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.

Dreaming The Impossible Dream

I have been trying to avoid even thinking that Leicester might win the league, lest I jinx them.

Which would be odd enough, but I'm not even a Leicester City fan.  I think the best description might be that I'm a fellow traveller because I spent seven years in Leicester and still miss the city.  So it's more for the city that I want them to win, rather than the football team itself, much though I <3 Kasper Schmeichel, Robert Huth and Claudio Ranieri.

I arrived in Leicester for their last hurrah in the Premiership, and they were relegated at the end of that year.  I was around for that sticky patch in the old Second Division but I left before they got promoted back to the Premiership (and no, Cardiff, I still haven't forgiven you.)

One of the interesting things while I was there was how few Foxes fans I saw.  Clarendon Park was definitely Tiger country (the same way bits of Manchester are City or United).  It did seem to be a class thing, where Foxes fans tended to be people like me, while Tigers fans tended to be, well, a bit more rah (there's a reason why the 'shire' Leicstershire seats are Tory but the 'city' Leicestershire seats are Labour).

The few Foxes fans I did come across were always fun though.  There was a cafe I used to eat Saturday lunch at (a superior greasy spoon that serves chicken kievs and lasagna I can still remember the taste of even now) and a lot of the other customers when I was in were Dads with their kids eating before matches.  Most of the kids will be 12-16 now, but I'd like Leicester to win for them, to make up for freezing Saturday afternoons watching Leicester lose to Millwall.