like lots of superhero films, both Marvel and not, the end boss is a bit of an anti-climax.  Although I am deeply amused by the method used to defeat him, it all seemed so easy, and the cost doesn't become apparent until the end stinger.

Saying Chiwetel Ejiofor is good is telling you stuff you already know, but he was oh so good when the film finally gave him something to do.  It meant that for all that this film was flat, I am looking forward to the sequel just for Mordo vs Strange.  But that's exactly what I mean when I say the film spent a lot of time setting up its sequel rather than being its own film.

End Spoilers

Disney Marvel are missing out on oodles of money by not having a Doctor Strange replica cape for sale.  As this isn't like them at all, I do wonder if it's to avoid lawsuits from parents of children who try to levitate.  If they do ever bring out a replica cape, I will be all over that.

I am very aware of the film's flaws, but I am the target audience so I enjoyed it.  To paraphrase N on Facebook, "make a competent films with Marvel Studios at the beginning and I'll enjoy it".

On Poppies

I wear a red poppy.

Yes, it's a political act and I've no idea why people pretend it isn't.  I've stood up for peoples's right not to wear one, or to wear a white one, and would happily do so again.  My choice is to wear a red one.

I wear my poppy for my great-grandfather, this year more than usual, because it is 100 years, almost to the day, that he died in the First World War.  He left behind a wife and four children.

I wear my poppy for the American branch of the family, who were founded by two GI War Brides, and have had servicemen since, including my cousin who met his wife while on service.

I wear my poppy for my friends that joined up straight from school.  They've now mostly served their time and left, and nothing bad happened to them, but it's good to know the British Legion are there to help if it had.

I wear my poppy for the three lads I met on the Manchester train who were on weekend leave from Army training, because Lord love 'em, they might need help and I can't trust the government to be there for them.

That's why I wear a poppy.

An Apology To The Buffalo Bills

I feel I owe the Buffalo Bills an apology. I fear their terrible start to the season might be partly my fault. It's a complete accident I swear.  And I meant well.

I brought my friend a Bills painted skull back from Mexico and I think it might be cursed.

It was bought with good intentions, I even hunted for it when, because of their previous uselessness, Bills paraphenalia was hard to find.  I am not kidding.  It was easier to find Calgary Stampeders and BC Lions gear.  I finally found the cursed artefact of doom on the last day of the trip.  I thought it was a sign.  And it might have been, but not the good kind.

Possibly the skull should not have been bought.

Although if the Bills somehow win the whole boondoggle from that sort of start, I reserve the right to take the credit for that too.

Blog Update

Unfortunately, I have no internet connection at home, and probably won't have until the middle of November.

The main thing I'm missing is the ability to edit Wikipedia. At some point the giant secret data visualisation project turned into a giant secret data visualisation and Wikipedia improvement project.  This is at least partly due to poor data quality and non-updated Wikipedia articles.  There will be more details when I finally finish the giant secret data visualisation project.  At this point that looks to be some time shortly before doomsday.

Other than that, I've got a few blog posts lined up.  They cover travelling, film and science stuff rather than sport.  Although I do have one American football post lined up.

Ta-ta for now.

Suicide Squad

Was far better than it had any right to be.

As in was actually fun.  And Will Smith is amazing.  As is Margot Robble.  And I <3 Diablo, and Katana and Captain Boomerang.

Joel Kinnaman looks terrifyingly like Carmine Giovinazzo, so I apologise in advance if I make any Danny Messer on steroids jokes.

It's only as I'm reading back through this that I realise that I've gone through the film character by character rather than thematically or chronologically.  This wasn't deliberate but may well show one of the weaknesses of the film.  It's a series of character bits strung together with action scenes.  Now I don't mind that at all, but other people will.

Some spoilers for Batman vs Superman follow (because they're in the film) and mention of most of the Marvel Filmverse.

Spoilers Beneath

The story mostly makes sense.  There's a couple of moments of 'that move was too boneheaded for that character to make' but we will forgive them for this.  The characters work as versions of themselves, even if a few people have had some of their rougher edges smoothed down.  It is interesting, for instance, that the film does flash up that Harley was involved with Robin's death but it is blink and you'll miss it.

The film is tightly tied to Batman vs Superman, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  On the one hand, Suicide Squad does its bit to set up Justice League with a much lighter, easier and more fun touch than B v S did.  On the other hand, I feel that this means that the Batfleck solo film we're going to get (thank you, whoever) is going to be Bats vs the Joker, again.  And while I am all over that, because ... oh I'm hopeless, I do feel it's been done and is only going to be compared to The Dark Knight, and that may not end well.

I am aware I am the only person that liked the Leto Joker.  He doesn't quite work, but it is at least blatantly not based on the Ledger-Joker (no diss against him).  Given that other films keep turning other characters into the Ledger-Joker it's a refreshing change.  Also Jared Leto is the only person who looks more terrifying out of Joker make up than in it.  Harley's fantasy is legitimately eerie.

Deadshot is lovely, and it's one of the interesting things about the film, that he is clearly a good guy and a bad man at the same time.  And Will Smith is good at both.  Better at being the good guy but ... Deadshot so lovely.  As is his daughter.  Whose name I didn't catch.  In the film's defence, I can't hear out of my right ear properly at the moment so I don't think it was their fault.

The film gave me an Amanda Waller who was just right.  Because yes.  Although it does worry me somewhat that her line on the topic of Superman is mine.  No good comes of me and Amanda Waller agreeing.  I also liked that the film let the "heroes" (well, you know) call her out when she does things that are really not good, see also *that* scene in the bunker.  One of the things that annoyed me about the first Avengers film and the second Captain America film is that Nick Fury kept doing things that were decidedly shades of grey and no-one shouted at him.  I don't mind Nat and Clint not doing it, but I refuse to believe that Tony would be able to keep his opinions to himself.  Also, I think she knows about the Bat and that makes me want to yell at Bruce going 'Bruce, you really don't want her to know'.

Harley Quinn was, well, she was herself.  I can see why people might be annoyed that she always goes back to her Pudding.  But the whole thing with her character is that she would (and indeed is) lovely, if only she avoids the Joker.  And they got that over.  Margot Robble is far better than I expected her to be.  My favourite scene was the one just after the helicopter is shot down when the rest of the Squad find her again.  The minute she sees them she tries to fake being alright, and then Deadshot holds his arms out so she can get down and she just melts into his arms.  It's so lovely.  Because Deadshot is lovely.

Actually, the whole escape sequence is lovely.  From Deadshot not telling anyone about Harley's plans to him pulling his shot (and the rest of the squad being happy about it) and Captain Boomerang, who is by someway the member with the least empathy, trying to comfort him when the helicopter is shot down.

Joel Kinnaman does a bang up job in what could have been a thankless role.  Because Flagg is the least bad of the good guys (because that's how this film does it's shades of grey), and less interesting than the bad guys and could just have been a bland GI Joe a-like. Instead Kinnaman gives him a reality and just enough human weakness to believable and real and solid.  (Although the rest of the military squad were pretty much misc. disposable military types and hello Scott Eastwood.  Because Scott Eastwood is always hello!)

I am going to presume that they cast Cara Delavigne for her ability to gyrate convincingly in very little for that bit at the end with the Enchantress.  It doesn't work.  Then again, I don't think anyone would have been convincing doing those gyrations, Josephine Baker notwithstanding.

Jay Hernandez is good as Diablo, who gets to be the regretful one of the squad.  I think he's literally the only one who regrets their crimes.

Captain Boomerang, on the other hand, really doesn't.  He's, I think, the only one of the Squad who isn't given some excuse or reason or redeeming feature.  He's fun, nonetheless, and it makes those moments where he is vaguely human more effective.  It's interesting that they choose him, who is the least dangerous and deadly Squad member as the one without redeeming features.

His accent is merely ludicrous.  I have no idea if Jai Courtney just can't do an Aussie accent, or if he's an Aussie they told to put on the most stereotypical and ridiculous accent ever.  All I know is that it sounds even more bizarre given that Margot Robble occasionally breaks into 'Strine next to him.

I <3 Killer Croc, which I really didn't expect.  He's one of the few Bat-villains I know more from the comics than any adaptation, and I'm used to feeling sorry for him, but not loving him.  Because he knows what he is, and he's okay with it - see the scene in the bar.  (Also, just cast Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje in everything.)  I'm also trying to figure out if his line about 'being born into the sewers' is supposed to be a call-back to Bane.

Nothing about Katana makes any sense.  If she's got Flagg's back, then why does she leave him and join the rest of the Squad in the bar scene?  But if she's one of the Squad, why is she allowed to roam free?  She's cool, but as I said, makes no sense.

It's not a classic by any means, but its a fun way to spend a couple of hours, and if nothing else, it has a cracking soundtrack.  I really don't want to know how much Warners paid to get that soundtrack.

Star Trek Beyond

Was fun.

In a way the other two Reboot films haven't been.

 I think it's because the creatives this time got that Star Trek's job is to be the positive sci-fi franchise, the hopeful one, the one where people do make mistakes but learn from them.  It's job is not to be grimdark (DS9 never was, no matter what people tell you) or to get lost in continuity loops to amuse the fanboys (Enterprise, here's looking at you). I liked the film's message and its positivity.

I also approve of the fact the story was original. It wasn't based on a previous story, instead it was based on the experiences of these characters, not the experiences of their TOS versions.

Justin Lin should be allowed to direct anything he wants.  The thing I liked most about his directing style is how well he (and the SFX crew) conveyed the three-dimensional nature of space.  The establishing shots of the Yorktown were incredible.  I do wish he'd use fewer cuts in the hand-to-hand fight scenes.

I know at least one person is going to complain that my main objection to JJ Abrams is his flashy style so how can I love Justin Lin's directing so much? It's because the flash in Lin's style helps the story while Abrams's is just there to look cool. Lin used flashy tricks to show, not tell, the size of space, its three-dimensionality and the Escher-esque qualities something like the Yorktown [or a zero-G battle] is going to have.

Chris Pine's Kirk was much less punchable in this one, which helped matters enormously.
I am utterly in love with Jaylah, but I think everyone is.

SPOILERS BEYOND HERE

It wasn't perfect. I thought that Spock was too emotional and the twist was predictable. The minute you heard Edison's name you could guess that nothing good had happened, but that's a Star Trek tradition too. Seriously, Star Trek pulled "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" way before Batman ever did.

It's clear that someone in the writing staff liked Enterprise, and treated it with more respect than its own finale did.

I liked the way the film gave you enough detail to get what was going on but allowed you to fill in the blanks yourself. I am intrigued by the alien tech. I wonder if Krall's appearance was down to how the machine worked. Maybe it transfers more than life energy but also some part of the victim's DNA. I'd also love to know how the swarm actually worked.

That's how you use "modern" music in your sci-fi film! It turns what was a pretty cringey moment in the first Reboot film into a moment of awesome. "I like the beats and the shouting," indeed.

I do worry that I am turning in to Urban-Bones though ;)

Book Review - The Piranha Club: Power and Influence in Formula One by Timothy Collings

The ever wonderful L got me this as a present a couple of years ago and has been very patient waiting for me to read it.

I almost want to write two reviews, one for F1 fans and one for other readers.  Because, despite a few flaws, I would utterly recommend this for anyone with more than a passing interest in F1.  If you've not got an interest in F1, you're really not the target audience.

Both reviews would make one similar complaint - what Collings needs, even more than someone to thoroughly proof-read the book (I'd complain less, were this not supposed to be the revised edition), is someone to help him organise his thoughts.

The book follows a mostly chronological path, beginning with Enzo Ferrari and carrying on to the present day (which was 2003).  Which makes sense, and it was interesting to get an overview of how the sport developed and changed, through the prism of the teams and team bosses.

Only sometimes the book randomly jumps so Ron Dennis and Frank Williams get introduced before Ken Tyrrell, for no obvious reason, especially as Ken Tyrrell was also a garagiste.

And then we suddenly get a section on the skulduggery of the 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2003.  And each individual section is very good (especially the 1997 bit, which, as a Ferrari fan, I remember *differently*), but the whole would have been so much better with an introductory paragraph to the chapter (which is called Tempestuous Times) and and intro to each section.  For the price of five extra paragraphs, the chapter could have gone from 'really good' to 'excellent'.

Following that chapter we jump back to 1997 (admittedly to a really excellent chapter on Jackie Stewart, Stewart Racing and how to organise an F1 team).  

The jumping also affects the flow of his introductions to team managers, so we get Paul Stoddart doing his thing in the 2003 section of 'Tempestuous Times', before he, Minardi, and why he bought Minardi are introduced a chapter and a half later in '2001 - A Political Odyssey'.

I think the lack of organising principle is why, particularly in the early chapters, you quite often get an anecdote on one page, only to have it be repeated over the page.

All those complaints are utterly unimportant if you're an F1 fan though, because the book has so much interesting stuff, especially about how things work (or don't work) on the business front, and some of the personality background on the team leaders.

And Bernie.  Oh the Bernie stuff was interesting.  Particularly Stirling Moss saying that Bernie was a half decent driver.  There is a man whose opinion I respect in these matters.

I keep forgetting how old Bernie really is.  Because I always assume that he's Ron Dennis's age, and he's not, he's 16 years older, which I think is because one reaches one's business years about 20 years after one reaches one's racing years.

Collings also tries to predict the future, and while there's a reason that's a mug's game, he does get some of it right.  The imbalance in the prize money has lead to other teams going bust, and is still causing ructions between the remaining teams.  He's right that it will probably be the EU Commission that eventually gets it sorted (courtesy of complaints from Sauber, where Peter Sauber has left F1, rejoined, and then sold his team).

He's also right in predicting the rise of manufacturer teams such as Renault, and teams that are part of larger organisations, where they're basically extended marketing departments (looking at you so much Red Bull), at the expense of truly privateer teams.

Where he's wrong is the effect that that's had on who the team bosses are.  Contrary to what Collings predicts, they are still mostly ex-racers and mad petrolheads, for example Christian Horner (and if anyone wants to horrify us all by digging out *that* centrefold of Horner, now would be the right time) and Toto Wolff.  The bosses of big companies don't have the time to devote to just one part of their brand that it would need for them to truly run a Formula 1 team, so they're going to try to hire the best they can and those people are going to come from the same motorsports-enthusiastic places they've always done, they're just not doing it under their own names now.  And I don't think you could.  Gene Haas apart, and time will tell if he stays, you need a pre-existing business empire to enter F1 nowadays.

And Bernie still prevails.  As I suspect he always shall until he's bored of it.  The book was written before the present Concord agreement was signed and therefore ends on a note of 'how will the teams ever agree to a new one, and how will Bernie cling on to power?'  Sound familiar?  The book also has a fantastic anecdote that explains why Bernie remains,

"At various times, he has left a room, during a meeting, after suggesting that the team principals present decide among themselves who the new leader should be, only to return and find they had spent so long arguing about the air-conditioning levels, or something similar, that no-one had even proposed a replacement leader." (pg 137)

Now, yes, it's one of those anecdotes that's probably far too good to be true, but it sounds infinitely plausible and I suspect the same thing would happen now.  He is what keeps F1 moving, and I actually do worry about what happens post-Bernie, and I think the 'Bernie out' people should consider that before they get too vociferous. But yes, in short, definitely read it if you're an F1 fan. Not so much if you're not.

Film Locations

An update to this post about where the films I watch are set, now update to the 22nd June 2014.

As you can see, they're overwhelmingly set in the US or UK, but less so than the books I read.

The ones in the UK are mainly set in England.

If I include fantasy and non-terrestrial locations, its not much better, although US and UK-set films no longer make up more than half of all locations.

Euro 2016 Final Data Viz

Only one team connects Portugal and France and that is Lyon, ensuring that they will have someone on the winning team.

Sporting Lisbon are the team with the most players left in with 4, followed by Lyon with 3 and a wodge of teams with two players left in.

I would love to say I guessed that this would be the final, but I really didn't, I don't think anyone but the most ardent Portuguese fan thought they could make it, especially after the group stage, although every prediction I made had France in the final.

Euro 2016 Semi-Final Data Viz

After the quarterfinal results, the remaining teams form a very pleasing diamond shape:

France and Germany are the two teams nearest the central and are roughly equally far from the centre.

Manchester United are the club team closest to the centre.

Because Italy lost, Juventus are no longer the team with the most players left in.  That is now Bayern Munich (because it's always them) with 6, followed by Crystal Palace (no joke), Arsenal, Real Madrid and Sporting Lisbon with 4.

Bayern, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Manchester United are guaranteed to have a player in the final, no matter the semifinal results:

Looking at the communities view, all four countries are their own communities, as, for some reason are Mario Gomez and Ricardo Quaresma of Beşiktaş.

Euro 2016 Quarter Final Data Viz

(Slightly late, been busy at work.)

After some unexpected match ups and some unexpected results the inter-connectivity diagram for the quarterfinals looks like this:

France are now the most central national team, while Roma are the most central club team.

Juventus still have the most players represented with 9, followed by Bayern Munich with 7 and Roma with 6.

There are more Swansea City players left in the competition than Barcelona players!  No, really.  But that's what happens when Italy vs Spain is a second round match.

Groups E and F have the most teams left, which will be of absolutely no comfort to fans of Sweden and Austria who were the two teams to drop out from those two groups at the group stage.  But it's the excuse I'm sticking to if anyone asks why Austria went out so early.

With England losing, all countries are now their own communities in the community view:

Euro 2016 Second Round

Having lost 8 of the teams, including my beloved if horribly incompetent Austria (No, really guys, the one time you could get away with being terrible in qualifying, you're awesome and then totally screw up the finals!!!), this is what the interconnectivity diagram looks like

There are actually very few changes, partly I think because relatively few teams were cut, and also because a lot of the teams cut were those that had fewer links to other teams. Iceland stands alone because most of its players who were linked to another country were linked to Sweden who are out. The nearest national team to the centre are Italy, the club team nearest the middle is Rennes. Juventus and Liverpool have the most players left, with 12 each, followed by Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United with 10. I think this might be further evidence of the Premier League's multi-national nature and its pulling power. The comms view looks like this:

Belgium and England are in the same community because of the number of Belgian squad members who play in England (11 out of the 23). Everyone else is their own community.

X-Men: Apocalypse

Well that didn't quite work.

And I'm not sure why.  I'm also not sure why a film with an alleged running time of 2 1/2 hours feels like it's missing half its story.  I think it could have done with 6 months extra work on the story and the script.  It all feels a bit bland.

Spoilers from here on in.

In particular, I feel it could have done with more about the Horsemen and something, anything, in between the final battle and them rebuilding a school.  I think it's mostly I can't see Erik being that forgiving, especially given his last rage-bender lasted for ~20 years.  (Yes, I have no problem with him being imprisoned in solitary confinement for 10 years without going crazy, but I have trouble with him being forgiving.  I know I am everything wrong with comic-book fans.)

I didn't like was how Apocalypse felt like an afterthought in his own movie.  I'm not sure why it felt that way, but it did.

I think it would have been a better film if they'd hired someone who could act for Scott Summers.

I also refuse to believe that there isn't one young German actor who can tolerate latex make-up that they could have had as Kurt.  Nothing against the guy they had but really!

Michael Fassbender can join Hugh Jackman in the list of actors who can't pull off a big 'NO'.  No offence intended to either of them, since I <3 them muchly, but they can't.

I do like that the film doesn't even try to pretend Erik's wife and child aren't dead meat.  Even non-comic book readers know what is about to happen.  The details are suitably horrifying (because doing the right thing is what outed Magneto, and the actual deaths were an accident and ...) but the final result was very similar to that bit in Wolverine: Origins, down to the flannel and no-ing.  (Although I approve of the flannel and the cinematography for the Polish bits).  I was deeply amused when he (far too suddenly, see also the 'half this film seems to be missing') changes sides at the end.  The minute that X flew down you knew who it was because who else on that battlefield had quite that flair and need for the over-dramatic.

You could also tell which bits they'd been forced to put in to prop up the next Wolverine movie.  I love Wolverine as much as the next person (actually depending who reads this, more than them) but I could have done without his cameo.  It felt kind of forced (although I did love that the minute I saw the helicopters I went 'oh no, Stryker, yuck'.  All three of the actors who have played him have done bang up jobs of being truly, truly vile.  Well played, sirs.)  But I suppose you have to put that in if you're suddenly got a 27 year age gap between two actors.  I know she won't be, but I do hope we get Famke Janssen at some point in the next Wolverine film.

There was, basically, too much CGI and not enough real peril.  The only bits where I felt the characters were in danger was Angel and Nightcrawler at the beginning, and then Mystique and Quicksilver at the end.

That's my complaints out of the way.

I would have complained about how much more martial Prof. X was at the end if it hadn't turned out to be deliberate.  Doing it deliberately I am happy with.  (Because it works with the theme that he, Mystique and Magneto can and should learn from each other.)

On to the stuff I really liked:

1 - The opening.  Go team normal that defeated (or very nearly defeated) Apocalypse and his Horsemen.

It was a bit too obviously shot for 3D but was so prettily done that I am almost tempted to watch the film again (even though its not that good) just to watch it.

2 - Moira.  Go, go, secret agent Moira.  Who is a better person than I am for not smacking Charles when he reveals what happened.

3 - Storm, although she was one of the characters who could have done with more time, because she at least got a character arc.  The actress does a damn good job given the lack of scenes, the lack of dialogue and general telling, not showing of her bits.

4 - Angel.  (Who is not Warren Worthington as far as I'm concerned).  Just yes.  Very convincing when they gave him stuff to do, and I loved how the film made it clear he was just as much a prisoner of the fight club as Nightcrawler was.  I also loved the bit when Apocalypse recruited him.

5 - Alex.  Okay, I knew he was also dead meat because the actor has a new TV job and he was suddenly very present after being absent for film 2 but he was so good in what we did have.

which leads to

6 - Oh Peter Maximoff.  I knew Evan Peters could act, but ... oh Peter.  Just ... he was fantastic, in all his doubt and amused self-loathing.

I also liked that he couldn't save everyone, because it's a nice counterpoint to the silliness of the rescue scene.

7 - The music.  Throughout.

8 - Charles Xavier.  Who has grown up.  That's what I got from the film.  He's not as wide-eyed and bushy-tailed as in First Class, but he's accepted he has responsibilities, which he didn't in Days of Future Past.  And even enjoys them.

Also, I loved that he went along with Apocalypse's thing just to get his own message out there.  And his complete and utter trust in Jean.

9 - Hank!! Always Hank.  He's just so ... he's the kind of person who really would knock up a pair of red quartz glasses and pretend he just had them lying around his workshop.  So that his friend's little brother won't feel bad.

10 - Mystique!  Who turns into Field Marshal Mystique when needed and hates being a hero and is doing her best.

I am deeply amused that Caliban's response to hearing that Magneto is in trouble is to pass it on to Mystique.  Everyone knows!  Hank's response to hearing this is even more fun.

Then there's the scene in the plane, which calls back to both the equivalent scene in X-Men 2, where it's Rogue, Pyro and Iceman who are the newbies, and the scene in First Class, and that heavy silence when Mystique has to tell them that they're the only survivors from First Class.

I actually really like how they tied this in to both the other two Reboot films and to the Originals, because, for all people say that the Originals have been ret-conned out of existence, they've done something much cleverer, which makes the "conversation" Xavier had with himself vital for the 'new' future's existence, and yet avoids a few continuity snarls.

~~~~

So yes, overall I like what it was trying to do, but I don't think it quite worked.

Euro 2016 Interconnectivity Diagrams

Looking at the chart, 3 things really stand out for me.

1 - Liverpool and Juventus are the two club teams with the most players represented at the Euros (12 players each).  As a fan of the evil zebras, this gives me an odd sort of pride.  Given Liverpool didn't win anything, I find it interesting that so many Liverpool players are present.  Ditto Spurs (who are next with 11).  Manchester United at least won the FA Cup (10 players) and of the next three most represented teams (Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Fenerbahçe, with 9 each), Bayern and Barca won their respective leagues, although Fenerbahçe didn't.

So either national managers are going with their tried and tested, and to hell with recent form or there's a lot of non-Euro 2016 qualifying players playing for the national champions of England and Turkey.

2 - Wales*, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Iceland don't have any players playing in their own home league.  England are the only team where all their players play in their home league.  The days of 'play at home or else you'll not be on the team', are over, if they ever existed in football.

3 - What happened to Dutch football?

I don't just mean, "how do you go from World Cup semi-finalists to not even qualifying for Euros where 45% of the teams get to play in the finals?", I mean what's happened to Dutch football from top to bottom.

There are more players from the US and Qatari leagues than from the Dutch leagues.  There is precisely 1 player representing the Eredivisie (Arkadiusz Milik of Poland).

I think it's such a shock because it used to be that for the smaller (in football terms) countries, it would always be 'they've got no superstars, but they've got X who plays for PSV (or Ajax),' and that doesn't seem to happen any more.  (By the looks of it, Switzerland has taken over this role.)  I'm not sure why this has happened or if it's an actual shift or just a quirk for this Euros.

If you look at the community view:

it amuses me greatly that both Austria and Switzerland and the Czech Republic and Slovakia are joined in communities.  Poland and Hungary are joined because of the number of Hungarian players playing for Polish teams.  I presume England, Belgium and Spain are joined because of the number of Spanish and Belgian players playing in the Premier League.  Ireland and Northern Ireland are joined because they both have players playing for Blackburn Rovers and Derby County, who have no other players representing them and West Brom, who only have one other player representing them that doesn't play for one of the two Irelands.

*Yes, I know Wales have Swansea and Cardiff players playing for them but both of those teams play in English leagues.

Captain America 3 - Civil War

(Spoilers throughout)

It's not every day Marvel blow up a building where your mother used to work.

I know there's a rest of the film that isn't set in Vienna, but I am, for somewhat obvious reasons, stuck on that bit.

Moving on to the actual film, although I will return to the above later, it's definitely the best of the Captain America films and it's a fine pragmatic adaptation of the Civil War story.  I use pragmatic in the best sense of the word, because whoever the writers are obviously went 'what were the missteps of the comics Civil War arc, and how do we avoid them?'

And they have.  Even Tony Stark gets to make reasonable, sensible points, and the Sokovia Protocols are significantly less stupid than the Superhero Registration Act.  (My own views are somewhere between Cap's and Vision's, with a fair dose of Natasha's thrown in.  You'll notice I'm on Cap's side despite that.)

Discussion of superhero politics

Admittedly I did mostly want to shout 'stop falling for sentimental illogic' at Tony, but at least his reasoning was better in the comics.  Part of my problem is that, Ultron excepted, I'm not sure any of the things that happened (New York, Washington or Lagos) would have ended in any other way had there been an oversight committee or if the Avengers hadn't been there.  In fact, I'm reasonably sure that the Avengers not being there would have lead to far worse things in the case of New York, Washington and Lagos.  (To wit, alien invasion, Hydra getting hold of the Insight Programme and Hydra getting hold of a biological nasty.)

So while I dig Tony's personal guilt re: Sokovia, I don't think this is the best way of assuaging it.

~~~~

I basically came out of the film going <3 T'Challa, Sam Wilson and Rhodey.  No really, all my love belongs to those three.

Also that Nat and Steve (and Clint and Rhodey and Sam) are the very, very best friends anyone could ever hope for (except mine.  My friends are the most awesome.).

Discussion of Steve's Awesome

One of the things that really interested me is how everything that Steve does is defensive, from preventing Hydra getting hold of whatever the bionasty was, to protecting Bucky.  Even when he's doing that, even at the end when Tony is (understandably) kill crazy, Steve's also doing minimal damage.  He's so lovely.

I also loved that shot just before the end of the fight with Tony where Tony thinks he's won because Bucky is unconscious and Steve's disarmed and Steve just puts up his fists and OMG he looks so much like pre-serum Steve, and, if Tony Stark without Iron Man is a billionaire playboy philanthropist, Steve without anything else is a heart of gold.

I also completely and utterly stars and hearts love that Steve's motivation was 'I don't want them to kill my friend'.  Like he'd be okay with jailed, was okay with jailed, just not with killed and I just want to give him a hug.

Discussion about the bad guy

Okay so I saw Daniel Bruhl being sinister and he's a German actor and I thought 'oh no, here we go again', but oh they went to interesting places instead and used Bruhl's talents and that scene with Zemo and T'Challa!!!

It was interesting that they gave Zemo the same motivation as two of the good guys and had the good guys (or at least T'Challa) admit that.  And !!!! again.

I could have done without infinitely punchable psychiatrist (as ably portrayed by Martin Freeman) but Zemo as a whole was interesting.

Iron Man and the family Stark

When I say they made Tony Stark more reasonable than in the comics I meant it.  But that doesn't mean he was any less himself than usual.  I mean, the rest of it, including the revenge rampage I can understand, but imprisoning Wanda and dragging in child soldiers, not so much.  (I do not care how old Peter is supposed to be, he looks like a child.)

He also did the usual Tony thing of starting something then not seeing it through.  So okay, Cap is out and away, (along with Bucky) and he's okay with that, but he's happy to leave Clint, Wanda, Sam and Scott Lang in prison.  Fuck you Tony with a vengeance.

Robert Downey jnr does a fantastic job throughout of being just lovable enough to get away with it and just aggravating enough to be Tony Stark.  He's marvelous.  (As are whoever did the CGI work for young Tony because that's uncanny.)

The twist of who was in the car is solid.  As in I didn't twig before the film wanted me to.  (Also the music for that scene was really good.)  It's also a solid example of when there is no "right" thing to do in a situation, which there are several of in the film, which I really like.  I can see Tony's point that he had a right to know, but that suggests that if it had been AN Other SHIELD agent who'd been killed, he'd be okay with it (see also being okay with Black Widow despite what she's done).  Then again, Steve's reason for not telling him isn't exactly selfless either, 'I know how you will react and I would like you to not go kill-crazy on my best friend' is again, understandable if flawed.  As usual Marvel, both films and comics, is best when its messy rather than clear cut.

~~~~

Now we get to the bit where I snark.  About things like the German armed police being involved in a raid in Bucharest, and all the cars having the wrong number plates.  And the area around the UN buildings being nothing like that.  I was hopeful when the establishing shot was right but the location shooting was blatantly not in Vienna.

But yes, I did have a fun moment of going 'yay, it's my home town they're blowing up,' which friend L says is odd because he's getting sick of London being blown up in films.

~~~~

While I still think this should and could have been Avengers 3 (even without Hulk and Thor), the ending bit made it clear why this was named for Captain America.  Oh Steve!

Batman vs Superman

Batman vs Superman was two, maybe two and a half good films, frankensteined into one that doesn't quite work.

I actually really liked Superman vs Lex Luthor (except for the bits where they make Lex too Jokerish [not every supervillain has to be the Joker, DC], and the bit at the end where they reduce him to a herald for Darkseid. Which is not Lex Luthor's job.). Lex is evil in a clever way, and Clark gets to be lovely (mostly).

Batman vs Superman was quite good, except for the bits where Clark was an idiot. Because Clark isn't an idiot. I'm even okay with self-righteousness, but I don't think I'm supposed to think 'shut up Superman, you don't understand what's going on. Think a little harder.' at various points. Unfortunately, they gave Alfred the same "logic" and, well, I really don't like going 'shut up Alfred'. I am so totally on Batman's side on this one.

I will even accept their excuse for the new Batsuit, even if, in that sequence, I wanted to go 'Clark, the quick solution to this is to tell Bats what's going on'. I really don't like it when they make Superman stupid. (Also, I know people who can lift more than Batman. That's just wrong ;) )

Despite the fact that I think Wonder Woman was the third best thing about the film (Batfleck and Lex Luthor are 1 and 2), I could have done without that Justice League stuff being shoved in. Most of it (except the wonderful 'some boys share' bit) felt rushed and squashed and took up valuable time in the film.

What I really don't get is how of the characters the one they get right is Bruce Wayne. Who theoretically is the difficult one to do right. I don't like their Superman, I have some issues with their Lois (very few, mostly I love her) and Clark, but Bruce and Batsy I love.

No, really, I want to draw stars and hearts around Ben Affleck's Bruce and I'm actually quite sad that I won't get an Affleck solo Bat film.

It might be that it is easier to do grimdark Bruce and still be true to the character than it is to do Superman grimdark and still get the real Superman in there (I do think it's possible. David Goyer is just not the guy to do it.).

I know the film wants us to go 'yes, Superman and Alfred are right about Bruce weaponising kryptonite' and yet, Superman might not be the only Kryptonian about and there's no point assuming the rest of them are going to be cuddly. I am once again on Team Bats.

Two things really annoyed me:

1 - The evil terrorists at the start, I think I'm supposed to be annoyed when they kill Lois's sidekick rather than being really angry at him (and the CIA) for endangering every other journalist in the world.

2 - Since when is Superman American? Why is he getting a US military funeral? I realise that when the MCU mentions the rest of the world it's ham-fisted, but hey, at least they try. I wouldn't mind if Batman vs Superman was just hyper-focused on Gotham and Metropolis (like the Nolan Bat films are), but it's not, in the oddest ways.

Also, in a much smaller way, why is Luthor suddenly half-German?

I could also have done without Snyder's continuing love affair with the slow-mo, and the constant Messianic overtones with Superman. I have spent enough time in art museums to know most of the archetypal paintings Snyder is ripping off. And it is ripping off, not referencing. 

The other thing I didn’t like is spoilery. 

Superman’s “death”. 

The phrase, 'like you really would’ springs to mind. It robs the scene of all pathos. I think badly injured would have been better and actually more tear-jerking. 

This all sounds more negative than I actually felt about the film.  It’s enjoyable popcorn and would probably be better without its pretensions.

For They're Jolly Good Fellows

I'm not sure where to begin when talking about Paul O'Connell.  For Munster and Ireland he's been involved in and been one of the motivating forces behind several sporting triumphs which have given great joy to both me and my Mum.

If Brian O'Driscoll has the happy knack of making the impossible look easy, and his play had the beauty of artistry, then O'Connell's play showed the starker beauty of hard work and grit.  O'Connell in full flight, monstering the opposition (and his own players) is one of the most glorious sights in sport.

From one of the biggest players on any pitch (to quote friend L, O'Connell can loom sitting down) to a man who was one of the smaller guys in any wrestling ring.

American Dragon, as was, was one of the participants in one of my favourite series of wrestling matches.  He and Danny Williams wrestled in FWA, ROH and somewhere else, which I have managed to forget.  I caught the FWA match on The Wrestling Channel and I just had to, absolutely had to, see the next one (which was the ROH one).  I was even willing to suffer ROH's camerawork for them.  My problem with old school ROH's camerawork wasn't anything refined as artistic issues, no, it made me seasick and I do actually mean that, no hyperbole is involved.  But that match was worth it.

Sadly I missed most of Daniel Bryan's WWE run, including Team Hell No and his championship run, but I'm happy he made it.

And, while I'm sad to see him go, I'm glad he's made the sensible decision to quit given his health.

That's true in both their cases actually, because they're both the kind of stubborn who might not, and both rugby and wrestling are littered with people who should have quit for their own good but didn't.

I think that's something lots of pro-sports, but particularly wrestling (at this point, I'd like to say how sorry I am to hear about Axl Rotten and Balls Mahoney), need to look at - an exit strategy for people too injured to carry on, and too stubborn to realise it.

But to return to my original purpose - let us now raise a virtual glass to Paul O'Connell and Daniel Bryan, for every shout, cheer, curse and delight they've given us.

Our Next James Bond

Is not going to be Idris Elba.  Which is annoying for many, many reasons.  At least partly because I suspect Eon know he's not going to be James Bond and they're only getting people's hopes up.

I'm going to give Eon a pass, because I don't think their main reason is going to be Elba's race (and any fanboys who want to complain about having a black James Bond given the present James Blond are being awfully peculiar about which book details they demand from an actor).  I think his age is going to be the main problem.  Elba is 43, and would be replacing the 48 year old Daniel Craig.  Presuming that it takes 3 years to make a Bond fil, then that's only one or two films before they're likely to bring the next guy in.

I would love for the next James Bond to be Idris Elba having been a fan since Ultraviolet (Ultraviolet still being in the top two shows about its subject matter ever) but I have reached acceptance on the matter.

So who is likely to be the guy that gets the backlash for not being Idris Elba?

For a while it seemed like it might be Henry Cavill, and large chunks of the Man From U.N.C.L.E. acts as a very fine audition tape.  But there is one problem.

Superman.

Given the time and effort it takes to make a blockbuster, if he's already Superman, I doubt Eon would be willing to work around DC/WB's timetable.  Now, in an ideal world, that would mean they'd take Superman away from the people who can't write him and Cavill would be free to play Bond, but since it looks like they're going to be a Justice League series of films, that's not going to happen.

The moment I saw the snow chase scene in Inception, I went "there is our next James Bond".  I would love to have Tom Hardy as James Bond.  He can wear the heck out of a suit, he can do the violence, he can do the character, including that worrying lack of care about violence and he's young enough that they could get a fair few films out of him.  Friend L insists that Hardy couldn't do the suave bits of the Bond character, the way Bond is supposed to be able to choke someone to death with his bare hands while calmly discussing the right wine for the situation.  I think he could do that though.

A more significant problem is that I'm not sure Tom Hardy would want to do a franchise, or certainly not be the lead in one that so heavily relies on its main character.  Maybe if we got Christopher Nolan to direct.  By the way, if Nolan does ever direct a Bond film, I may have to be restrained for my own safety.  I would be excessively excited.

The aforementioned L has two desires when it comes to James Bond: Michael Fassbender to play Red Grant in a 'From Russia with Love' remake and Tom Hiddleston as James Bond.

I try to be supportive, as I've already had my perfect Bond.  (It is Timothy Dalton.  I accept no substitutes.)  L points out that Hiddleston can do the sharpness of Bond, and the well-spoken public schoolboy thing (because he is a well-spoken public schoolboy).  My problem is that I'm not sure Hiddleston can do the dead-eyed violent sociopathy bit.  I worry that he'd be too sympathetic.  I'm also not sure he can do violent menace.  L says I am being ridiculous, and that Michael Fassbender, who I don't want as Bond but can do the violent dangerous bit is every bit the same sort of wiry and lithe that Hiddleston is.  I keep trying to explain to him that Fassbender has dangerous shoulders and Hiddleston doesn't, which he says makes no sense.  The problem is I know exactly what I mean but I can't explain myself properly.  It has nothing to do with whether or not Hiddleston can do stunts and fightscenes.  I've seen enough clips of his Coriolanus to know he can fight.  It's something else, something intangible, which doesn't help on the explaining front.

Of the four actors I've mentioned, I suspect Hiddleston is the most likely at the moment, but that doesn't mean Eon won't go for someone truly random, see also Daniel Craig over Clive Owen much though I <3 Craig's Bond and Daniel Craig himself.

I've had to explain to one of the PhD students that no, Channing Tatum should not be the next James Bond, much though I also <3 Channing Tatum and would be utterly behind him as either the CIA's best and brightest in his own series of films, or Felix Leiter if Jeffrey Wright gets bored of playing him, but not James Bond.

At the minute Tom Hardy is the bookies favourite as well as mine, but that doesn't mean that much because I remember Clive Owen being the favourite before the last announcement.

I think that's a reasonable run-down of the runners and riders.  Anyone I've missed?

On Warren-Ball and Clive-Ball

Note: I am a fan of the Irish rugby team. Nothing to do with heritage, more that tap tackle on Dan Luger by Peter Stringer. After that my heart belonged to any team with Stringer on it.

I am also a rugby league fan who is still somewhat convinced that union is what happens to rugby when it's been bad and needs to be punished. This year's Six Nations is not helping that feeling.

~~~~

The present discussion in the UK (for which read London) press of Warren-ball, it's strengths and limitations, and the damage it causes to players seems to be willfully ignoring that it's an adaptation of the Clive Woodward playing style.

Clive-ball, for those of you who luckily missed those years, is possession-based. Keep the ball, maintain pressure, wait for the opponents to give away a penalty, give the ball to Jonny. (Those people who go on about how many tries the Woodward England team scored missed that they were often because the opposition had someone in the sin-bin and/or were chasing the game.)

Now there are some limitations to this plan, which we'll call 'needs Jonny'. It's also quite hard to come up with a plan against.

All the plans seem to involve some form of 'fronting up' or hitting the team playing Clive-ball hard so that your team get the ball. Now Ireland also added the choke tackle to that plan but that also has certain personnel requirements vis-a-vie the now retired Paul O'Connell and stop-getting-injured Sean O'Brien (also known as stop-getting-caught-punching-Pascal-Pape Sean O'Brien). But the "purest" form of fronting up to confound Clive-ball is Wales's Warren-ball.

It's an intrinsically destructive form of the game where, because the players are picked for size as much as skill, doing something once they've got the ball is the problem.

Warren-ball and its variants are also incredibly wearing.  When Courtney Lawes (highlight reel here) complains that English players (or players in the English Premiership) play too many games and are, pretty much, always sore, it's not coming from a dainty player doesn't enjoy contact.

The other problem is that you end up in an arms race. If their fly half is 6 foot tall, then yours has to be that too and the next one will be 6 foot 1. (Compare the vital statistics of Neil Jenkins [1.78 m, 86 kg], Stephen Jones [1.85 m, 94 kg], Dan Biggar [1.88 m, 89 kg] in the Wales fly-half position.) This has two effects, 1) the slightly smaller than Superman get locked out of the professional game and 2) any contact has more force about it because goodness knows they're still moving at speed. This is true in both open play and the scrum.

I swear that's where most of the sudden increase in injuries has come from. Obviously injuries happen, and always have done, and you'll never have a contact sport (or any sport) where no injuries occur but the number of players of middle career age (25-29) retiring with degenerative joint issues is ridiculous. Oddly, I don't think there's been as large an increase in concussions, I think we're just more aware of them and how serious they are now.

The other problem with Warren-ball is that once your opponents know you're playing it, it's possible to get round it, although this too involves "fronting up" and can lead to the aforementioned injury issues.  Last year, for instance, Ireland finished higher than Wales last year but I swear that was at least in part because they were more terrified of their captain than their opponents (now is a good time for that Paul O'Connell clip).

And while Warren-ball might win you the 6 Nations, it seems to be utterly useless at World Cup level, where the Southern Hemisphere players are big *and* skillful (sneaky evil is a skill and it lies at the heart of New Zealand's game). A variety of reasons has been suggested as to why this is, but while New Zealand remain the pinnacle, I doubt population size is the reason. I do however agree with the general view that the way NZ junior rugby is divided into weight as well as age categories probably helps retain the late growers better, and means that the bigger players have to be skillful (and learn skills) because they're playing against players as big as they are so they don't have the size advantage that you can get between a 13 year old who has had their growth spurt and one who hasn't.

Since that kind of thing, if the Northern Hemisphere unions ever take it on-board, is going to take a generation to work through, I fear I am going to have to rely on an Australian who reminds me of a malicious Yoda to produce fun rugby in the 6 Nations, and since he's the England manager, this fills me with woe.