No “Favourite films of 2018” post yet because I live in hope of watching Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse before the end of the year.
Saturday 29 December 2018
Sunday 9 December 2018
The Euro 2020 Qualification Draw - Or UEFA do love to over-complicate things
I have seen the results of draw for the Euro 2020 qualifiers, and I have very little to say about them, other than Austria’s draw looks okay (they can qualify second from that group), the fight for second place in group F looks like it could be tasty, and the winners of the Netherlands vs Germany will be us, the viewing public.
The interesting thing with this draw is the set of rules UEFA are using for the draw (full rules, less well explained under the “draw details” tab here). Some of the rules make sense, some of them are more .... well, as friend L said “I fear UEFA have seen American College Football, and told them to hold their beer.”
Starting with the sensible ones, one rule says that Spain and Gibraltar can’t be drawn together, and neither can Kosovo and Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina (I also suspect there would be surreptitious switching if Russia and Ukraine drew each other). I can completely understand that one.
Next is the cold weather rule - a maximum of two countries at risk of severe winters can be in one group. These countries are: Belarus, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia and Ukraine. Again, I can understand that, cold weather increases the risk of postponement and if you have too many postponed games, the fixtures pile up at unfortunate points of the season.
Then there’s the distance rule about travel to Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Iceland because they are too far away from everyone. For each of these three countries there is a list of countries of which only one can be drawn with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan or Iceland (the list for each country can also be found under the “draw details” tab here). Again, I can understand this one, because UEFA want atmosphere at the games and if you give fans too many far off places to travel then they’re not going to travel. So far, so reasonably sensible.
Then we hit the rules where I am not quite sure why they’re there.
The first is to do with the host countries for Euro 2020. As I am sure you know, Euro 2020 is being hosted by many, many countries. UEFA are trying to make sure that the countries that are hosting will at least have a chance of qualifying, which again, I understand for atmosphere reasons. As the top two teams in each group qualify, no more than two host countries are allowed in each group. The host countries are: England, Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Azerbaijan, Denmark, Hungary, Romania and Russia. The reason I don’t like it is that it gives some of the bigger names in European football a bit of an advantage. If you’re England, you’re glad you don’t get Germany and say Romania, because Romania are a solid and occasionally tricksy side.
However, that rule is only going to stay for Euro 2020, unless they decide to repeat the experiment for a later tournament. The rule I really don’t like and that I can’t see going (unless the entire overly-complicated Nations League tournament is overhauled) is that the Nations League finalists have to be drawn in 5 team pools. This is so they have a gap in the schedules for the Nations League final matches. Those four teams are England, Switzerland, Portugal and the Netherlands.
I don’t like this rule because the teams that will be in the Nations League final are already going to be the good teams and giving them a match off seem to be depriving a minnow of a big money match. As per usual, I’ve seen what draw you’d get if you apply these rules to the FIFA rankings at the time of the draw. If you apply the rules to the rankings, this is the result.
The interesting thing with this draw is the set of rules UEFA are using for the draw (full rules, less well explained under the “draw details” tab here). Some of the rules make sense, some of them are more .... well, as friend L said “I fear UEFA have seen American College Football, and told them to hold their beer.”
Starting with the sensible ones, one rule says that Spain and Gibraltar can’t be drawn together, and neither can Kosovo and Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina (I also suspect there would be surreptitious switching if Russia and Ukraine drew each other). I can completely understand that one.
Next is the cold weather rule - a maximum of two countries at risk of severe winters can be in one group. These countries are: Belarus, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia and Ukraine. Again, I can understand that, cold weather increases the risk of postponement and if you have too many postponed games, the fixtures pile up at unfortunate points of the season.
Then there’s the distance rule about travel to Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Iceland because they are too far away from everyone. For each of these three countries there is a list of countries of which only one can be drawn with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan or Iceland (the list for each country can also be found under the “draw details” tab here). Again, I can understand this one, because UEFA want atmosphere at the games and if you give fans too many far off places to travel then they’re not going to travel. So far, so reasonably sensible.
Then we hit the rules where I am not quite sure why they’re there.
The first is to do with the host countries for Euro 2020. As I am sure you know, Euro 2020 is being hosted by many, many countries. UEFA are trying to make sure that the countries that are hosting will at least have a chance of qualifying, which again, I understand for atmosphere reasons. As the top two teams in each group qualify, no more than two host countries are allowed in each group. The host countries are: England, Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Azerbaijan, Denmark, Hungary, Romania and Russia. The reason I don’t like it is that it gives some of the bigger names in European football a bit of an advantage. If you’re England, you’re glad you don’t get Germany and say Romania, because Romania are a solid and occasionally tricksy side.
However, that rule is only going to stay for Euro 2020, unless they decide to repeat the experiment for a later tournament. The rule I really don’t like and that I can’t see going (unless the entire overly-complicated Nations League tournament is overhauled) is that the Nations League finalists have to be drawn in 5 team pools. This is so they have a gap in the schedules for the Nations League final matches. Those four teams are England, Switzerland, Portugal and the Netherlands.
I don’t like this rule because the teams that will be in the Nations League final are already going to be the good teams and giving them a match off seem to be depriving a minnow of a big money match. As per usual, I’ve seen what draw you’d get if you apply these rules to the FIFA rankings at the time of the draw. If you apply the rules to the rankings, this is the result.
Group A
|
Group B
|
Group C
|
Group D
|
Group E
|
Group F
|
Group G
|
Group H
|
Group I
|
Group J
|
Belgium
|
France
|
Croatia
|
England
|
Portugal
|
Switzerland
|
Spain
|
Denmark
|
Sweden
|
Netherlands
|
Ireland
|
Serbia
|
Ukraine
|
Slovakia
|
Romania
|
Austria
|
Poland
|
Wales
|
Italy
|
Germany
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Northern Ireland
|
Iceland
|
Scotland
|
Turkey
|
Czech Republic
|
Greece
|
Montenegro
|
Bulgaria
|
Norway
|
Georgia
|
Cyprus
|
Luxembourg
|
Belarus
|
Macedonia
|
Slovenia
|
Albania
|
Finland
|
Hungary
|
Russia
|
Israel
|
Estonia
|
Armenia
|
Faroe Islands
|
Azerbaijan
|
Kazakhstan
|
Latvia
|
Kosovo
|
Andorra
|
Moldova
|
San Marino
|
Gibraltar
|
Malta
|
Lichtenstein
|
Lithuania
|
Belgium get a rest match due to a lack of a 56th team, having earned it by being the top ranked European team on the FIFA rankings. Overall, the strength of the groups is similar, mostly because of the moving around that has to be done to accommodate all the rules.
Of course, depending on how the Nations League tier finals results go, there’s every chance a supercomputer is going to be required to understand who will eventually qualify, because UEFA like to over-complicate everything.
I suspect that if the NCAA decide to expand the college football play-offs, their choices on how to do that are going to make this seem utterly logical, but then again, that might only encourage UEFA!
Saturday 27 October 2018
Peter Stringer
To an extent, my memories of rugby union are tied up with Peter Stringer. I have strangely vivid memories of Scotland winning the Grand Slam in 1990, reinforced by my mother's Corries videos, but the first memory that is definitely mine and not just disjointed plays, is Peter Stringer's tap tackle on Dan Luger.
I think it sums his career up quite well. It was borderline impossible, required determination and heart (and a certain bodily recklessness) and was valuable beyond measure.
How else can you describe someone who at 1.7 m and 73 kg tries to tackle All Blacks?
While opinion is mixed as to who was the best scrum half between the years 2000 and 2010, Stringer is probably not going to be on anyone's list. Which is a shame, because he did the simple things well. I do have a fondness for excellence of execution.
His style also worked for the team he was in. You can play like New Zealand if you've got players like New Zealand (I'd have used France as the example, but France are having trouble playing like France at the moment).
And because he worked so well in that team, he could he set up Jamie Heaslip's match-winning try in the 2009 Six Nations game against Scotland. That performance won Stringer the Man of the Match award and meant that Ireland could go to Cardiff for their match against Wales with a chance of winning not just the title but the Grand Slam as well. In that final match against Wales, it was Stringer's pass to O'Gara that led to the drop goal that won Ireland their first grand slam in 61 years.
The Stringer to O'Gara connection was also vital to Munster's successes, such as finally winning the Heineken Cup. And this would be him scoring the winning try. This was especially sweet as he was the person Neil Back stole the ball from to cost Munster the title in 2002. The try also shows what I liked about the way he played - there was sneak and guile, looking for spaces instead of running into contact, more than that, actually finding the space, and using it.
I think Stringer is very much the definition of tiny and awesome and has been (and always will be) my favourite rugby players because of that.
Sunday 5 August 2018
A Better Formula 1 Calendar (Or A More Efficient One At Least)
It's summer break time in Formula 1. That means it's time for the traditional "there are too many races" articles from the journos. I quite like the BBC's choose your races for a 16 race season thing because it's something a little different to the usual.
I like "different to the usual", and this is my contribution to that.
What if we don't get rid of races, but, instead, find a better order in which to race them to save time, distance and cost.
There is a shiny app dedicated to solving the travelling salesman problem. Simplifying horribly, the travelling salesman problem asks "what is the most efficient route round x number of points?" The app, here, does the hard work for you. It's really good because it copes with cross-ocean travel, which not all apps for the travelling salesman problem do.
To find the most efficient route to cover all the races of the 2018 F1 season, I tried to put in the locations of the races.
That was when the first problem occurred. Completely understandably, the app only includes cities, and several of the racetracks are not in or near cities. Therefore, I've gone with the nearest city to the locations of the races. The races affected by this are:
Race - closest city
Bahrain GP - Manama
French GP - Marseille
Austrian GP - Ljubljana (stop laughing in the back)
British GP - Leicester
German GP - Stuttgart for Hockenheim
Belgian GP - Brussels
Italian GP - Milan
Japanese GP - Nagoya
This was the map that the app produced:
In case you can't read the labels, the order the program puts the locations in is Melbourne, Singapore, Nagoya, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Manama, Baku, Sochi, Ljubljana, Budapest, Milan, Barcelona, Marseille, Monte Carlo, Stuttgart, Brussel, Leicester, Montreal, Austin, Mexico City, Sao Paolo.
That's start in Australia, fly over to Asia and race the Asian and Middle Eastern tracks. The route then moves across Europe from East to West, from the UK go across to Canada, down the Americas and finishes in Brazil.
The one downside to the solution is that it has to return to its starting point, because it solves the travelling salesman problem. That makes it more likely that an outlying point, in this case Melbourne, will be the starting point.
But, and this is the important thing, doesn't the order that it proposes better from a logistical point of view? Doesn't it make more sense than jumping from Australia to Bahrain, only to jump back to China. Following that, in the real calendar, there's a slow drift across from Asia to Europe, only for the circuit to leap from Monaco to Montreal, then back to France followed by the rest of the European races bar one. Then, in the real world, we go from Europe to Singapore, back to Europe, then out to Japan, which is two long flights the smaller teams could probably do without. From Japan, it's over to the US, then down, through Mexico to Brazil, which makes sense. Going from there to Abu Dhabi does not.
The app's more efficient plan avoids a number of weeks where the teams barely have time to land before they have to take off again. The simplified route only crosses the Atlantic once (as opposed to four times in the actual calendar) and doesn't cross the Indian Ocean at all (as opposed to twice in the real calendar). It avoids a trip to Singapore and back in the middle of the season. It also avoids a 15+ hour trip from Japan to Texas. Those changes should make logistics easier for the teams and mean that the pit crew (and other, even less heralded team members) might have chance to see their families once in a while.
Of course, the app is only bound by geography and the information entered. In reality, the layout of the season is determined by money and politics. Certainly, the US Grand Prix is at that point in the season just so there's a chance that the Championship might be decided on US soil so there might finally be major US commercial interest. It also wouldn't surprise me if Abu Dhabi's contract is to host the final race of the season, not any old race.
Someone with more mathematical / coding skill than me would probably be able to come up with a way of running a similar algorithm with a fixed final point. That would mean you could find the most efficient route is if it has to finish at Abu Dhabi. Whatever that calendar is, it won't be the one that F1 is using at the moment. Going all the way over to the Americas only to come back to the Middle East really adds mileage.
It will be interesting to see how Liberty deal with this when Abu Dhabi's contract is up for renewal because I don't think anyone likes where Abu Dhabi is on the calendar.
It's not just because I'd rather see titles decided in Brazil. Given the way the last few seasons have gone, they title is more likely to be wrapped up before the last race. My objection to Abu Dhabi having the last race is that I'd rather the last race be somewhere where we might get actual racing action.
I like "different to the usual", and this is my contribution to that.
What if we don't get rid of races, but, instead, find a better order in which to race them to save time, distance and cost.
There is a shiny app dedicated to solving the travelling salesman problem. Simplifying horribly, the travelling salesman problem asks "what is the most efficient route round x number of points?" The app, here, does the hard work for you. It's really good because it copes with cross-ocean travel, which not all apps for the travelling salesman problem do.
To find the most efficient route to cover all the races of the 2018 F1 season, I tried to put in the locations of the races.
That was when the first problem occurred. Completely understandably, the app only includes cities, and several of the racetracks are not in or near cities. Therefore, I've gone with the nearest city to the locations of the races. The races affected by this are:
Race - closest city
Bahrain GP - Manama
French GP - Marseille
Austrian GP - Ljubljana (stop laughing in the back)
British GP - Leicester
German GP - Stuttgart for Hockenheim
Belgian GP - Brussels
Italian GP - Milan
Japanese GP - Nagoya
This was the map that the app produced:
In case you can't read the labels, the order the program puts the locations in is Melbourne, Singapore, Nagoya, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Manama, Baku, Sochi, Ljubljana, Budapest, Milan, Barcelona, Marseille, Monte Carlo, Stuttgart, Brussel, Leicester, Montreal, Austin, Mexico City, Sao Paolo.
That's start in Australia, fly over to Asia and race the Asian and Middle Eastern tracks. The route then moves across Europe from East to West, from the UK go across to Canada, down the Americas and finishes in Brazil.
The one downside to the solution is that it has to return to its starting point, because it solves the travelling salesman problem. That makes it more likely that an outlying point, in this case Melbourne, will be the starting point.
But, and this is the important thing, doesn't the order that it proposes better from a logistical point of view? Doesn't it make more sense than jumping from Australia to Bahrain, only to jump back to China. Following that, in the real calendar, there's a slow drift across from Asia to Europe, only for the circuit to leap from Monaco to Montreal, then back to France followed by the rest of the European races bar one. Then, in the real world, we go from Europe to Singapore, back to Europe, then out to Japan, which is two long flights the smaller teams could probably do without. From Japan, it's over to the US, then down, through Mexico to Brazil, which makes sense. Going from there to Abu Dhabi does not.
The app's more efficient plan avoids a number of weeks where the teams barely have time to land before they have to take off again. The simplified route only crosses the Atlantic once (as opposed to four times in the actual calendar) and doesn't cross the Indian Ocean at all (as opposed to twice in the real calendar). It avoids a trip to Singapore and back in the middle of the season. It also avoids a 15+ hour trip from Japan to Texas. Those changes should make logistics easier for the teams and mean that the pit crew (and other, even less heralded team members) might have chance to see their families once in a while.
Of course, the app is only bound by geography and the information entered. In reality, the layout of the season is determined by money and politics. Certainly, the US Grand Prix is at that point in the season just so there's a chance that the Championship might be decided on US soil so there might finally be major US commercial interest. It also wouldn't surprise me if Abu Dhabi's contract is to host the final race of the season, not any old race.
Someone with more mathematical / coding skill than me would probably be able to come up with a way of running a similar algorithm with a fixed final point. That would mean you could find the most efficient route is if it has to finish at Abu Dhabi. Whatever that calendar is, it won't be the one that F1 is using at the moment. Going all the way over to the Americas only to come back to the Middle East really adds mileage.
It will be interesting to see how Liberty deal with this when Abu Dhabi's contract is up for renewal because I don't think anyone likes where Abu Dhabi is on the calendar.
It's not just because I'd rather see titles decided in Brazil. Given the way the last few seasons have gone, they title is more likely to be wrapped up before the last race. My objection to Abu Dhabi having the last race is that I'd rather the last race be somewhere where we might get actual racing action.
Sunday 29 July 2018
Film Locations
Once a year I like to look at where the films I've watched are set.
This is a deeply incomplete look at films up to August 2015.
That's all locations, including fictional ones, and, as you can see, the United States and the United Kingdom dominate.
If I just look at real places, they dominate even more.
If I look at the UK-set films
They're mostly set in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland have no representation at all. I really need to watch more films :)
That's all locations, including fictional ones, and, as you can see, the United States and the United Kingdom dominate.If I just look at real places, they dominate even more.
If I look at the UK-set films
They're mostly set in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland have no representation at all. I really need to watch more films :)
Sunday 22 July 2018
Women's Cycling
There is no women's Tour de France. I wish there was. I am 100% behind most of the many and varied attempts to get one.
But the whole "x amateur women are riding it to try and get one" that's getting all the media attention this year strikes me as the worst possible way.
Partly this is the media's fault. The first week of the Tour is the one with all the boring flat stages, so the media look for anything they can to write about. And this is an interesting thing to write about.
Unfortunately, it means that they aren't covering the Giro Rosa*. Given the Giro is the only one of the grand tours that actually has a women's race, this is frustrating. Especially as it was such a good race. Annemiek van Vleuten is just amazing.
Compare the coverage of the amateur race with the coverage of La Course, where the the UCI Pro women's teams race the most interesting stage of the Tour in the morning before the men. La Course is down to one stage which is annoying but hopefully the joy of crowd might convince them to give it a second stage again.
Also, see, I told you van Vleuten was amazing.
Another annoying thing is the amount of face time Skoda are getting for backing the amateur race. If you've got that much money, Skoda, you can fund a goddamn women's pro tour race! (Sorry!)
The other thing that annoyed me was the people who were up in arms about the lack of women's Tour but were willing to ignore the Giro Rosa. It could be because the media don't cover the Giro Rosa so people don't know about it. Or it could be people just enjoy getting enraged without doing some background research.
I think we're more likely to get a women's Tour if we makes the most of the excellent riders we have now. That wil make it clear to sponsors that they can get recognition and sales money (or possibly tax write-offs) by sponsoring them or a race. This involves building on the successes of the Giro Rosa, and races like it. To an extent, we are getting there, just look at the number of UCI pro women's teams. Also look at how many of them attached to men's teams, suggesting a more stable funding stream.
Build from what we've got works better than build from nothing.
*The pink thing isn't pinkification, it's the colour of the original Giro race sponsors so the men's jersey is also the pink jersey.
But the whole "x amateur women are riding it to try and get one" that's getting all the media attention this year strikes me as the worst possible way.
Partly this is the media's fault. The first week of the Tour is the one with all the boring flat stages, so the media look for anything they can to write about. And this is an interesting thing to write about.
Unfortunately, it means that they aren't covering the Giro Rosa*. Given the Giro is the only one of the grand tours that actually has a women's race, this is frustrating. Especially as it was such a good race. Annemiek van Vleuten is just amazing.
Compare the coverage of the amateur race with the coverage of La Course, where the the UCI Pro women's teams race the most interesting stage of the Tour in the morning before the men. La Course is down to one stage which is annoying but hopefully the joy of crowd might convince them to give it a second stage again.
Also, see, I told you van Vleuten was amazing.
Another annoying thing is the amount of face time Skoda are getting for backing the amateur race. If you've got that much money, Skoda, you can fund a goddamn women's pro tour race! (Sorry!)
The other thing that annoyed me was the people who were up in arms about the lack of women's Tour but were willing to ignore the Giro Rosa. It could be because the media don't cover the Giro Rosa so people don't know about it. Or it could be people just enjoy getting enraged without doing some background research.
I think we're more likely to get a women's Tour if we makes the most of the excellent riders we have now. That wil make it clear to sponsors that they can get recognition and sales money (or possibly tax write-offs) by sponsoring them or a race. This involves building on the successes of the Giro Rosa, and races like it. To an extent, we are getting there, just look at the number of UCI pro women's teams. Also look at how many of them attached to men's teams, suggesting a more stable funding stream.
Build from what we've got works better than build from nothing.
*The pink thing isn't pinkification, it's the colour of the original Giro race sponsors so the men's jersey is also the pink jersey.
Tuesday 17 July 2018
2018 World Cup Final Diagram
What a match!
Probably the best final since 1994, although, admittedly, my memory only goes back to 1994.
Exciting, excruciating, and while the better team won, I feel terribly sorry for Croatia. Also, I told you that Lloris would drop a clanger.
No community view this time because once you're down to two teams it doesn't add any value.
Probably the best final since 1994, although, admittedly, my memory only goes back to 1994.
Exciting, excruciating, and while the better team won, I feel terribly sorry for Croatia. Also, I told you that Lloris would drop a clanger.
No community view this time because once you're down to two teams it doesn't add any value.
Possibly because very few Croats (2/23) play in their home league, and only 9/23 French players play in the French league.
At the last World Cup final, only two teams would have had a winner no matter who won, and those two teams were Real Madrid and Lazio.
Comparing it to the last two Euros, which I can do because this World Cup final was an all European final, in 2016 only Lyon would have had a winner whichever side won, and in 2012 there was only 1, Manchester City who had Mario Balotelli on one side and David Silva on the other.
Six clubs jointly had the most players in the final two teams, Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, Marseille, Monaco, Paris Saint Germain and Real Madrid.
Juventus are the club team nearest the centre.
Friday 13 July 2018
World Cup Final Predictions
I think I really ought to go for France just because I predicted them before the start of the tournament.
I think they'll do it, because they've got that little bit more quality throughout. Before anyone says anything about *that* Croatian midfield, I know they're good, and I love them, but the thing they don't like, real, proper Modric and Rakitic kryptonite, is someone who harries them and doesn't give them space on the ball. In N'Golo Kante, France have an excellent proponent of that.
I am looking forward to the tiny midfielder football off.
While Lloris hasn't had one of his regular clangers, I have the greatest of doubts about Danijel Subašić's goalkeeping. Croatia also have Vida, who is one of those players *things* happen to and I fear the next one is going to be a bad thing.
France also have Mbappe. Who is better than advertised!
There's also more than a small part of me that wants France to win just for Didier Deschamps who I loved as a player.
I think they'll do it, because they've got that little bit more quality throughout. Before anyone says anything about *that* Croatian midfield, I know they're good, and I love them, but the thing they don't like, real, proper Modric and Rakitic kryptonite, is someone who harries them and doesn't give them space on the ball. In N'Golo Kante, France have an excellent proponent of that.
I am looking forward to the tiny midfielder football off.
While Lloris hasn't had one of his regular clangers, I have the greatest of doubts about Danijel Subašić's goalkeeping. Croatia also have Vida, who is one of those players *things* happen to and I fear the next one is going to be a bad thing.
France also have Mbappe. Who is better than advertised!
There's also more than a small part of me that wants France to win just for Didier Deschamps who I loved as a player.
Tuesday 10 July 2018
2018 World Cup Semifinal Data Vizualisation
As Croatia are the team sticking out, I suspect that they are the least likely to progress.France, Belgium and England are a giant smush still.
Spurs are the team with the most have most players left with 9, followed by Manchester City and Manchester United on 7. Manchester City lost several players when Brazil were knocked out.
Paris Saint Germain are the club team nearest the centre, while France are the national team nearest the centre.
The community view is interesting.
There are 4 teams and 7 communities, one for each country and then 1 for Barcelona, Juventus and Liverpool. I don't quite follow why Barcelona is separate but Monaco isn't since they both connect 3 teams and have one player from 2 of the teams and 2 from the third.I presume Juventus are their own community because they have 1 player from Croatia and 1 from France and it's more logical than giving Juventus to either country.
However, following that logic, I'm not sure why Lovren is in the Croatia community rather than the Liverpool one, unless it's because of the extra distance he is away from the others.
Monday 9 July 2018
2018 World Cup Semifinal Predictions
Of the quarterfinals, the only one I called wrong was Brazil vs Belgium and I was very happy to be wrong.
I was unfortunately right that Uruguay minus Cavani lack bite, well, they still had Suarez, but that's the wrong kind of bite ;)
I am both sad for Russia and happy for Croatia.
As for the semifinals, I cannot separate France and Belgium. France do have the feeling of having reached the semis without difficulty, and they have Mbappe (and Didier Deschamps). On the other hand, N'Golo Kante and Mbappe apart, Belgium may have the better player in most positions - I really rate the Alderwiereld / Vertonghen combination, Lloris hasn't had his monthly clanger yet in the French goal and that Belgian midfield are terrifyingly good.
I will stick with my France prediction from before the start of the World Cup.
It should at least be a good match.
Croatia vs England may well not be as good. But it should be interesting. Because um, yeah, they're reasonably well matched. Or rather I have the greatest doubts about the Croatian goalie and defence, but their midfield are stonking.
Logic says Croatia, an unfortunate promise to be nicer to England says England.
I was unfortunately right that Uruguay minus Cavani lack bite, well, they still had Suarez, but that's the wrong kind of bite ;)
I am both sad for Russia and happy for Croatia.
As for the semifinals, I cannot separate France and Belgium. France do have the feeling of having reached the semis without difficulty, and they have Mbappe (and Didier Deschamps). On the other hand, N'Golo Kante and Mbappe apart, Belgium may have the better player in most positions - I really rate the Alderwiereld / Vertonghen combination, Lloris hasn't had his monthly clanger yet in the French goal and that Belgian midfield are terrifyingly good.
I will stick with my France prediction from before the start of the World Cup.
It should at least be a good match.
Croatia vs England may well not be as good. But it should be interesting. Because um, yeah, they're reasonably well matched. Or rather I have the greatest doubts about the Croatian goalie and defence, but their midfield are stonking.
Logic says Croatia, an unfortunate promise to be nicer to England says England.
Thursday 5 July 2018
2018 World Cup Quarterfinal Network Diagrams
Note how far Russia are from everyone else.Manchester City remain the team with the most players (11) but they are now followed by Spurs (9) and Paris Saint Germain and Manchester United (8 each). Real Madrid and Barcelona's numbers dropped rapidly and suddenly. I think Russia are responsible ;)
France or Croatia are the national side nearest the middle. It's very hard to tell which is the closest given how far away all the teams are from the centre, mostly because Russia and Sweden are so far away from other teams that it distorts the graph.
Monaco are the club side nearest the middle.
When Shinji Okazi was removed from the network (because of Japan's sad loss) it separated Belgium from England. I think that's because the weight of Japan was pulling England down into Belgium.
It's interesting to see which teams have been linked to which countries. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Man City are all "Brazilian", while Spurs, United and Liverpool are English. Chelsea are "Belgian" while Krasnodar are "Swedish", which is probably news to them. Atletico Madrid are Uruguayan, but that at least makes sense.
Wednesday 4 July 2018
2018 World Cup Quarterfinal Predictions
My second round predictions were:
France vs Argentina - predicted France, France won, the match was every bit as close as I thought it would be.
Uruguay vs Portugal - predicted Uruguay, Uruguay won, a much better match than I expected. I do hope Cavani is all right for the quarterfinals.
Spain vs Russia - predicted Spain, Russia won because this World Cup is glorious. My Spanish boss got the details right about what would happen in his doom-laden prediction beforehand.
Croatia vs Denmark - predicted Croatia, was right, damn it.
Mexico vs Brazil - predicted Brazil, was right, damn it all.
Belgium vs Japan - predicted Belgium, was right, damn it all again, and was even more right about it being closer than people expected. Japan are a good side and I don't get why people don't realise that.
Sweden vs Switzerland - predicted Switzerland, was wrong.
England vs Colombia - predicted lots of goals and Colombia and was wrong on both counts.
Predictions for the quarterfinals:
France vs Uruguay - on the one hand, France were my pre-tournament pick to win the whole thing and have been solid. On the other hand, my heart belongs to Diego Godin. Being rational, I think France will win, especially if Cavani is injured but I am hoping for Uruguay.
Russia vs Croatia - logic says Croatia. Logic has little to do with this Russian team. I think Croatia will do it though.
Brazil vs Belgium - probably Brazil but ...
Sweden vs England - this will either be really exciting or the dullest match ever. Sweden have enough about them to frustrate England but I don't know if they have enough going forward to beat them so I will go with England.
France vs Argentina - predicted France, France won, the match was every bit as close as I thought it would be.
Uruguay vs Portugal - predicted Uruguay, Uruguay won, a much better match than I expected. I do hope Cavani is all right for the quarterfinals.
Spain vs Russia - predicted Spain, Russia won because this World Cup is glorious. My Spanish boss got the details right about what would happen in his doom-laden prediction beforehand.
Croatia vs Denmark - predicted Croatia, was right, damn it.
Mexico vs Brazil - predicted Brazil, was right, damn it all.
Belgium vs Japan - predicted Belgium, was right, damn it all again, and was even more right about it being closer than people expected. Japan are a good side and I don't get why people don't realise that.
Sweden vs Switzerland - predicted Switzerland, was wrong.
England vs Colombia - predicted lots of goals and Colombia and was wrong on both counts.
Predictions for the quarterfinals:
France vs Uruguay - on the one hand, France were my pre-tournament pick to win the whole thing and have been solid. On the other hand, my heart belongs to Diego Godin. Being rational, I think France will win, especially if Cavani is injured but I am hoping for Uruguay.
Russia vs Croatia - logic says Croatia. Logic has little to do with this Russian team. I think Croatia will do it though.
Brazil vs Belgium - probably Brazil but ...
Sweden vs England - this will either be really exciting or the dullest match ever. Sweden have enough about them to frustrate England but I don't know if they have enough going forward to beat them so I will go with England.
Sunday 1 July 2018
2018 World Cup Second Round Network Diagrams
While most of the eliminated nations were, as expected, the ones around the edges of the diagram, the elimination of Germany has helped to reduce the crowding in what was the top of the diagram.
In the first round diagram Werder Bremen and Denmark (probably) were the club and national team closest to the centre of the diagram. I say probably because it was really hard to tell because even the closest national team was some way away from the centre.
In the second round diagram Genoa and Switzerland and the club and national team closest to the centre.
The club team with the most players still in hasn't changed, it is still Manchester City, who have only lost one player, going down from 16 players to 15 players. The teams in second and third place haven't changed but have changed order, because Barcelona are now in second place with 13, having lost only one player, while Real Madrid who had been in second place, having lost 3 players.
The community view has changed significantly. There is now only one multi-team community, England and Belgium, who remain a single community because of number of Belgian players who play in England. Several of the other multi-team groups have either had both members knocked out (Poland and Senegal and Tunisia and Egypt) or the removal of one team (Germany) has split the entire group.
In the first round diagram Werder Bremen and Denmark (probably) were the club and national team closest to the centre of the diagram. I say probably because it was really hard to tell because even the closest national team was some way away from the centre.In the second round diagram Genoa and Switzerland and the club and national team closest to the centre.
The club team with the most players still in hasn't changed, it is still Manchester City, who have only lost one player, going down from 16 players to 15 players. The teams in second and third place haven't changed but have changed order, because Barcelona are now in second place with 13, having lost only one player, while Real Madrid who had been in second place, having lost 3 players.
The community view has changed significantly. There is now only one multi-team community, England and Belgium, who remain a single community because of number of Belgian players who play in England. Several of the other multi-team groups have either had both members knocked out (Poland and Senegal and Tunisia and Egypt) or the removal of one team (Germany) has split the entire group.Saturday 30 June 2018
2018 World Cup Second Round Predictions
I think I did alright with my first round predictions, I got 13/16 right.
Group A
Prediction = Uruguay and Egypt
Actual = Uruguay and Russia
I did not expect Russia to achieve the dizzy height of competence, even with the home team bounce. I was wrong. I also didn't expect Egypt to be so flat. It's more than just Salah being injured. Everyone else appeared to be lacking in energy. Flat might not be a harsh enough term for a team that somehow lost to Saudi Arabia.
Group B
Prediction = Spain and Portugal
Actual = Spain and Portugal
But it was a lot closer than I expected. Poor Iran :(
Group C
Prediction = France and Denmark
Actual = France and Denmark
This one went more or less the way I expected it to go.
Group D
Prediction = Argentina and Croatia
Actual = Croatia and Argentina
Got the right teams, the wrong way round, but I doubt anyone saw the Argentina vs Croatia result coming
Group E
Prediction = Brazil and Serbia
Actual = Brazil and Switzerland, due to refereeing malfeasance. I will be nice about Switzerland never!
Group F
Prediction = Germany and Mexico
Actual = Mexico and Sweden
Well that was unexpected!! I should have known no good would come of a team that lost to Austria in the warm ups.
Group G
Prediction = Belgium and England
Actual = Belgium and England
Bang on, because I knew England wouldn't beat Belgium. I know people will say it wasn't their starting 11, but I remain convinced it's not the country with the best A team that wins World Cups, it's the one with the best A minus team.
Group H
Prediction = Colombia and Japan
Actual = Colombia and Japan - bang on.
<b>Second round matches:</b>
Uruguay vs Portugal = Which should be joyous, if only for Pepe vs Suarez. I suspect it will be a cagey affair that one team will sneak. My heart says Uruguay, my head says Portugal. I will go with Uruguay.
France vs Argentina = I didn't see this match coming and it may be the only thing that stops my vision of a glorious French victory at this World Cup. Then again, while France haven't been inspiring going forward, Argentina have been insecure at the back so France could still do it.
Brazil vs Mexico - While I fear Brazil will win this, vamos Mexico.
Belgium vs Japan - probably Belgium but closer than people expect.
Spain vs Russia - despite my Spanish boss's deep misgivings, Spain.
Croatia vs Denmark - which should be a good match if nothing else. If Croatia keep it together, they should win.
Sweden vs Switzerland - could also be good. Switzerland to sneak it.
Colombia vs England - Very good attack, iffy at the back vs good at the front and not quite as iffy at the back. So lots of goals, and probably Colombia win.
Group A
Prediction = Uruguay and Egypt
Actual = Uruguay and Russia
I did not expect Russia to achieve the dizzy height of competence, even with the home team bounce. I was wrong. I also didn't expect Egypt to be so flat. It's more than just Salah being injured. Everyone else appeared to be lacking in energy. Flat might not be a harsh enough term for a team that somehow lost to Saudi Arabia.
Group B
Prediction = Spain and Portugal
Actual = Spain and Portugal
But it was a lot closer than I expected. Poor Iran :(
Group C
Prediction = France and Denmark
Actual = France and Denmark
This one went more or less the way I expected it to go.
Group D
Prediction = Argentina and Croatia
Actual = Croatia and Argentina
Got the right teams, the wrong way round, but I doubt anyone saw the Argentina vs Croatia result coming
Group E
Prediction = Brazil and Serbia
Actual = Brazil and Switzerland, due to refereeing malfeasance. I will be nice about Switzerland never!
Group F
Prediction = Germany and Mexico
Actual = Mexico and Sweden
Well that was unexpected!! I should have known no good would come of a team that lost to Austria in the warm ups.
Group G
Prediction = Belgium and England
Actual = Belgium and England
Bang on, because I knew England wouldn't beat Belgium. I know people will say it wasn't their starting 11, but I remain convinced it's not the country with the best A team that wins World Cups, it's the one with the best A minus team.
Group H
Prediction = Colombia and Japan
Actual = Colombia and Japan - bang on.
<b>Second round matches:</b>
Uruguay vs Portugal = Which should be joyous, if only for Pepe vs Suarez. I suspect it will be a cagey affair that one team will sneak. My heart says Uruguay, my head says Portugal. I will go with Uruguay.
France vs Argentina = I didn't see this match coming and it may be the only thing that stops my vision of a glorious French victory at this World Cup. Then again, while France haven't been inspiring going forward, Argentina have been insecure at the back so France could still do it.
Brazil vs Mexico - While I fear Brazil will win this, vamos Mexico.
Belgium vs Japan - probably Belgium but closer than people expect.
Spain vs Russia - despite my Spanish boss's deep misgivings, Spain.
Croatia vs Denmark - which should be a good match if nothing else. If Croatia keep it together, they should win.
Sweden vs Switzerland - could also be good. Switzerland to sneak it.
Colombia vs England - Very good attack, iffy at the back vs good at the front and not quite as iffy at the back. So lots of goals, and probably Colombia win.
Monday 18 June 2018
World Cup 2018 Network Diagram
Sorry that these are quite so late. The combo of the number of players, the relatively late date that the final squads were announced and a busy time at work meant that I couldn't get the diagram anything like finished until the 12th, and I then went to Sweden for a week for work.
GO VISIT STOCKHOLM, IT'S LOVELY!
And then I wanted to tinker with the colours and force separation a little because part of the diagram was so overlapped. Having now had the chance to tinker, please see the 2018 World Cup team interaction network diagram, with the players being attached to the team they last played for, with a cut off date of the 26th of May. The teams are as accurate as Wikipedia can make them. (You're all lucky you missed the great "Inter" vs "Internazionale" revert fest.)
As you can see, the top of the diagram is basically one giant smush, showing the international flavour of club football nowadays.
England are the only team where all of their players play in their home league, while Sweden and Senegal are the only teams where no-one plays in their home league. (A very simple bar chart pending on this topic some time soon.)
Iran, Panama and Peru are the least connected teams, while several others are so interconnected it's hard to see them, and almost impossible to prevent them overlapping (looking at you, Croatia and Portugal).
This is one of the situations where the community view helps:
Using the community view makes it easier to see the team names. It also makes it easier to see which teams are tightly related to each other due to players either playing in each others leagues or players from both teams playing for teams from a third country.
There is a giant community of Croatia, France, Germany and Spain followed by a slightly smaller one of Brazil, Belgium, England (due to Manchester City). Then there are four two team groupings; Senegal and Poland, Australia and Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Colombia and Egypt and Tunisia. Everyone else is their own community.
It'll be interesting to see how the inter-relations develop as teams are knocked out.
GO VISIT STOCKHOLM, IT'S LOVELY!
And then I wanted to tinker with the colours and force separation a little because part of the diagram was so overlapped. Having now had the chance to tinker, please see the 2018 World Cup team interaction network diagram, with the players being attached to the team they last played for, with a cut off date of the 26th of May. The teams are as accurate as Wikipedia can make them. (You're all lucky you missed the great "Inter" vs "Internazionale" revert fest.)
As you can see, the top of the diagram is basically one giant smush, showing the international flavour of club football nowadays.
England are the only team where all of their players play in their home league, while Sweden and Senegal are the only teams where no-one plays in their home league. (A very simple bar chart pending on this topic some time soon.)
Iran, Panama and Peru are the least connected teams, while several others are so interconnected it's hard to see them, and almost impossible to prevent them overlapping (looking at you, Croatia and Portugal).
This is one of the situations where the community view helps:
There is a giant community of Croatia, France, Germany and Spain followed by a slightly smaller one of Brazil, Belgium, England (due to Manchester City). Then there are four two team groupings; Senegal and Poland, Australia and Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Colombia and Egypt and Tunisia. Everyone else is their own community.
It'll be interesting to see how the inter-relations develop as teams are knocked out.
Monday 11 June 2018
2018 World Cup Predictions
Using some serious guesswork as to the scores, I have the follow teams qualifying from the group stages. The first-named team is the team I think will be top of the group.
Group A - Uruguay and Egypt
B - Spain and Portugal
C - France and Denmark
D - Argentina and Croatia
E - Brazil and Serbia
F - Germany and Mexico
G - Belgium and England
H - Colombia and Japan
Which leads to the following matches in the first knock out round:
Uruguay vs Portugal - Portugal. After possibly the worst game of football you will ever see.
France vs Croatia - France
Spain vs Egypt - Spain
Argentina vs Denmark - Argentina
Brazil vs Mexico - Brazil, although P will be annoyed at me for saying that.
Belgium vs Japan - I've gone with Belgium winning, but I am by no means sure. If someone unexpected is going to go out here, it may be Belgium.
Germany vs Serbia - Germany
Colombia vs England - England, just
If I am right, the quarterfinals will be:
Portugal vs France - France
Brazil vs Belgium - Brazil (but it will be closer than people think)
Spain vs Argentina - Argentina
Germany vs England - Germany (I get complaints from friend L for this. Because he thinks England can beat Germany because England have *potential* and Germany lost to Austria. England always have potential!)
Semifinals:
France vs Brazil - France, I have a feeling about them. I will be upset when I am wrong but I have a feeling.
Argentina vs Germany - Argentina (because Germany did lose to Austria after all.)
So I think the final will be:
France vs Argentina with France winning! because I have a feeling.
Saturday 12 May 2018
Apologise to Hodgson
As you might be able to tell by my misuse of that Tiziano Crudeli image, this may be less calm and reasoned than most of my posts.
Now that Crystal Palace are safe, and were safe with more than one game to go, becoming the first team to stay in the top division of English football despite losing their first 7 games since 1899, I want every single journalist who was so rude to and about Roy Hodgson when he was appointed to write an apology. A full-on mea massima culpa if possible.
I would prefer a handwritten one, delivered on bended knee, but I accept typewritten and published in a national newspaper. I am being good and not suggesting it needs to be written on vellum, just in case any of them are vegetarians.
Why am I being quite so *so* about this?
I don’t have any especial fondness for Hodgson. I think he’s a gentleman in a sport where that’s rare and unrewarded (see also Chris Hughton and his many trials and tribulations). Hodgson’s never managed any team I support, and he’s managed two teams I regard as sworn enemies (Inter Milan and Switzerland).
There’s no place in my heart for Crystal Palace. I like the eagle, but that’s about it.
No, my objection to the criticism of Hodgson when he took over was that very few of the criticisms were football-related. Most of them were personal and unnecessarily mean.
It’s unnecessary meanness I object to.
Criticise the formations the man chooses, the style of play of his teams or the players he picks, don’t bash the man. An ad hominem isn’t any better just because you’re a professional writer.
Especially when the criticisms turn out to be bunkum.
I think the comments about Hodgson’s age have more to do with English journalists’s peculiar obsession with youth than any truth about what age a manager is at his best at.
Complaints that Hodgson didn’t have the fire needed to keep a team up seem to be based on 3 misconceptions:
1 - Fire is the required thing for a coach in this situation. I get the idea. In the fix Palace found themselves in, you need a manager who can get players to play beyond their capabilities. But is fire the way to do it? I have no idea how you’d quantify fireyness to judge. I do know that I have seen two footballing miracles that covered more than one match (Greece 2004 and Leicester 2015-2016). Neither them was for someone I’d call firey. It’s noticeable that none of the great rugby union or rugby league managers are what you’d call firey either. I think the English football press have been seduced by Mourinho, Klopp and Simeone. That’s understandable - let he who has not been seduced by one of those three cast the first stone - but their way is not the only way.
2 - Hodgson in front of the press is Hodgson in the dressing room. I’ve got no knowledge as to whether that’s true or not, and I doubt most football journalists have either. We all know that presumptions in the absence of evidence are a bad thing. Someone might want to tell the press!
3 - England’s failure in Euro 2016, as exemplified by the loss to Iceland, was all Hodgson’s fault. That seems to ignore England have been inexplicably bad since 1996. Yes, I’ll grant that they’ve been unlucky (South Africa 2010 and the goal that wasn’t) or had penalty shoot-outs (which are a coin toss at the best of times) but at this point, I doubt the combined spirits of Paisley, Shankly and Busby could make an England team play to their potential. Note, I am not even saying win, just play well.
An argument could be made that Hodgson’s Liverpool didn’t play well either. And that’s probably true, but every fan of every team can think of at least one occasion where a manager and a team combination didn’t work out despite both manager and team being good separately.
I think a manager like Hodgson is what was needed in Crystal Palace’s situation. Someone who can analyse what talent he has at his disposal, the experience to know how to use that talent to its best effect against other teams, the knowledge that there will be setbacks and the ability to get the team back on track after them.
That journalists didn’t see that, didn’t think Hodgson had these qualities, that is much of a muchness. That they chose not to attack his football but the man himself, with spite and vitriol, that’s what they need to apologise for.
Sunday 22 April 2018
Black Panther
Black Panther follows the traditional superhero formula for films where there's already been an origin. For filmverse Black Panther, Captain America 3 was basically his origin film. This pattern is - see the hero’s strength, see the villain's strength, the villain rises, it appears that all is lost for the forces of good and then the hero wins.
In films like that, the important is the specific details, the character bits, the frills. And Black Panther is very good at those.
Chadwick Boseman has the most difficult job. Because playing good is difficult and he knocks it out of the park. Heroic good in films tends to be reactive, and given very little to actively do. It's a hard balancing act, of being awesome and good without being too preachy.
I am taking the time to say this mostly because the rest of this is all about how awesome everyone else in the film is but T'Challa is the base of all of that.
The most important detail is that Michael B Jordan will break your heart. I mean, actually break it. With a significant assist by Sterling K. Brown. It's that moment where you realise that the opening narration isn't T'Challa's father to T'Challa, it's N'Jobu to Erik. It's an exiled prince telling the son he fears will never get to see his homeland all about it, and that breaks me because he knows he's about to do something that will get him exiled for ever but is going to do it anyway because it's the right thing do. Or at least he thinks it is the right thing to, and he might be right and Marvel are doing that thing again. The whole film is full of situations like that, see also T'Challa's father is not a bad man, he might not be a good man, but he's not bad, but he did a terrible thing, again, because he thought it was the least worst possible option, even though he was probably wrong. Did I mention, Marvel are doing the thing!
Then there's the "I’m not crying" tears and how vulnerable and deadly Erik is at the same time, and the contrast between that and the equivalent scene of T'Challa and his father.
And then the ending, where Erik's ready to be let down by Wakanda, the way he has been by everything else, and he isn't, because it is every bit as beautiful as his father promised, and he'd still rather die than be imprisoned because he knows he's right. That was the bit that made me cry.
Killmonger is very much one particular type of Marvel villain, he is the bad man with a righteous cause. He is Magneto, down to the name, it's just that this time the cause is that much more real.
One of the reasons why the film works is that Killmonger isn't the only one who believes that Wakanda shouldn't be isolationist, Ntiri does too, it's just Killmonger's methods that are ... too extreme. Too often in films like this, anyone who disagrees with the hero is wrong, and either misguided or evil. Black Panther makes sure that that doesn't happen. The film is very careful that Ntiri is always good, and kind, and just, and agrees with most of what Killmonger is saying. Which is tricky to pull off, and it helps when you have Lupita Nyong'o to play the role.
A lot of thought has gone into this film. I mean, more than usual. T'Challa can get away with going "no, vengence is bad" to W’Kabi because he did forgive his father's killer. T'Challa he knows that you have to forgive to avoid a cycle of violence (the end of which, last time, was the Sokovia mess). It means that, while you might disagree with his not killing Klaue, he's not a hypocrite when he tells W'Kabi that it was better to take Klaue in alive. They must have had at least the vague outline of this plotted out when they were writing Captain America 3 to make sure it worked. I like it when Marvel plan and have joined up thinking.
Talking about awesome, let us now speak of Okoya. Partly, she's a stock character I like done well, it's someone who is loyal to the kingdom, not necessarily who is on the throne. But normally, they're crusty old men with beards (hello Colonel Zapt in "Prisoner of Zenda") and Okoya isn't.
She never breaks. She sticks to her word. She serves Killmonger until he, and W'Kabi, break the rules. No matter how much it hurts her, her word is her bond, and her honour upholds the throne. Yes, she might be glad that they give her the opportunity to rebel, but until they do, she sticks with her duty. Charging a rhino at her was never going to work. (I do love that W'Kabi doesn't even try to do anything else when his rhino stops. There's a certain sort of "no go" when a rhino doesn't want to do something.)
I love the fighting style of the Dora Milaje. Which I love. Because it looks so effective, and they actually train to be a person down, which makes so much sense. All hail fight tactics in films making sense.
The way the right of challenge was phrased made it quite clear that T'Challa wasn't going to be dead, I mean, beyond it being his film and him turning up in the Infinity War trailer beforehand. You only phrase things that way when you need a get out clause.
All hail M'Baku, the noblest man in the kingdom. Because he could have taken the last of the heart-shaped herb and challenged Killmonger. No-one would have known that T'Challa wasn't dead. I do like that the Jabari's thing seems to be "we are awkward and we enjoy it" (even if I am deeply confused by Hanuman having followers that far west. I mean, I totally support Hanuman having worshippers wherever they are but ...). I was so worried that he was going to be the film's heroic sacrifice.
The heart-shaped herb as a whole sets up some interesting things for the future. Ignoring any spiritual-mystic stuff, the idea of a plant that both gives and takes away power is interesting, as is Killmonger destroying the remaining plants. I think he does it, not just to stop any immediate challengers to the throne but because I'm not entirely sure he expects to live long enough to have children. I think that's supposed to be one of the contrasts to his father, T'Chaka and T'Challa. I also wonder how the burning of all the heart-shaped herb affects any future Panthers, because if it's vital then there's a problem, but if it's not, then they've got other problems.
I feel bad for leaving Shuri this late in my write-up (and her bit being so short) because I love her so. Because she's geek girl done accurately, adorable and a genius, all the way down to the terrible sneaker jokes. (Also, really T'Challa, what did you expect to happen when she said that the new gear used hits to it to produce force? She warned you!)
It was only reading the stuff around Black Panther that told me that Everett Ross in Captain America 3 was supposed to be an annoyance rather than a budding Trask/Gyrich-esque villain. Note to self - you and Hollywood have different concepts of annoyance and villainy. I do think that he was written deliberately less irksome/villainous in this one, when he's being irksome in the interrogation of Klaue but immediately tries to save Ntiri from a bullet. It's only writing this post that's made me realise why they had to have someone get badly injured for the ending to work properly. Killmonger's choice to die rather than be imprisoned only works if we know that Wakandan technology can save him.
I refuse to accept Angela Bassett is old enough to have a grown son, never mind a son who is old enough to be king.
The casting directors deserve so much credit for how well they cast the young T'Chaka and the young Zuri. I mean, yes, they cast the actor's son for T'Chaka, and while they swear Denzel Whitaker is no relation, I think that's just to hide how advanced their cloning programme is, because he moves like Forrest Whittaker, but only when Zuri's revealed to be Zuri. All joking about cloning aside, it's a clever little bit of physical acting.
Andy Serkis knew he was playing the weak villain who gets killed to make either the good guy or the villain look strong and played the role with gleeful aplomb. On the otherhand, I'd like to know how you get Klaw out of Klaue, as, AFAIK and Afrikaans isn't one of my languages, Afrikaans is a say what you see language. I can maybe just about get Klow-eh out of that, but not Klaw.
Which brings me to the only thing that was a little off with the film. I understand the filmmakers were aiming for "there is more to Africa than you see in the news" but they do it by making Wakanda a melange of so many cultures. I think some of it is from the comics (Black Panther was never one of my comics, I only know characters that crossed over with the X-Men), because that's who I am blaming for Hanuman being a God anywhere in Africa. Or Bast being a goddess that far south of Egypt.
In the words of one friend, "why are they speaking Xhosa so far north." I know why they chose Xhosa, it's immediately recognisable but ... It's noticeable.
That does seem a picky thing to comment on when the film was so bright and vibrant and good. Which it was, and I recommend everyone go watch it.
In films like that, the important is the specific details, the character bits, the frills. And Black Panther is very good at those.
Chadwick Boseman has the most difficult job. Because playing good is difficult and he knocks it out of the park. Heroic good in films tends to be reactive, and given very little to actively do. It's a hard balancing act, of being awesome and good without being too preachy.
I am taking the time to say this mostly because the rest of this is all about how awesome everyone else in the film is but T'Challa is the base of all of that.
The most important detail is that Michael B Jordan will break your heart. I mean, actually break it. With a significant assist by Sterling K. Brown. It's that moment where you realise that the opening narration isn't T'Challa's father to T'Challa, it's N'Jobu to Erik. It's an exiled prince telling the son he fears will never get to see his homeland all about it, and that breaks me because he knows he's about to do something that will get him exiled for ever but is going to do it anyway because it's the right thing do. Or at least he thinks it is the right thing to, and he might be right and Marvel are doing that thing again. The whole film is full of situations like that, see also T'Challa's father is not a bad man, he might not be a good man, but he's not bad, but he did a terrible thing, again, because he thought it was the least worst possible option, even though he was probably wrong. Did I mention, Marvel are doing the thing!
Then there's the "I’m not crying" tears and how vulnerable and deadly Erik is at the same time, and the contrast between that and the equivalent scene of T'Challa and his father.
And then the ending, where Erik's ready to be let down by Wakanda, the way he has been by everything else, and he isn't, because it is every bit as beautiful as his father promised, and he'd still rather die than be imprisoned because he knows he's right. That was the bit that made me cry.
Killmonger is very much one particular type of Marvel villain, he is the bad man with a righteous cause. He is Magneto, down to the name, it's just that this time the cause is that much more real.
One of the reasons why the film works is that Killmonger isn't the only one who believes that Wakanda shouldn't be isolationist, Ntiri does too, it's just Killmonger's methods that are ... too extreme. Too often in films like this, anyone who disagrees with the hero is wrong, and either misguided or evil. Black Panther makes sure that that doesn't happen. The film is very careful that Ntiri is always good, and kind, and just, and agrees with most of what Killmonger is saying. Which is tricky to pull off, and it helps when you have Lupita Nyong'o to play the role.
A lot of thought has gone into this film. I mean, more than usual. T'Challa can get away with going "no, vengence is bad" to W’Kabi because he did forgive his father's killer. T'Challa he knows that you have to forgive to avoid a cycle of violence (the end of which, last time, was the Sokovia mess). It means that, while you might disagree with his not killing Klaue, he's not a hypocrite when he tells W'Kabi that it was better to take Klaue in alive. They must have had at least the vague outline of this plotted out when they were writing Captain America 3 to make sure it worked. I like it when Marvel plan and have joined up thinking.
Talking about awesome, let us now speak of Okoya. Partly, she's a stock character I like done well, it's someone who is loyal to the kingdom, not necessarily who is on the throne. But normally, they're crusty old men with beards (hello Colonel Zapt in "Prisoner of Zenda") and Okoya isn't.
She never breaks. She sticks to her word. She serves Killmonger until he, and W'Kabi, break the rules. No matter how much it hurts her, her word is her bond, and her honour upholds the throne. Yes, she might be glad that they give her the opportunity to rebel, but until they do, she sticks with her duty. Charging a rhino at her was never going to work. (I do love that W'Kabi doesn't even try to do anything else when his rhino stops. There's a certain sort of "no go" when a rhino doesn't want to do something.)
I love the fighting style of the Dora Milaje. Which I love. Because it looks so effective, and they actually train to be a person down, which makes so much sense. All hail fight tactics in films making sense.
The way the right of challenge was phrased made it quite clear that T'Challa wasn't going to be dead, I mean, beyond it being his film and him turning up in the Infinity War trailer beforehand. You only phrase things that way when you need a get out clause.
All hail M'Baku, the noblest man in the kingdom. Because he could have taken the last of the heart-shaped herb and challenged Killmonger. No-one would have known that T'Challa wasn't dead. I do like that the Jabari's thing seems to be "we are awkward and we enjoy it" (even if I am deeply confused by Hanuman having followers that far west. I mean, I totally support Hanuman having worshippers wherever they are but ...). I was so worried that he was going to be the film's heroic sacrifice.
The heart-shaped herb as a whole sets up some interesting things for the future. Ignoring any spiritual-mystic stuff, the idea of a plant that both gives and takes away power is interesting, as is Killmonger destroying the remaining plants. I think he does it, not just to stop any immediate challengers to the throne but because I'm not entirely sure he expects to live long enough to have children. I think that's supposed to be one of the contrasts to his father, T'Chaka and T'Challa. I also wonder how the burning of all the heart-shaped herb affects any future Panthers, because if it's vital then there's a problem, but if it's not, then they've got other problems.
I feel bad for leaving Shuri this late in my write-up (and her bit being so short) because I love her so. Because she's geek girl done accurately, adorable and a genius, all the way down to the terrible sneaker jokes. (Also, really T'Challa, what did you expect to happen when she said that the new gear used hits to it to produce force? She warned you!)
It was only reading the stuff around Black Panther that told me that Everett Ross in Captain America 3 was supposed to be an annoyance rather than a budding Trask/Gyrich-esque villain. Note to self - you and Hollywood have different concepts of annoyance and villainy. I do think that he was written deliberately less irksome/villainous in this one, when he's being irksome in the interrogation of Klaue but immediately tries to save Ntiri from a bullet. It's only writing this post that's made me realise why they had to have someone get badly injured for the ending to work properly. Killmonger's choice to die rather than be imprisoned only works if we know that Wakandan technology can save him.
I refuse to accept Angela Bassett is old enough to have a grown son, never mind a son who is old enough to be king.
The casting directors deserve so much credit for how well they cast the young T'Chaka and the young Zuri. I mean, yes, they cast the actor's son for T'Chaka, and while they swear Denzel Whitaker is no relation, I think that's just to hide how advanced their cloning programme is, because he moves like Forrest Whittaker, but only when Zuri's revealed to be Zuri. All joking about cloning aside, it's a clever little bit of physical acting.
Andy Serkis knew he was playing the weak villain who gets killed to make either the good guy or the villain look strong and played the role with gleeful aplomb. On the otherhand, I'd like to know how you get Klaw out of Klaue, as, AFAIK and Afrikaans isn't one of my languages, Afrikaans is a say what you see language. I can maybe just about get Klow-eh out of that, but not Klaw.
Which brings me to the only thing that was a little off with the film. I understand the filmmakers were aiming for "there is more to Africa than you see in the news" but they do it by making Wakanda a melange of so many cultures. I think some of it is from the comics (Black Panther was never one of my comics, I only know characters that crossed over with the X-Men), because that's who I am blaming for Hanuman being a God anywhere in Africa. Or Bast being a goddess that far south of Egypt.
In the words of one friend, "why are they speaking Xhosa so far north." I know why they chose Xhosa, it's immediately recognisable but ... It's noticeable.
That does seem a picky thing to comment on when the film was so bright and vibrant and good. Which it was, and I recommend everyone go watch it.
Saturday 3 March 2018
Yearly Book Location Data Viz
For UK-based books:
Saturday 17 February 2018
Just Say No To Phil Neville
Having been exposed to his inanity on Match of the Day, I'd say that as a general statement, but on this particular occasion, I mean "Just Say No To Phil Neville as England Manager".
My objection to Phil Neville being England manager has nothing to do with his tweets. Admittedly, you'd think that, given that the last England Women's manager was sacked for improprieties*, the FA would try to make sure the next one was squeaky clean but I can live with an idiot as manager.
What I object to is his complete lack of coaching experience.
A summary of Phil Neville's coaching experience:
1 game, assistant coach, England U21s.
3 games, assistant coach, England U21s at the 2013 Euros. At the 2013 Euros, England finished bottom of a group containing Italy, Norway and Israel, scoring only 1 goal.
~ 18 games, assistant manager at Valencia. During this period, Valencia had their lowest win percentage ever.
You'll notice the complete absence of head coach/manager experience.
In many way, the question to ask is not "is he the right choice for the England Women's team?" but "is he the right choice for any England job?"
Would the people saying he's fine for the Women's job be okay with him managing the Men's team? Probably not. Same for the U21s and possibly the U19s. At best, he’s acceptable for the male U17s and maybe U19s.
So, for some unknown reason, the FA have decided that the Women's team can have a manager that they'd never appoint to most of the other national jobs.
The FA's defence is that everyone else they've asked has turned them down. The BBC article I've linked mentions 3 other people.
Lets give the FA the benefit of the doubt. Lets presume they asked every manager in the two Women's divisions in England, and all the managers of Women's teams in Europe and North America who might be available before asking Phil Neville. What does it say about the situation that no one with experience wanted the role?
I doubt it's because it's a job in Women's football. There are already female managers, and male managers of women's football teams (and also a few managers that used to coach men's teams that have switched).
I doubt it's the players. They don't seem to be bad, you know, 3rd at the last World Cup, semi-finals at the last Euros, haven't lost horribly to Iceland. The Men's team wishes it did that well.
So what is it?
Could it be that no one involved in Women's football wants the England job because they know that they're always going to be an afterthought and that the manager is going to be in an invidious position where, if they win stuff, it's "only women's football" and if they lose, it's "why are we giving them money"?
The Lionesses are doing well despite the FA, and with another World Cup coming up, I worry that this choice of manager is going to derail the chances of them winning it.
~~~~
* the FA were very unclear as to precisely what kind of "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour" Mark Sampson committed at Bristol Academy, so I have just gone with impropriety.
My objection to Phil Neville being England manager has nothing to do with his tweets. Admittedly, you'd think that, given that the last England Women's manager was sacked for improprieties*, the FA would try to make sure the next one was squeaky clean but I can live with an idiot as manager.
What I object to is his complete lack of coaching experience.
A summary of Phil Neville's coaching experience:
1 game, assistant coach, England U21s.
3 games, assistant coach, England U21s at the 2013 Euros. At the 2013 Euros, England finished bottom of a group containing Italy, Norway and Israel, scoring only 1 goal.
~ 18 games, assistant manager at Valencia. During this period, Valencia had their lowest win percentage ever.
You'll notice the complete absence of head coach/manager experience.
In many way, the question to ask is not "is he the right choice for the England Women's team?" but "is he the right choice for any England job?"
Would the people saying he's fine for the Women's job be okay with him managing the Men's team? Probably not. Same for the U21s and possibly the U19s. At best, he’s acceptable for the male U17s and maybe U19s.
So, for some unknown reason, the FA have decided that the Women's team can have a manager that they'd never appoint to most of the other national jobs.
The FA's defence is that everyone else they've asked has turned them down. The BBC article I've linked mentions 3 other people.
Lets give the FA the benefit of the doubt. Lets presume they asked every manager in the two Women's divisions in England, and all the managers of Women's teams in Europe and North America who might be available before asking Phil Neville. What does it say about the situation that no one with experience wanted the role?
I doubt it's because it's a job in Women's football. There are already female managers, and male managers of women's football teams (and also a few managers that used to coach men's teams that have switched).
I doubt it's the players. They don't seem to be bad, you know, 3rd at the last World Cup, semi-finals at the last Euros, haven't lost horribly to Iceland. The Men's team wishes it did that well.
So what is it?
Could it be that no one involved in Women's football wants the England job because they know that they're always going to be an afterthought and that the manager is going to be in an invidious position where, if they win stuff, it's "only women's football" and if they lose, it's "why are we giving them money"?
The Lionesses are doing well despite the FA, and with another World Cup coming up, I worry that this choice of manager is going to derail the chances of them winning it.
~~~~
* the FA were very unclear as to precisely what kind of "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour" Mark Sampson committed at Bristol Academy, so I have just gone with impropriety.
Saturday 3 February 2018
World Cup Draw 2018
The result of the real draw can be seen here.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Group E | Group F | Group G | Group H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | Brazil | Portugal | Argentina | Belgium | Poland | Switzerland | France |
| Denmark | Croatia | Uruguay | England | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Colombia |
| Costa Rica | Iceland | Sweden | Tunisia | Egypt | Senegal | Iran | Serbia |
| Saudi Arabia | South Korea | Panama | Russia | Japan | Australia | Morocco | Nigeria |
I abided by the FIFA rules that each team could have no more than 1 team from each Confederation (or no more than 2 from UEFA). To comply with this I had to swap Iceland and Costa Rica to stop there being too many UEFA teams in Group A and I had to move Australia and Japan along one to prevent there being two Asian Football Association teams in group G. (Yes, Australia is in the Asian Football Confederation, not the Oceania one.)
Panama, South Korea and Saudi Arabia have all been moved up one, again to prevent there being too many UEFA teams in group A. I had to move that many because if I'd just swapped Saudi Arabia, there'd be too many UEFA teams in B, and if just Saudi Arabia and South Korea then there would have been too many in Group C. Mostly this shows how many more European teams are put in the World Cup draw.
Groups A, D and H have 1 out of 4 of the same teams as the random draw, while groups B, C, E, F and G are completely different. I suspect Portugal and Spain might prefer mine, while in my draw, groups B and H are a bit group of deathy.
FIFA, however, also have a tradition whereby the host country is always the first team in group A (so that they get to have the opening match). If I apply this rule to a draw from the rankings, you get these pools.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Group E | Group F | Group G | Group H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russia | Germany | Brazil | Portugal | Argentina | Belgium | Poland | Switzerland |
| Croatia | Uruguay | England | Peru | Mexico | Spain | Colombia | France |
| Costa Rica | Denmark | Iceland | Sweden | Tunisia | Egypt | Senegal | Iran |
| Saudi Arabia | South Korea | Panama | Morocco | Japan | Australia | Serbia | Nigeria |
For version 2 I had to swap Peru and Mexico to stop there being two South American teams in group E, Denmark and Costa Rica to stop there being too many European teams in group A and Serbia and Nigeria to stop there being too many European teams in group H. Finally, I also had to swap Japan and Morocco to prevent there being two African teams in group E.
Group A now has 2/4 teams the same as the real drawn while the remaining groups are completely different. I suspect England are glad this wasn't the real draw, as they would face the mighty Iceland (and some team called Brazil), and groups E and F look tasty.
There was a big to-do-age about how easy Russia's real draw was, but I think it's more of an artefact of putting the hosts in Group A. Because Russia's ranking is lower than everyone else's, there were always going to be two weak teams in A, and, because Russia are in UEFA, the weak team weren't going to be the weakest of the European teams, who might, or might not, be better than Saudi Arabia, who they did get.
And, even with this allegedly suspiciously easy group (I am deeply, deeply dubious of the stats, factoids and logic used to define group A as an easy group, from a Russian perspective), Russia still aren't going to qualify.
I know this, you know this, they know this. The terribleness of the Russian national football team is known factor. It is inexplicable.
I have no idea if it's because the shape of the Russian football season is so different to others, or if it's that the huge amounts of money floating about the Russian league have lead to a lack of players for the national team, or if my curse on Fabio Capello had some unfortunate knock-on effects. Maybe all the really athletically ept Russians do other sports. Whatever the cause, there is something rotten with Russian football and they haven't been able to fix it before this World Cup. That means that the atmosphere for the later stages might be lacking. That FIFA know this, and might try to fix it, might be why people were suspicious of the draw, although I think it was within the bounds of probable draws due to Russia being picked first.
Saturday 27 January 2018
Top 7 Films of 2017 - Explanation
The best film that was new to me that I saw last year was "Sleepless In Seattle."
It's so good, it's got these little realistic touches and I found myself yelling at the screen, repeatedly.
It should be noted that the person who complained about me putting this in the post objected to me not putting "M" the year it was also the best film I saw that year. I just can't win.
As usual, my criteria for films are:
1 - did the film do what it set out to do? (The Ebert rule)
2 - did it use it's resources to it's best ability? Or, a £250,000 film is not going to have as good explosions as a £25,000,000 film, or it shouldn't, and if it does, there's something wrong with the £25,000,000 film. It's basically a technical merit score.
3 - Intellectual satisfaction - does the film's plot pull some really stupid move at the last moment? Does the plot rely on characters being stupid than they are?
4 - Does this work as a whole? Did it work for me? And I am aware that this is the most subjective of subjective criteria!
This year, most of the films were failing on point 3.
Let's start at the top:
1 - Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets - Yes, I am mostly rewarding the opening. But the opening contains more hope, joy and wonder than the rest of the films on this list combined. The rest of the film was enjoyable, and I am a Cinema du Look girl, have been since I was young, so I found the visuals enormously appealing.
Was it perfect? No. It needed better dialogue, Dane deHaan and Cara Delevingne are not quite strong enough actors to pull it off, and you can see the influence that the original Valerian comics had on The Fifth Element so bits of this feel like a re-run of that.
But still, it was solid and enjoyable overall. Next come two films, where, despite their flaws, I wouldn't mind seeing them again.
2 - Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2
3 - Thor Ragnarok
My comments for GotG 2 and Thor 3 are very similar. They did their thing and did it hard and to the best of their abilities. They're fun.
After them is where we start to get to ishy films.
4 - Blade Runner 2049 - The visuals are good, the acting solid. The parts that tie it back to the original Blade Runner are the weakest parts (although that scene with Rachel is the best scene in the film), which is odd, but not as odd as the choice to explicitly say that "to be human is to reproduce" which is a peculiarly regressive message for a science fiction film.
5 - Assassin's Creed - Things in this film I will not knock. The actors, the fight choreography, oh my goodness, the cinematography. No, really, there are shots from this film I'd have as stills on my wall.
Things I will knock - the complete lack of characterisation, or indeed names, for people who are not Aguilar. You know the how to deal with a large cast thing that Mad Max: Fury Road did really well; this did it really badly. To the point that I cannot remember Aguilar's modern name, and modern name is the main character of the film.
6 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Partly its that so much money was spent making a film that was so bland in its vision of the future. There was none of that visual magic you got with the original films, which was disappointing.
The plot was overwrought and stupid. It's the stupidity I object to more.
Not as the much as I object to the stupidity of Atomic Blonde.
7 - Atomic Blonde - Atomic Blonde actually made me angry. The stupidity of the plot wastes so much.
It wastes an exceptional soundtrack and fight choreography, production values that are amazingly detailed (seriously, I had the same coat as Spyglass's daughter at the same time 500 km to the South) and some damn fine performers, all for a "clever" twist. The twist is stupid, makes no sense and is significantly less cool than the writer thinks it is. It wastes everything to no good effect. It's so ... frustrating.
This could have been an excellent film, and it's been ruined by the writer's hubris.
It's so good, it's got these little realistic touches and I found myself yelling at the screen, repeatedly.
It should be noted that the person who complained about me putting this in the post objected to me not putting "M" the year it was also the best film I saw that year. I just can't win.
As usual, my criteria for films are:
1 - did the film do what it set out to do? (The Ebert rule)
2 - did it use it's resources to it's best ability? Or, a £250,000 film is not going to have as good explosions as a £25,000,000 film, or it shouldn't, and if it does, there's something wrong with the £25,000,000 film. It's basically a technical merit score.
3 - Intellectual satisfaction - does the film's plot pull some really stupid move at the last moment? Does the plot rely on characters being stupid than they are?
4 - Does this work as a whole? Did it work for me? And I am aware that this is the most subjective of subjective criteria!
This year, most of the films were failing on point 3.
Let's start at the top:
1 - Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets - Yes, I am mostly rewarding the opening. But the opening contains more hope, joy and wonder than the rest of the films on this list combined. The rest of the film was enjoyable, and I am a Cinema du Look girl, have been since I was young, so I found the visuals enormously appealing.
Was it perfect? No. It needed better dialogue, Dane deHaan and Cara Delevingne are not quite strong enough actors to pull it off, and you can see the influence that the original Valerian comics had on The Fifth Element so bits of this feel like a re-run of that.
But still, it was solid and enjoyable overall. Next come two films, where, despite their flaws, I wouldn't mind seeing them again.
2 - Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2
3 - Thor Ragnarok
My comments for GotG 2 and Thor 3 are very similar. They did their thing and did it hard and to the best of their abilities. They're fun.
After them is where we start to get to ishy films.
4 - Blade Runner 2049 - The visuals are good, the acting solid. The parts that tie it back to the original Blade Runner are the weakest parts (although that scene with Rachel is the best scene in the film), which is odd, but not as odd as the choice to explicitly say that "to be human is to reproduce" which is a peculiarly regressive message for a science fiction film.
5 - Assassin's Creed - Things in this film I will not knock. The actors, the fight choreography, oh my goodness, the cinematography. No, really, there are shots from this film I'd have as stills on my wall.
Things I will knock - the complete lack of characterisation, or indeed names, for people who are not Aguilar. You know the how to deal with a large cast thing that Mad Max: Fury Road did really well; this did it really badly. To the point that I cannot remember Aguilar's modern name, and modern name is the main character of the film.
6 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Partly its that so much money was spent making a film that was so bland in its vision of the future. There was none of that visual magic you got with the original films, which was disappointing.
The plot was overwrought and stupid. It's the stupidity I object to more.
Not as the much as I object to the stupidity of Atomic Blonde.
7 - Atomic Blonde - Atomic Blonde actually made me angry. The stupidity of the plot wastes so much.
It wastes an exceptional soundtrack and fight choreography, production values that are amazingly detailed (seriously, I had the same coat as Spyglass's daughter at the same time 500 km to the South) and some damn fine performers, all for a "clever" twist. The twist is stupid, makes no sense and is significantly less cool than the writer thinks it is. It wastes everything to no good effect. It's so ... frustrating.
This could have been an excellent film, and it's been ruined by the writer's hubris.
Saturday 20 January 2018
Top 7 Films of 2017
Slightly fewer films than usual because 2017 was weird year. I hope to get the number up for 2018.
1 - Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
2 - Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2
3 - Thor Ragnarok
4 - Blade Runner 2049
5 - Assassin's Creed
6 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi
7 - Atomic Blonde
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)