Tuesday 16 September 2008
New blog address
I'm moving my blog to: http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/students/james.reade/J_James_Reades_Website/Blog/Blog.html, hope you can head there instead of here, as I don't intend on writing any more stuff on here (at least until I change my mind again).
Friday 27 June 2008
The role of economic theory
I'm nearing the end of three conferences in various parts of Europe (it's a hard life being an academic at times), and the mix of papers at these conferences has meant that I've listened to a lot of papers that are purely theoretic, and a lot of papers that are purely empirical, and some others that are somewhere in between.
Being an applied person myself, my initial reaction to purely theoretical papers is: what's the point? For a paper to be of any use, my first thought goes, it must be empirically validated.
Of course, the problem here is, can a theory be empirically validated? And the answer is, a lot cannot. I listened to a paper this morning by Gerhard Illing on 'dancing banks', asking about the effect of bailing banks out that are failing in times of financial turmoil. This kind of people, theoretical in nature, cannot really be empirically validated, unless it so happened that some country already operated the kind of regime that Illing proposes, and another didn't.
Perhaps he could get hold of data for different countries, and try to measure how likely each country was to bail out its failing banks, and then get data on the amount of liquidity at various points in inter-bank financial markets, and try to come to some conclusions. However, measuring how likely a country is to bail out its banks is very hard indeed: it doesn't happen too often, and the actions of countries usually differs from words, as no government will say it's prepared to bail out failing banks, as this would encourage reckless behaviour.
So, there's clearly a number of papers for which empirical validation is impossible, particularly papers proposing reforms in governance, and other prescriptive papers.
This doesn't excuse papers like this one on the effect of financial markets being imperfect. These Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models make great predictions about the economy, about policy, and wider, yet rely on very flimsy relevance for the real world.
Such models claim to have "structure", and this is their great claim in the light of the Lucas critique of 1976, which pointed out that simple regression models may be undone in structural change because underlying parameters, such as those of personal preferences of individuals, change.
But what if these models have the wrong structure? Then they are no better than what came before, and no more illuminating than a simple regression model. And do they? For one thing, they assume a representative agent: i.e. everyone is the same and has the same preferences.
Yet in microeconomics, regression models are perfectly acceptable if they claim to explain less than 30% of the observed variance in a given data series; the reason? Unobserved heterogeneity between individuals. So if so much heterogeneity exists, precisely in the kinds of studies that the above DSGE models use to choose the important parameters for their models, how can these same DSGE models assume a representative agent?
The simple fact is, these models make far too great claims on far too important things given their total lack of empirical validation. Theory is by no means useless, it is vitally important, but when empirical validation is possible, it should be carried out.
Being an applied person myself, my initial reaction to purely theoretical papers is: what's the point? For a paper to be of any use, my first thought goes, it must be empirically validated.
Of course, the problem here is, can a theory be empirically validated? And the answer is, a lot cannot. I listened to a paper this morning by Gerhard Illing on 'dancing banks', asking about the effect of bailing banks out that are failing in times of financial turmoil. This kind of people, theoretical in nature, cannot really be empirically validated, unless it so happened that some country already operated the kind of regime that Illing proposes, and another didn't.
Perhaps he could get hold of data for different countries, and try to measure how likely each country was to bail out its failing banks, and then get data on the amount of liquidity at various points in inter-bank financial markets, and try to come to some conclusions. However, measuring how likely a country is to bail out its banks is very hard indeed: it doesn't happen too often, and the actions of countries usually differs from words, as no government will say it's prepared to bail out failing banks, as this would encourage reckless behaviour.
So, there's clearly a number of papers for which empirical validation is impossible, particularly papers proposing reforms in governance, and other prescriptive papers.
This doesn't excuse papers like this one on the effect of financial markets being imperfect. These Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models make great predictions about the economy, about policy, and wider, yet rely on very flimsy relevance for the real world.
Such models claim to have "structure", and this is their great claim in the light of the Lucas critique of 1976, which pointed out that simple regression models may be undone in structural change because underlying parameters, such as those of personal preferences of individuals, change.
But what if these models have the wrong structure? Then they are no better than what came before, and no more illuminating than a simple regression model. And do they? For one thing, they assume a representative agent: i.e. everyone is the same and has the same preferences.
Yet in microeconomics, regression models are perfectly acceptable if they claim to explain less than 30% of the observed variance in a given data series; the reason? Unobserved heterogeneity between individuals. So if so much heterogeneity exists, precisely in the kinds of studies that the above DSGE models use to choose the important parameters for their models, how can these same DSGE models assume a representative agent?
The simple fact is, these models make far too great claims on far too important things given their total lack of empirical validation. Theory is by no means useless, it is vitally important, but when empirical validation is possible, it should be carried out.
Thursday 12 June 2008
God and politics
According to this chap in the New York Times, the presidential campaign should be godless.
However, I'm very much with the writers of the first two comments (Bob S and Peter Kerry Powers). Why should religion be a private thing?
Certainly secularism, and in particular materialism, are anything but private: you deserve this, go on, treat yourself, etc., abound in the adverts. Why do the gods of democracy, and consumerism, get preference over God himself?
And why, if you've got good news, or a severe warning for others that you believe is based on firm evidence, should you not tell others about it? The government in the UK has told us that using our mobile phones while driving is dangerous, is that somehow immoral of them? On what "evidence" did they make that decision to implement a law and fund numerous advertising campaigns?
On another note, it's good to see Rick Warren inviting homosexuals into his church, thankfully showing God's love to people that are still loved by God just as much as anyone else. Far better to see than the abhorrent comments from Pat Robertson and John Hagee that are cited there.
However, I'm very much with the writers of the first two comments (Bob S and Peter Kerry Powers). Why should religion be a private thing?
Certainly secularism, and in particular materialism, are anything but private: you deserve this, go on, treat yourself, etc., abound in the adverts. Why do the gods of democracy, and consumerism, get preference over God himself?
And why, if you've got good news, or a severe warning for others that you believe is based on firm evidence, should you not tell others about it? The government in the UK has told us that using our mobile phones while driving is dangerous, is that somehow immoral of them? On what "evidence" did they make that decision to implement a law and fund numerous advertising campaigns?
On another note, it's good to see Rick Warren inviting homosexuals into his church, thankfully showing God's love to people that are still loved by God just as much as anyone else. Far better to see than the abhorrent comments from Pat Robertson and John Hagee that are cited there.
Sunday 8 June 2008
Ian McEwan and Revelation
Bit late, but last Sunday Ian McEwan, the novelist, wrote a very long article in the Guardian on prophets of doom, those who predict the end of the world.
Naturally, I had a lot of issues with the article! Not least, that it associates Christianity with people that regularly predict the end of the world. Now at first sight, that might seem a little obvious: of course that's what Christians do, isn't it? Well, just the week before, I listened to this sermon given by Julian Bidgood at St Ebbes church, and if you listen, you'll actually hear him mocking those that make such predictions, notably a chap called Michael Drosnin, who has apparently made numerous predictions about when the end will happen.
The issue is that Jesus explicitly tells Christians not to bother predicting. In Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus goes into great lengths on this, with a number of parables, not least that of the Ten Virgins, where the punchline is (25:13): "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour". So Christians, at least those following the teachings of Jesus (which is a fairly good description of a Christian really), should not be going about making apocalyptic predictions.
Another thing that bugged me about McEwan's article is the description of the God of Old Testament in the following way: "slave-owning, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, and genocide urged at various times by the jealous God of the Old Testament". I suspect infanticide comes from the bit about Isaac in Genesis 22, which is undoubtedly quite shocking, but the point is that the infanticide doesn't actually happen, and that God was testing Abraham. Slave-owning? There's little doubt that happened in the Old Testament, as it did in the New Testament (see the search here for all references in the Bible to slavery). Yet does that mean God urged it?
The other issue is that of the God of the Old Testament somehow being the angry vengeful God, but the New Testament God being one of love, peace, happiness etc. But that just doesn't stack up. The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament, and in fact, one wouldn't make sense without the other. Jesus' death and resurrection can only be made sense of by looking at the Old Testament and reading that Jesus was long predicted, to be the savour of God's people. I've heard people say that basically the Bible is the Old Testament with the answers in the back.
But enough for now, I'm not a bible scholar, and in fact I need to get on with preparing a bible study right now....
Naturally, I had a lot of issues with the article! Not least, that it associates Christianity with people that regularly predict the end of the world. Now at first sight, that might seem a little obvious: of course that's what Christians do, isn't it? Well, just the week before, I listened to this sermon given by Julian Bidgood at St Ebbes church, and if you listen, you'll actually hear him mocking those that make such predictions, notably a chap called Michael Drosnin, who has apparently made numerous predictions about when the end will happen.
The issue is that Jesus explicitly tells Christians not to bother predicting. In Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus goes into great lengths on this, with a number of parables, not least that of the Ten Virgins, where the punchline is (25:13): "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour". So Christians, at least those following the teachings of Jesus (which is a fairly good description of a Christian really), should not be going about making apocalyptic predictions.
Another thing that bugged me about McEwan's article is the description of the God of Old Testament in the following way: "slave-owning, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, and genocide urged at various times by the jealous God of the Old Testament". I suspect infanticide comes from the bit about Isaac in Genesis 22, which is undoubtedly quite shocking, but the point is that the infanticide doesn't actually happen, and that God was testing Abraham. Slave-owning? There's little doubt that happened in the Old Testament, as it did in the New Testament (see the search here for all references in the Bible to slavery). Yet does that mean God urged it?
The other issue is that of the God of the Old Testament somehow being the angry vengeful God, but the New Testament God being one of love, peace, happiness etc. But that just doesn't stack up. The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament, and in fact, one wouldn't make sense without the other. Jesus' death and resurrection can only be made sense of by looking at the Old Testament and reading that Jesus was long predicted, to be the savour of God's people. I've heard people say that basically the Bible is the Old Testament with the answers in the back.
But enough for now, I'm not a bible scholar, and in fact I need to get on with preparing a bible study right now....
Saturday 31 May 2008
Fuel prices
So in that barometer of public opinion, a number of Facebook groups have appeared moaning about fuel prices.
They all seem to fail to notice that the rising price of fuel has little or nothing to do with the government - oil prices are rising, duh! Fuel prices have rocketed from about 80 or 90p only a few months ago to around £1.15. Now in that time, yes the government has raised fuel duty, but if I'm not mistaken, the rise was by 2p. So that leaves another 20+ pence contributed by the rising price of oil.
And really, why should the government lower the tax it puts on fuel? Why should the government encourage car usage? The answer, simply, is it shouldn't. We already use our cars far too much as it is, with everyone having a car each - the levels of congestion on the roads show that really, we don't need to use our cars any more than we already do. It's simply laziness and selfishness driving the current desire for lower fuel duties. Do we really care about the environment when it comes to the crunch? Clearly not...
And the haulage companies? All I can say is, stop moaning. I have no sympathy. There just isn't enough oil in the world to go round, and it usually works in the world that if something becomes too expensive, you adapt - you stop buying, or you move away from it. If a business isn't profitable, you move out of it. At least, that should be the response. But as Ronald Reagan once said: "The government's stance on taxation can be summed up as: if it moves, tax it, if it continues to move, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it". The government will probably end up subsidising nauseating truck drivers...
They all seem to fail to notice that the rising price of fuel has little or nothing to do with the government - oil prices are rising, duh! Fuel prices have rocketed from about 80 or 90p only a few months ago to around £1.15. Now in that time, yes the government has raised fuel duty, but if I'm not mistaken, the rise was by 2p. So that leaves another 20+ pence contributed by the rising price of oil.
And really, why should the government lower the tax it puts on fuel? Why should the government encourage car usage? The answer, simply, is it shouldn't. We already use our cars far too much as it is, with everyone having a car each - the levels of congestion on the roads show that really, we don't need to use our cars any more than we already do. It's simply laziness and selfishness driving the current desire for lower fuel duties. Do we really care about the environment when it comes to the crunch? Clearly not...
And the haulage companies? All I can say is, stop moaning. I have no sympathy. There just isn't enough oil in the world to go round, and it usually works in the world that if something becomes too expensive, you adapt - you stop buying, or you move away from it. If a business isn't profitable, you move out of it. At least, that should be the response. But as Ronald Reagan once said: "The government's stance on taxation can be summed up as: if it moves, tax it, if it continues to move, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it". The government will probably end up subsidising nauseating truck drivers...
More bad news from FIFA HQ...
It seems the plan to promote mediocrity was passed "overwhelmingly" by FIFA delegates. The plan is 6+5, limit the number of foreign players in your football team to 5. One of the reasons why apparently this was a good thing was that it would help national teams do better, because now their players won't be part of big squads at the best Premiership teams.
But instead, their players will be playing against bit-part players in crummy local leagues, or lower down the English footballing pyramid, if they like the money and the English countryside. How does this help national teams around Europe and the world?
And how do we square the English representative being against it? England is purported to be the team suffering most from foreign influence, having failed to qualify for Euro 2008. Yet it's only a couple of short years since England were touted as one of the favourites (wrongly!) for the World Cup in 2006. How fickle footballing commentators are, and how good it is that (apparently) the English footballing bodies understand a bit of economics.
Economists are overwhelmingly free-trade, as Greg Mankiw points out, for a number of reasons, not just that it gives a country a share of a bigger pie, but also philosophically. And it's pretty implausible that football is somehow immune from this kind of economic analysis. The overall output of English footballers will be greater with foreign competition, in terms of goals/quality football/silverware etc., because they have to produce it to survive. And this will rub off on the national team.
Football is notoriously unpredictable (part of its appeal), and fortunes can change quickly, particularly if badly managed (by an English manager in England's case!), which has more explanatory power for England's current malaise than foreign dominance: England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the number of foreign players in England was minuscule.
As a final aside. The economics department in Oxford is foreign dominated. My masters class had at most 10% of students being English, and the ratio doesn't improve at Ph.D or postdoc (although perhaps slightly when you get to tenured staff). Is that a cause to introduce some idiotic 6+5 rule? Supervisors must have at least 50% of their students being English/domestic?
The quality would fall drastically as the best students from around the world then could not enter Oxford, and supervisors would be forced to take on poorer quality English students. I've benefitted massively from rubbing shoulders with students from all around the world of a very high quality, something that might not otherwise have been the case had UK academia had someone like Sepp Blatter as its figurehead.
But instead, their players will be playing against bit-part players in crummy local leagues, or lower down the English footballing pyramid, if they like the money and the English countryside. How does this help national teams around Europe and the world?
And how do we square the English representative being against it? England is purported to be the team suffering most from foreign influence, having failed to qualify for Euro 2008. Yet it's only a couple of short years since England were touted as one of the favourites (wrongly!) for the World Cup in 2006. How fickle footballing commentators are, and how good it is that (apparently) the English footballing bodies understand a bit of economics.
Economists are overwhelmingly free-trade, as Greg Mankiw points out, for a number of reasons, not just that it gives a country a share of a bigger pie, but also philosophically. And it's pretty implausible that football is somehow immune from this kind of economic analysis. The overall output of English footballers will be greater with foreign competition, in terms of goals/quality football/silverware etc., because they have to produce it to survive. And this will rub off on the national team.
Football is notoriously unpredictable (part of its appeal), and fortunes can change quickly, particularly if badly managed (by an English manager in England's case!), which has more explanatory power for England's current malaise than foreign dominance: England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the number of foreign players in England was minuscule.
As a final aside. The economics department in Oxford is foreign dominated. My masters class had at most 10% of students being English, and the ratio doesn't improve at Ph.D or postdoc (although perhaps slightly when you get to tenured staff). Is that a cause to introduce some idiotic 6+5 rule? Supervisors must have at least 50% of their students being English/domestic?
The quality would fall drastically as the best students from around the world then could not enter Oxford, and supervisors would be forced to take on poorer quality English students. I've benefitted massively from rubbing shoulders with students from all around the world of a very high quality, something that might not otherwise have been the case had UK academia had someone like Sepp Blatter as its figurehead.
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Not more...
So the BBC's done some research, and there aren't too many English players playing in the Premiership. The number has "alarmingly" dropped away this year, to 170 players. It might be worth noting this is 9 players less than 2002-03 season, something not mentioned at all in the report.
So, naturally, people talk about how we need quotas, and Sepp Blatter talks about his protectionist plan to have 5 domestic players in each team, and 6 overseas, as being the big solution. How exactly will that help? Basic economics says if you protect, you promote mediocrity. If we have quotas, yes it will mean English players will play, but will it make them any better?
The answer has to be: no. They'll play against lesser opposition. Fabio Capello's point is not really emphasised: the quantity of English players is down, but the quality is high. If we have quotas, soon we'll have the quantity, without the quality, because the players won't be tested in their domestic leagues against the best players in the world. English players will become complacent with their positions in teams because they can't be threatened by foreign competition.
Another very good point is also not picked up on, made this time by the Premier League itself. England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the English league was filled with English players. The poor showing in the Euro Qualifiers has nothing at all to do with the number of foreign players in England. 10 were on the field in the Champions League Final last week, just to give an example.
However, FIFA appears to be pressing ahead with its protectionist plan, and disappointingly, the only argument against it that is cited is European regulations. Thank God for European competition regulations...
So, naturally, people talk about how we need quotas, and Sepp Blatter talks about his protectionist plan to have 5 domestic players in each team, and 6 overseas, as being the big solution. How exactly will that help? Basic economics says if you protect, you promote mediocrity. If we have quotas, yes it will mean English players will play, but will it make them any better?
The answer has to be: no. They'll play against lesser opposition. Fabio Capello's point is not really emphasised: the quantity of English players is down, but the quality is high. If we have quotas, soon we'll have the quantity, without the quality, because the players won't be tested in their domestic leagues against the best players in the world. English players will become complacent with their positions in teams because they can't be threatened by foreign competition.
Another very good point is also not picked up on, made this time by the Premier League itself. England failed to qualify for TWO World Cups in the 1970s, when the English league was filled with English players. The poor showing in the Euro Qualifiers has nothing at all to do with the number of foreign players in England. 10 were on the field in the Champions League Final last week, just to give an example.
However, FIFA appears to be pressing ahead with its protectionist plan, and disappointingly, the only argument against it that is cited is European regulations. Thank God for European competition regulations...
Sunday 25 May 2008
The infuriatingness of political correctness
Read an article on the BBC website this morning: finally someone in the Church of England is remembering that the Church believes in Christianity!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm
I find it astonishing that the Church isn't currently proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the only way to God - the Bible says that after all, and is very clear indeed on it. But it's a sad sign of the times that this message is seen as "offensive" to some and hence withdrawn. It is offensive, there's no doubt about that. But is that a reason to withdraw it, if it is correct?
Telling people to always wear seatbelts offends some, telling them to drive at 30mph not 40 offends some, but is it therefore wrong to say it?
There's a clear danger to of death if some of these guidelines are not upheld. If someone (say, the Church!) believes in the Bible, then they believe there's a clear danger of (spiritual) death if certain things are not said - so the Church should say that - if it believes in the Bible...
And the BBC Religious Affairs editor says how the move of this Christian in the Church of England will alienate Muslims at this delicate time. What Muslims is he talking about, and talking to? Does he regularly check how Muslims feel about Christians actually believing something?
Somehow I doubt it. I am not offended by a Muslim believing something different to me, nor threatened. I'm convinced in my belief in the Bible. I seriously wonder whether those who trumpet the politically correct line about not offending people are slightly insecure in their beliefs. Why shouldn't people be challenged by the beliefs of others? I'm more than happy to be challenged by anyone who wants to challenge me, and I'm sure that would be true of many Muslims too, and a good few atheists and agnostics.
That's one big moan off my chest for the time being...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm
I find it astonishing that the Church isn't currently proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the only way to God - the Bible says that after all, and is very clear indeed on it. But it's a sad sign of the times that this message is seen as "offensive" to some and hence withdrawn. It is offensive, there's no doubt about that. But is that a reason to withdraw it, if it is correct?
Telling people to always wear seatbelts offends some, telling them to drive at 30mph not 40 offends some, but is it therefore wrong to say it?
There's a clear danger to of death if some of these guidelines are not upheld. If someone (say, the Church!) believes in the Bible, then they believe there's a clear danger of (spiritual) death if certain things are not said - so the Church should say that - if it believes in the Bible...
And the BBC Religious Affairs editor says how the move of this Christian in the Church of England will alienate Muslims at this delicate time. What Muslims is he talking about, and talking to? Does he regularly check how Muslims feel about Christians actually believing something?
Somehow I doubt it. I am not offended by a Muslim believing something different to me, nor threatened. I'm convinced in my belief in the Bible. I seriously wonder whether those who trumpet the politically correct line about not offending people are slightly insecure in their beliefs. Why shouldn't people be challenged by the beliefs of others? I'm more than happy to be challenged by anyone who wants to challenge me, and I'm sure that would be true of many Muslims too, and a good few atheists and agnostics.
That's one big moan off my chest for the time being...
Thursday 3 April 2008
Oxonomics Blog Article
I made my debut yesterday: http://oxonomics.typepad.com/oxonomics/2008/04/does-beer-decre.html#comments
Wednesday 19 March 2008
Greed, Westernisation and the Church
I've just read a piece on the new Oxonomics blog about Modernisation and Westernisation, asking whether one can be "modern", or develop the "technology, customs and institutions which might herald their own intensive growth", without also developing Western morals.
I doubt I'll be able to coherently write my thoughts out, but I am sceptical that one can have the Western pursuit of more more more without Western lax morals, because these countries have looked enviously in the first place at the living standards in the West, and decided that they like them and want them, and this is surely only a hop, skip and a jump from greed, which dictates Western morals.
The desire to grow, grow, grow can surely only come from greed for more? Otherwise why wouldn't we be satisfied carrying doing just as well as before?
At least, the most abhorrent displays of "Western morals" anyway - showing off flash cars etc., but these are far removed from "Christian morals" anyway, morals which are based, incidentally, on gratitude, not guilt. Gratitude for the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in the place of the Christian, motivating a response.
Not particularly related, Jean-Paul Carvalho, the author, makes a suggestion which rankles with me, as a Christian and an economist, hence something like a scientist. The "scientific and Darwinian revolutions undermined belief in a Christian God", Carvalho claims. Science explains the "how" about the universe, how it works, while Christianity gives a motivation, a "why" for it all, why are we here at all in the first place?
There is nothing undermining about finding out more of the world that God has created, if one is a Christian - about finding the rules and regulations God set in place. Additionally, there is nothing contradictory in God using evolution as a force in the world he created.
Sunday 2 March 2008
88%?
Here's another bit of virulent anti-Europe talk from the UK. Apparently 88% of us want a referendum on some treaty or other, some watered down bit of paper which affects us in about zero ways.
That's 88% of a 36% turn out in a poll in some marginal Labour and Lib Dem constituencies. So that's not really 88% is it? And half the people in these areas didn't recieve ballot papers...
But who to listen to on this? Some say it's watered down so much it's not worth making a fuss about, others claim it's a disastrous encroachment of our national sovereignty. Both sides are probably tweaking things a little to back up their prior positions: either very pro-Europe, or anti-Europe.
That's 88% of a 36% turn out in a poll in some marginal Labour and Lib Dem constituencies. So that's not really 88% is it? And half the people in these areas didn't recieve ballot papers...
But who to listen to on this? Some say it's watered down so much it's not worth making a fuss about, others claim it's a disastrous encroachment of our national sovereignty. Both sides are probably tweaking things a little to back up their prior positions: either very pro-Europe, or anti-Europe.
Some sensible politics from the States
So I have to admit I'm quite impressed with this Obama chap, and part of me would like to see him President. My preferences on US political parties are pretty limited by the fact I'll never vote for one or the other given I'm not American. But the kind of talk coming out of the Democrats that is anti-free trade is concerning, to put it mildly.
However, John McCain appears to be talking a lot more sense on this issue, saying it's crazy for the US to start threatening to renegotiate NAFTA or pull out.
It's certainly the case the US doesn't really practice what it preaches with regard free trade; the whole furore over steel a few years ago made that abundantly clear. And the recent fuss about Airbus being given a contract to build something for the US military has had a number of US politicians talking as if Europeans are barbarians or something. Wasn't the big criticism of Airbus that it was too protected by European governments?
However, John McCain appears to be talking a lot more sense on this issue, saying it's crazy for the US to start threatening to renegotiate NAFTA or pull out.
It's certainly the case the US doesn't really practice what it preaches with regard free trade; the whole furore over steel a few years ago made that abundantly clear. And the recent fuss about Airbus being given a contract to build something for the US military has had a number of US politicians talking as if Europeans are barbarians or something. Wasn't the big criticism of Airbus that it was too protected by European governments?
Port Vale 0-3 Oldham Athletic
Yesterday morning, I realised that Oldham were playing away, but were only playing down in Stoke, which is about an hour's drive from my parents' place in North East Manchester. So, having not yet been to an Oldham match the entire season (not since I was about 10 years old have I been able to say that), I decided I would head out and take in my first match of the season!
An hour's drive later, I arrived in Burslem, some suburb of Stoke, slightly delapidated and displaying the effects of what some would say is post-industrial Britain. I paid my £4 parking, deciding it was better to do that than find some chav breaking into my car when I returned to it (as has happened before when leaving my car near Oldham's ground for a home match!).
The chap on the turnstile relieved me of £19 for the joy of watching Port Vale, marooned at the bottom of the League One table with 5 wins from 33 matches so far, against Oldham, the epitome of mediocreness - played 33, won 11, drawn 11, lost 11.
I've been to Port Vale to watch Oldham play on at least two previous occasions: one Oldham won, and another Oldham lost. Oldham's usual trait at Port Vale is to lose: Port Vale are Oldham's bogey side, as the lingo goes. In fact, in my lifetime, Oldham had won just once at Port Vale, 12 years previously (and to my distress I had been there, making me feel old).
The first thing that hit me was the lack of people in the ground to watch the game. Numbers on the internet later told me Oldham took 785 supporters there, and "swelled" the attendance to 3,700. But if I looked around stadium, it was simply a mass of empty seats. Clearly being adrift at the bottom of the table has taken its toll on Port Vale.
Then the game began, and quickly I found that Oldham supporters haven't changed too much. They still sing about how much they hate other teams, rather than how much they like Oldham. They still sing about how they hate Man United, as if it matters! We were last in the same division at Man United 14 years ago now, and the chances of it happening again in the near future are slim to zero. But still, we do really hate them, apparently.
The game was played in windy conditions, on a pretty poor pitch, making it hardly the greatest spectacle ever. But not long in, on 21 minutes, a floated ball into the area found Oldham loanee Jordan Roberton, who hit a superb volley into the net. Sadly this was at the far end of the pitch, so it was hard to see its full glory. Nonetheless, 1-0 to Oldham!
Port Vale then came into the match, and almost certainly should have levelled the scores, first when a complete mix-up between an Oldham defender and keeper Crossley left the ball rolling across goal. Thankfully another defender ran in to hoof the ball away. Secondly, another defensive melee minutes later saw the ball fall to a Vale player about 3 yards out, but his shot cannoned off a defender and on to the cross bar. Another let off.
In fact, if I ever saw a match which confirmed that when you're near the bottom, it all goes against you, this was it. Oldham's keeper pulled off a great save to deny another attempt by Vale, but the second half was almost entirely one-way traffic. Port Vale hit the post, a player of theirs twice rounded the Oldham keeper, only in one case to miss the open goal, and in another case to be crowded out by defenders. Oldham's keeper also made a number of good saves.
But to add gross insult to injury, with 13 minutes left and Oldham still hanging on to their 1-0 lead by some miracle, a long ball forward hit a Vale defender, and almost rebounded past their goalkeeper for a spectacular own goal. The keeper though responded well, and saved the unfortunate ricochet. However, in a most bizarre decision, the referee decided this was a deliberate pass back to the goalkeeper, and awarded Oldham a free kick right in front of goal!
Few people, even the Oldham fans, could quite believe it, and understandably the Port Vale fans and players were livid. I'm not sure I ever want to condone intimidation of the referee, but I could certainly understand their frustrations, having worked so hard, been so close to getting a goal and a win finally, to be undone by a seriously bad mistake by the referee must have been a hard pill to swallow.
The pill became even harder to swallow when Oldham dispatched the free kick into the bottom of the goal, via Neal Eardley, their Welsh International full back. At 2-0, the game was almost up, though still there was time for a superb double save by Oldham's keeper to deny another almost certain goal.
Into injury time at the end of the game, a long ball forward saw an Oldham substitute Wolfrenden race on to it, and delightfully loft the ball over the goalkeeper to score Oldham's third. This gave the scoreline an even harsher look for Port Vale. I've certainly never been to watch a more unfair 3-0 scoreline before, but it was pleasing for me that Oldham were on the end of some good fortune...
An hour's drive later, I arrived in Burslem, some suburb of Stoke, slightly delapidated and displaying the effects of what some would say is post-industrial Britain. I paid my £4 parking, deciding it was better to do that than find some chav breaking into my car when I returned to it (as has happened before when leaving my car near Oldham's ground for a home match!).
The chap on the turnstile relieved me of £19 for the joy of watching Port Vale, marooned at the bottom of the League One table with 5 wins from 33 matches so far, against Oldham, the epitome of mediocreness - played 33, won 11, drawn 11, lost 11.
I've been to Port Vale to watch Oldham play on at least two previous occasions: one Oldham won, and another Oldham lost. Oldham's usual trait at Port Vale is to lose: Port Vale are Oldham's bogey side, as the lingo goes. In fact, in my lifetime, Oldham had won just once at Port Vale, 12 years previously (and to my distress I had been there, making me feel old).
The first thing that hit me was the lack of people in the ground to watch the game. Numbers on the internet later told me Oldham took 785 supporters there, and "swelled" the attendance to 3,700. But if I looked around stadium, it was simply a mass of empty seats. Clearly being adrift at the bottom of the table has taken its toll on Port Vale.
Then the game began, and quickly I found that Oldham supporters haven't changed too much. They still sing about how much they hate other teams, rather than how much they like Oldham. They still sing about how they hate Man United, as if it matters! We were last in the same division at Man United 14 years ago now, and the chances of it happening again in the near future are slim to zero. But still, we do really hate them, apparently.
The game was played in windy conditions, on a pretty poor pitch, making it hardly the greatest spectacle ever. But not long in, on 21 minutes, a floated ball into the area found Oldham loanee Jordan Roberton, who hit a superb volley into the net. Sadly this was at the far end of the pitch, so it was hard to see its full glory. Nonetheless, 1-0 to Oldham!
Port Vale then came into the match, and almost certainly should have levelled the scores, first when a complete mix-up between an Oldham defender and keeper Crossley left the ball rolling across goal. Thankfully another defender ran in to hoof the ball away. Secondly, another defensive melee minutes later saw the ball fall to a Vale player about 3 yards out, but his shot cannoned off a defender and on to the cross bar. Another let off.
In fact, if I ever saw a match which confirmed that when you're near the bottom, it all goes against you, this was it. Oldham's keeper pulled off a great save to deny another attempt by Vale, but the second half was almost entirely one-way traffic. Port Vale hit the post, a player of theirs twice rounded the Oldham keeper, only in one case to miss the open goal, and in another case to be crowded out by defenders. Oldham's keeper also made a number of good saves.
But to add gross insult to injury, with 13 minutes left and Oldham still hanging on to their 1-0 lead by some miracle, a long ball forward hit a Vale defender, and almost rebounded past their goalkeeper for a spectacular own goal. The keeper though responded well, and saved the unfortunate ricochet. However, in a most bizarre decision, the referee decided this was a deliberate pass back to the goalkeeper, and awarded Oldham a free kick right in front of goal!
Few people, even the Oldham fans, could quite believe it, and understandably the Port Vale fans and players were livid. I'm not sure I ever want to condone intimidation of the referee, but I could certainly understand their frustrations, having worked so hard, been so close to getting a goal and a win finally, to be undone by a seriously bad mistake by the referee must have been a hard pill to swallow.
The pill became even harder to swallow when Oldham dispatched the free kick into the bottom of the goal, via Neal Eardley, their Welsh International full back. At 2-0, the game was almost up, though still there was time for a superb double save by Oldham's keeper to deny another almost certain goal.
Into injury time at the end of the game, a long ball forward saw an Oldham substitute Wolfrenden race on to it, and delightfully loft the ball over the goalkeeper to score Oldham's third. This gave the scoreline an even harsher look for Port Vale. I've certainly never been to watch a more unfair 3-0 scoreline before, but it was pleasing for me that Oldham were on the end of some good fortune...
More fun at Newcastle...
Well, they've appointed two managers since the Summer, one's been sacked already, and that great bastion of unsettlement, the media, are trying to spread rumours the next one's on the way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7273517.stm
Not only that, but we also get, thanks to the BBC's lay-out, an insightful comment from some Newcastle fan or other, saying how everyone now must be able to see that Keegan was the wrong choice.
I'd love to have his explanation. Keegan's come in, and been forced to deal with someone else's squad, a squad more geared towards defensive grit than attacking flair, and Keegan's management career has hardly been filled with defensively strong sides. He's also come into a team low on confidence, and been asked to turn it around - oh and in his first six or seven games he's had to face Arsenal twice and Manchester United.
So what the hell's he been playing at? How come he hasn't got Newcastle up to the top of the table?
Mind you, I am forgetting this is Newcastle, and they will always be a good source of entertaining news, not too dissimilar to Manchester City...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7273517.stm
Not only that, but we also get, thanks to the BBC's lay-out, an insightful comment from some Newcastle fan or other, saying how everyone now must be able to see that Keegan was the wrong choice.
I'd love to have his explanation. Keegan's come in, and been forced to deal with someone else's squad, a squad more geared towards defensive grit than attacking flair, and Keegan's management career has hardly been filled with defensively strong sides. He's also come into a team low on confidence, and been asked to turn it around - oh and in his first six or seven games he's had to face Arsenal twice and Manchester United.
So what the hell's he been playing at? How come he hasn't got Newcastle up to the top of the table?
Mind you, I am forgetting this is Newcastle, and they will always be a good source of entertaining news, not too dissimilar to Manchester City...
Sunday 24 February 2008
Hertford 0-3 Wolfson
On a dull and overcast Saturday morning, the mighty Yellow and Reds of Wolfson-St. Cross made the short trip to Hertford College Sports Ground to take on the purple-clad Hertford College. In turning up, in Kevin Keegan’s famous words, Wolfson-St Cross “had three options; either they could win or they could lose”. Furthermore, in his pre-match analysis, Keegan had been heard to say “You can't do better than go away from home and get a draw,” yet in what turned out to be a pulsating, end-to-end, rip-roarer of a match, Wolfson-St Cross went one better and emerged as worthy winners by three goals to nil.
Keen to put their League and Cuppers seasons behind them, Wolfson-St Cross were nonetheless hoping that the form book would not go out of the window in this feisty encounter. In what was certainly a game of two halves the stronger team on paper, Wolfson-St Cross, took the ball by the horns and ran out victors.
Many have commented how Wolfson-St Cross were, of course, too good to go down last season, and additionally they were looking to display their bouncebackability following the disappointing Cuppers exit only days before. On a true jumpers-for-goalposts occasion (although there was netting on the goalposts), each team had to provide a referee for a half of this match.
Captain Saunders, once described by Ron Atkinson as “the rock that the team has grown from”, whom should you cut in half would bleed red and yellow, selected his strongest team, and sent them out to pit their wits against Hertford, in a game which could have been described as a six-pointer, but in reality it was a friendly and so points were not at stake.
David McCabe, Wolfson-St Cross’s defensive stalwart, boldly led the defensive line, with Chris Morris, that great servant to the Yellow and Red cause over the years, Thomas “the Bee” Bee, defensive workhorse and ever-present aerial threat, and Nick Ferriera, who always gives it 110%, joining him at the back. Behind this strong rearguard was Jonathan the keeper, his towering presence between the sticks and his ability to cope with everything thrown (and even kicked) at him, especially these modern footballs that move around a lot, has never failed to embolden the mighty Gold and Salmon Pinks. Jonathan also shows a great deal of experience, which is perhaps unsurprising, because as Kevin Keegan once remarked “goalkeepers aren’t born today until they are in their late twenties or thirties”.
In the centre of the park the elite footballing machines that are Christophe, Mustafa, Ed Mezzeti and Aban took position, ready to do battle and give their all, 110%, in the name of Wolfson-St Cross. These mighty four are known for their cool footballing heads, and their ability to make the football do the talking. Mezzetti is particularly renowned for his ability to find that vital, defensive-splitting cross in all situations. Mustafa, making his debut for the Red and Yellows, was keen to impress, and in the early stages was stroking the ball around the park with exquisite skill, and showing many a Purple defender a clean set of heels. Christophe’s silky skills on the ball, and imposing physical presence left the Hertford players visibly trembling in their boots; as all connected with Wolfson know, Christophe has great touch for a big man. Last but not least, Wolfson-St Cross were clearly benefitted by the presence of Aban, a true footballer’s footballer if ever there was one.
Up front, Rhodri Saunders and David Howells led the line. There wasn’t a blade of grass that these two dynamic and athletic footballing maestros did not cover in pursuit of glory for the Salmon Pink and Gold of Wolfson-St Cross. Both are honest and hard-working players and neither of them makes mistakes on purpose.
With a swirling wind, the early exchanges produced little. With neither side in the ascendancy, action was end-to-end, nip and tuck, and any lapse in concentration seemed likely to be costly. Both sides had set their stalls out, and had Wolfson-St Cross expected to cruise to victory, this match was proving once again that in football, there are no easy games. Nonetheless, Wolfson appeared to be winning many of those priceless second balls, and one felt that if they could get the ball down and play, they could take their opponents to the cleaners.
Early doors, a Wolfson corner from set-piece specialist Christophe found Saunders lurking on the edge of the penalty area. His shot rifled through the nearby defenders before taking a deflection. In the resulting defensive melee, and with the Hertford defence at sixes and sevens, Wolfson debutant Mustafa turned on a sixpence piece and hammered home the first goal of the morning with a cool, crisp finish. The deadlock was broken, and if ever there was a good time to score, this was it. The travelling supporters went wild.
At this stage, Hertford could have had few complaints about the scoreline, and furthermore their penalty claims were dismissed by the unscrupulous referee after a robust challenge from Chris “the chopper” Morris. That decision though, for Big Kev, “was almost certainly definitely wrong”. Nonetheless, Wolfson-St Cross survived this wake-up call with their lead intact. One of the few other causes for the blowing of the referee’s whistle during the first half was for a scything challenge from Ed “the razor” Mezzetti, a mistimed intervention which bore all the hallmarks of a classic striker’s challenge.
Hertford did respond well to this setback however, and penned Wolfson-St Cross back on numerous occasions, yet some dogged, full-blooded defensive challenges came to Wolfson-St Cross’s rescue on a number of occasions. On one particular occasion a heroic goal-line clearance came to Wolfson’s rescue; without that save, and with the rest of the Wolfson-St Cross defence all at sea, it would have almost certainly been a goal for Hertford. Each and every man in the Gold and Red shirts was playing with his heart on his sleeve, and it showed.
But Wolfson-St Cross stuck to their game plan, and arguably looked like they had a couple more gears left in the locker. With the seconds to go before the half-time break, Dave Howells missed a golden opportunity to double Wolfson St Cross’s lead. Having done all the hard work, he blazed high and wide with only the goalkeeper to beat. Ron Atkinson, when asked to comment on this moment in the game summed it up by saying: “He sliced the ball when he had it on a plate”. As the ball returned to earth from the stratosphere, the Hertford defenders were seen to be wiping snow from the ball as they recovered it and restarted the game with a goal kick. The ashen-faced striker promptly left the field, and in shame beat a hasty retreat to Heathrow airport, where he was rumoured to have paid cash for the first available flight to Seattle.
Nonetheless, unaffected by this turmoil, the referee blew the whistle for half-time, and Wolfson-St Cross enjoyed their feast of oranges and jaffa cakes, looking to recharge their batteries for what they anticipated would be a fiery response from the home side, a goal behind at the break. Changes were made at half time, with the enforced absence of Howells, and the availability of fresh legs in Ali and Jimmy. After a lengthly lay-off following surgery, Reade was making his much anticipated return to action for the Red and Yellows, and sure enough, within ten minutes of action, he was seen to be wheezing and reaching for the oxygen.
The anticipated second-half response from Hertford was met and rebutted by a sterling rearguard action; Wolfson-St Cross were making the bread and butter challenges that are a mainstay and a necessity of football at this high level, and while Hertford huffed and puffed, there was little sign of a breakthrough. The bobbly pitch meant that there was little hope that balls through might pick up pace off the surface, and with the defence and midfield working their socks off, Wolfson weathered the storm.
However, it was fair to say that if the Purples of Hertford were going to have a purple patch, this was it, but they were unable to turn their possession into goals. It might be a little harsh, but perhaps fair, to say that had they played on for the rest of the weekend, they wouldn’t have scored. As such, it came down to one incisive attacking move by the mighty Gold and Salmon Pinks to settle this scrappy affair. Chris Morris sent over a dangerous looking ball, and although it appeared that the Purple goalkeeper had dealt with the threat, Mustafa hustled the goalkeeper, who promptly spilled the ball at the feet of the erstwhile Wolfson-St Cross frontman. Mustafa retained his composure to slot the ball home, making no mistake and doubling the visiting side’s advantage.
Following their second goal, Wolfson-St Cross seemed home and dry, and Hertford didn’t seem to pose quite so much of a threat after this. Proving the old adage that “football's always easier when you've got the ball”, it was not long before Wolfson-St Cross notched a third goal. Another finely floated corner this time was met with a rasping volley by the Bee, and the Wolfson utility man, which looked dangerous as it was both rising and dipping at the same time. The Bee’s shot had the keeper beaten all ends up, and Wolfson had surely moved into an unassailable lead with their third goal, much to the delight of all connected with Wolfson-St Cross.
It was a shame that one team had to lose such a keenly fought contest, but the Wolfson-St Cross players had little time for mourning the misfortunes of their Hertford compatriots. It’s fair to say, again quoting that great source of wisdom that is Kevin Keegan, “there’ll be no siestas in Hertford tonight”.
Keen to put their League and Cuppers seasons behind them, Wolfson-St Cross were nonetheless hoping that the form book would not go out of the window in this feisty encounter. In what was certainly a game of two halves the stronger team on paper, Wolfson-St Cross, took the ball by the horns and ran out victors.
Many have commented how Wolfson-St Cross were, of course, too good to go down last season, and additionally they were looking to display their bouncebackability following the disappointing Cuppers exit only days before. On a true jumpers-for-goalposts occasion (although there was netting on the goalposts), each team had to provide a referee for a half of this match.
Captain Saunders, once described by Ron Atkinson as “the rock that the team has grown from”, whom should you cut in half would bleed red and yellow, selected his strongest team, and sent them out to pit their wits against Hertford, in a game which could have been described as a six-pointer, but in reality it was a friendly and so points were not at stake.
David McCabe, Wolfson-St Cross’s defensive stalwart, boldly led the defensive line, with Chris Morris, that great servant to the Yellow and Red cause over the years, Thomas “the Bee” Bee, defensive workhorse and ever-present aerial threat, and Nick Ferriera, who always gives it 110%, joining him at the back. Behind this strong rearguard was Jonathan the keeper, his towering presence between the sticks and his ability to cope with everything thrown (and even kicked) at him, especially these modern footballs that move around a lot, has never failed to embolden the mighty Gold and Salmon Pinks. Jonathan also shows a great deal of experience, which is perhaps unsurprising, because as Kevin Keegan once remarked “goalkeepers aren’t born today until they are in their late twenties or thirties”.
In the centre of the park the elite footballing machines that are Christophe, Mustafa, Ed Mezzeti and Aban took position, ready to do battle and give their all, 110%, in the name of Wolfson-St Cross. These mighty four are known for their cool footballing heads, and their ability to make the football do the talking. Mezzetti is particularly renowned for his ability to find that vital, defensive-splitting cross in all situations. Mustafa, making his debut for the Red and Yellows, was keen to impress, and in the early stages was stroking the ball around the park with exquisite skill, and showing many a Purple defender a clean set of heels. Christophe’s silky skills on the ball, and imposing physical presence left the Hertford players visibly trembling in their boots; as all connected with Wolfson know, Christophe has great touch for a big man. Last but not least, Wolfson-St Cross were clearly benefitted by the presence of Aban, a true footballer’s footballer if ever there was one.
Up front, Rhodri Saunders and David Howells led the line. There wasn’t a blade of grass that these two dynamic and athletic footballing maestros did not cover in pursuit of glory for the Salmon Pink and Gold of Wolfson-St Cross. Both are honest and hard-working players and neither of them makes mistakes on purpose.
With a swirling wind, the early exchanges produced little. With neither side in the ascendancy, action was end-to-end, nip and tuck, and any lapse in concentration seemed likely to be costly. Both sides had set their stalls out, and had Wolfson-St Cross expected to cruise to victory, this match was proving once again that in football, there are no easy games. Nonetheless, Wolfson appeared to be winning many of those priceless second balls, and one felt that if they could get the ball down and play, they could take their opponents to the cleaners.
Early doors, a Wolfson corner from set-piece specialist Christophe found Saunders lurking on the edge of the penalty area. His shot rifled through the nearby defenders before taking a deflection. In the resulting defensive melee, and with the Hertford defence at sixes and sevens, Wolfson debutant Mustafa turned on a sixpence piece and hammered home the first goal of the morning with a cool, crisp finish. The deadlock was broken, and if ever there was a good time to score, this was it. The travelling supporters went wild.
At this stage, Hertford could have had few complaints about the scoreline, and furthermore their penalty claims were dismissed by the unscrupulous referee after a robust challenge from Chris “the chopper” Morris. That decision though, for Big Kev, “was almost certainly definitely wrong”. Nonetheless, Wolfson-St Cross survived this wake-up call with their lead intact. One of the few other causes for the blowing of the referee’s whistle during the first half was for a scything challenge from Ed “the razor” Mezzetti, a mistimed intervention which bore all the hallmarks of a classic striker’s challenge.
Hertford did respond well to this setback however, and penned Wolfson-St Cross back on numerous occasions, yet some dogged, full-blooded defensive challenges came to Wolfson-St Cross’s rescue on a number of occasions. On one particular occasion a heroic goal-line clearance came to Wolfson’s rescue; without that save, and with the rest of the Wolfson-St Cross defence all at sea, it would have almost certainly been a goal for Hertford. Each and every man in the Gold and Red shirts was playing with his heart on his sleeve, and it showed.
But Wolfson-St Cross stuck to their game plan, and arguably looked like they had a couple more gears left in the locker. With the seconds to go before the half-time break, Dave Howells missed a golden opportunity to double Wolfson St Cross’s lead. Having done all the hard work, he blazed high and wide with only the goalkeeper to beat. Ron Atkinson, when asked to comment on this moment in the game summed it up by saying: “He sliced the ball when he had it on a plate”. As the ball returned to earth from the stratosphere, the Hertford defenders were seen to be wiping snow from the ball as they recovered it and restarted the game with a goal kick. The ashen-faced striker promptly left the field, and in shame beat a hasty retreat to Heathrow airport, where he was rumoured to have paid cash for the first available flight to Seattle.
Nonetheless, unaffected by this turmoil, the referee blew the whistle for half-time, and Wolfson-St Cross enjoyed their feast of oranges and jaffa cakes, looking to recharge their batteries for what they anticipated would be a fiery response from the home side, a goal behind at the break. Changes were made at half time, with the enforced absence of Howells, and the availability of fresh legs in Ali and Jimmy. After a lengthly lay-off following surgery, Reade was making his much anticipated return to action for the Red and Yellows, and sure enough, within ten minutes of action, he was seen to be wheezing and reaching for the oxygen.
The anticipated second-half response from Hertford was met and rebutted by a sterling rearguard action; Wolfson-St Cross were making the bread and butter challenges that are a mainstay and a necessity of football at this high level, and while Hertford huffed and puffed, there was little sign of a breakthrough. The bobbly pitch meant that there was little hope that balls through might pick up pace off the surface, and with the defence and midfield working their socks off, Wolfson weathered the storm.
However, it was fair to say that if the Purples of Hertford were going to have a purple patch, this was it, but they were unable to turn their possession into goals. It might be a little harsh, but perhaps fair, to say that had they played on for the rest of the weekend, they wouldn’t have scored. As such, it came down to one incisive attacking move by the mighty Gold and Salmon Pinks to settle this scrappy affair. Chris Morris sent over a dangerous looking ball, and although it appeared that the Purple goalkeeper had dealt with the threat, Mustafa hustled the goalkeeper, who promptly spilled the ball at the feet of the erstwhile Wolfson-St Cross frontman. Mustafa retained his composure to slot the ball home, making no mistake and doubling the visiting side’s advantage.
Following their second goal, Wolfson-St Cross seemed home and dry, and Hertford didn’t seem to pose quite so much of a threat after this. Proving the old adage that “football's always easier when you've got the ball”, it was not long before Wolfson-St Cross notched a third goal. Another finely floated corner this time was met with a rasping volley by the Bee, and the Wolfson utility man, which looked dangerous as it was both rising and dipping at the same time. The Bee’s shot had the keeper beaten all ends up, and Wolfson had surely moved into an unassailable lead with their third goal, much to the delight of all connected with Wolfson-St Cross.
It was a shame that one team had to lose such a keenly fought contest, but the Wolfson-St Cross players had little time for mourning the misfortunes of their Hertford compatriots. It’s fair to say, again quoting that great source of wisdom that is Kevin Keegan, “there’ll be no siestas in Hertford tonight”.
Tuesday 15 January 2008
What we learned in 2007...
...and interesting article at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/business/13view.html?_r=1&ex=1357966800&en=dbd1d26f9a2c3cb9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Thing that interested me most was the bit about risky, or predatory borrowing, i.e. that much of the debt problem isn't through pushy lenders, but people so desperate to borrow they'll fraudulently report their income as higher than it is. This is kind of neglected in the hysteria surrounding the current debt problems in the major industrialised countries, particularly the UK. Is it because it's easier to blame faceless multinational companies? Or is it just because we all want to point the finger at someone else other than ourselves?
Such behaviour simply reveals what people will do to sustain the kind of lifestyles we want, and is motivated by greed on the personal level, not just the corporate level. Not all that often commented on though in the tabloids it seems...
Oh and the other bit that interested me was the effect of cold - 700 people die in the US for each very cold day - a day with an average temperature of -30 or below. This coming Sunday the forecast here in Edmonton is -24...
Thing that interested me most was the bit about risky, or predatory borrowing, i.e. that much of the debt problem isn't through pushy lenders, but people so desperate to borrow they'll fraudulently report their income as higher than it is. This is kind of neglected in the hysteria surrounding the current debt problems in the major industrialised countries, particularly the UK. Is it because it's easier to blame faceless multinational companies? Or is it just because we all want to point the finger at someone else other than ourselves?
Such behaviour simply reveals what people will do to sustain the kind of lifestyles we want, and is motivated by greed on the personal level, not just the corporate level. Not all that often commented on though in the tabloids it seems...
Oh and the other bit that interested me was the effect of cold - 700 people die in the US for each very cold day - a day with an average temperature of -30 or below. This coming Sunday the forecast here in Edmonton is -24...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)