Congrats to Barca, great team and a great performance this evening.
By contrast, I have been depressed by the performance of my team, Arsenal in recent weeks and also more than a little concerned by the fact that our main rivals will likely spend more money than we will in the coming months - Man-U, Citeh and Chel$ki will all spend more and Liverpool are looking good too.
However, what I have seen tonight has given me renewed hope: We are much more like Barca than any of those other teams - we even beat them in London this year, and in a 'fair and square' contest. We can, with our footballing philosophy and style compete with Barca where many others simply cannot and whilst we do need to fix some problems (much discussed so I won't go there again), we do retain the style that has just been acclaimed by the footballing world as being the best they've ever seen. We're close at least, and closer than anyone else in the EPL.
The problem, it seems to me, is not competing with Barca or Man-U or Chel$ki or Citeh or Spuds - we can do that - it's beating the likes of Stoke and Bolton who don't show any respect for the Beautiful game we are trying to play. We almost need two teams - one for the top quality matches and one for the long-ball slogs. We have the former - I truly believe that we do - but we don't have the latter and that is really what's costing us.
Comments?
Saturday 28 May 2011
how high is the bar?
Is it just me?
As a Tory I was (am) pleased that the LibDems joined the coalition for the good of the country, to help counter the situation we faced which was, as Lliam Byrne, Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury said: 'I'm afraid there is no money'. Labour, far from ending 'boom and bust' had just effectively created the biggest 'bust' in history: yes there were other factors at play but the main problems of debt were created not on the world stage, but in London. We were not victim, but architect of this massive problem for the world. And to their credit the LibDems recognised this. It seems to me that during the negotiations the fact that Labour were not interested in forming a coalition and would rather be in opposition, knowing that they had effectively fucked the country, was also a factor. LibDems being keen to have any kind of influence at long last, and I don't blame them for that at all. They had a win-win situation.
OK we now know that they had to 'swallow' some of their previously-held principles such as student fees (which were introduced by Labour by the way) and that they took a major kicking for that. They singularly failed to communicate that as the minor partner, they could not get everything they wanted in order to deflect that criticism but that they could bring some of their more popular issues to the fore instead. That was good for the Tories, they could do what they needed to do and put the blame on the LIBDems. Not in an obvious way - we're supposedly partners in this - but that's what happened and the public as usual completely missed that point - see local election results.
So the cuts will be happening soon and the LIbDems are being blamed for them, almost universally. That is an amazing gain for the Tories - the LibDems are being decimated in the country in terms of votes and supporters while the Tories do what needs to be done and are largely blameless. wow!
All of which browsing brings me to my point: Is it just me, or whilst the reputation, make up and motivation of the LIbDems seems to be reasonably and perhaps selflessly good in theory, is the actual make-up of the party flawed?
Forget about policy and belief and principle. I'm talking about the reality of the people in the party. They can bumble along as the third party, saying what they want because they will never have to deliver on their uncosted and not-real-world policies. They can get good media coverage for populist but completely unrealistc views. They can say almost what they like as a party, get good copy and not be held responsible as individuals, as people. There is no spotlight on the people, the individuals behind the rhetoric. It's an easy life, taking pot shots at the Government without any danger of being held accountable. Until now.
Now they are having to put their heads above the parapet. stand up an be counted as people rather than anonymous shadows. And in my humble opinion, they are being found wanting. Does it go back as far a Jeremy Thorpe? perhaps it does but I would not want to kick them for that. But the eyes of the world are normally averted from the LibDems and, therefore, they are not used to scrutiny.
And when the spotlight is unusually focused on them what do we find? Simon Hughes (it's never talked about but it's there). David Lawes (a similar issue - and I'm not in any way anti gay, but anti cover up). Cable thinking he can 'chat up and impress' a pretty girl rather than being professional - stupid old man at best. Huhne thinking he is above the law (he will have to go eventually, kicking and screaming into jail I think).Lembit Opec. Twat.
Tories are not exempt from this scrutiny and many have failed, but in my opinion the majority of them 'got over the bar' in terms of quality and I am just not sure that members of the LibDems party have done so. Now that they are being focused upon. Shame really.
As a Tory I was (am) pleased that the LibDems joined the coalition for the good of the country, to help counter the situation we faced which was, as Lliam Byrne, Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury said: 'I'm afraid there is no money'. Labour, far from ending 'boom and bust' had just effectively created the biggest 'bust' in history: yes there were other factors at play but the main problems of debt were created not on the world stage, but in London. We were not victim, but architect of this massive problem for the world. And to their credit the LibDems recognised this. It seems to me that during the negotiations the fact that Labour were not interested in forming a coalition and would rather be in opposition, knowing that they had effectively fucked the country, was also a factor. LibDems being keen to have any kind of influence at long last, and I don't blame them for that at all. They had a win-win situation.
OK we now know that they had to 'swallow' some of their previously-held principles such as student fees (which were introduced by Labour by the way) and that they took a major kicking for that. They singularly failed to communicate that as the minor partner, they could not get everything they wanted in order to deflect that criticism but that they could bring some of their more popular issues to the fore instead. That was good for the Tories, they could do what they needed to do and put the blame on the LIBDems. Not in an obvious way - we're supposedly partners in this - but that's what happened and the public as usual completely missed that point - see local election results.
So the cuts will be happening soon and the LIbDems are being blamed for them, almost universally. That is an amazing gain for the Tories - the LibDems are being decimated in the country in terms of votes and supporters while the Tories do what needs to be done and are largely blameless. wow!
All of which browsing brings me to my point: Is it just me, or whilst the reputation, make up and motivation of the LIbDems seems to be reasonably and perhaps selflessly good in theory, is the actual make-up of the party flawed?
Forget about policy and belief and principle. I'm talking about the reality of the people in the party. They can bumble along as the third party, saying what they want because they will never have to deliver on their uncosted and not-real-world policies. They can get good media coverage for populist but completely unrealistc views. They can say almost what they like as a party, get good copy and not be held responsible as individuals, as people. There is no spotlight on the people, the individuals behind the rhetoric. It's an easy life, taking pot shots at the Government without any danger of being held accountable. Until now.
Now they are having to put their heads above the parapet. stand up an be counted as people rather than anonymous shadows. And in my humble opinion, they are being found wanting. Does it go back as far a Jeremy Thorpe? perhaps it does but I would not want to kick them for that. But the eyes of the world are normally averted from the LibDems and, therefore, they are not used to scrutiny.
And when the spotlight is unusually focused on them what do we find? Simon Hughes (it's never talked about but it's there). David Lawes (a similar issue - and I'm not in any way anti gay, but anti cover up). Cable thinking he can 'chat up and impress' a pretty girl rather than being professional - stupid old man at best. Huhne thinking he is above the law (he will have to go eventually, kicking and screaming into jail I think).Lembit Opec. Twat.
Tories are not exempt from this scrutiny and many have failed, but in my opinion the majority of them 'got over the bar' in terms of quality and I am just not sure that members of the LibDems party have done so. Now that they are being focused upon. Shame really.
Friday 27 May 2011
You can hide but you can't run
'Who will throw the first stone?'
A strong question still, after more than 2000 years (and probably much earlier). Who, among us is whiter than white? Unblemished by weakness, a paragon of virtue, able without conscience, to throw that first stone? Presumably thrown at a criminal, beyond doubt, someone who deserves to suffer or to die. And who decides that? Who makes the laws, writes the history, takes the glory, or the blame?
Certainly not me and probably not you either. So while we're choosing our stones, buying six flats and a bag of gravel (Life of Brian), perhaps we should look in the mirror, admit our failings, perhaps even apologize for our own sins and show some mercy and generosity?
Trouble is, if we all did that then anyone could get away with anything, without punishment for wrongdoing. And then where would we be? where would the rule of law be? where would our innate sense of fairness be?
But the villain might be a vicious murderer or rapist or kidnapper. Might also be a woman who has inadvertently allowed her ankle to be seen by a man, or to have driven a car or to have gone to school when it is not allowed in that country. Are you buying some 'pointy' stones yet?
My apologies, I didn't intend to drift so much off the point of this blog but the above is worth thinking about in my humble opinion. One final thought in this area, since I seem to have touched on what i believe are medieval and religion-driven laws, is this: name me one religion, anywhere in the world, that has been 'good' or 'positive' for women?
OK I admit, far to much preamble, I will clearly split this next bit from this blog and use it in it's own right, if you're reading the full version, my apologies:
The thing is this: The background is that Ryan Giggs has been at the centre of mega media coverage these past few days for a sexual relationship he has had with a woman who is not his wife. The wife of his kids in what was hitherto regarded as a loving family relationship. He tried to cover this up through his wealth - he was able to pay for an injunction to stop the media from reporting his failings. Unfortunately for him, he has not succeeded and has been found out. If he had admitted his failing, apologized and come clean, we would almost certainly now be following a different story, have paused to say 'silly boy' and have moved on.
He would have had to face the consequences of course, but he could perhaps have done so in a quiet and private way and who knows what he might have agreed with his wife, away from the spotlight of the media. In my opinion he might have been able to save his marriage (and he may still do, who knows?). He could surely argue that a 'fling' with someone who was only in the relationship in order to make money from it, was not as important as a committed relationship, with kids involved. and she may have understood this.
By trying to gag the media, to stop them getting the story, he has made the whole thing uncontrolable. And he has increased the attention on his failure by a million percent. (I am not a fan of the 'we give 110% brigade', you can only give 100% as a maximum but this is different). He has exasserbated the problem massively by trying to control the media, by trying to stop them doing what they do.
Ron Davies MP tried to do the same with the same results. It became a much bigger story because he tried to stop it. One can understand that the revelation would be damaging to him and his political career, but to try to cover it up was to make it a much bigger story. The media will get there in the end, you have to understand that and live with it and behave accordingly.
In my humble opinion, Chris Huhne is doing the same now. Thinking that one is more important than the press is always doomed to fail. Admit and try to move on, or be pillaried because you tried to be above the media is just stupid.
Tiger Woods..? Don't get me started! But the same is true. You will not outrun the media, especially if you try to control them and actually, now that Twitter is on the case you have even less chance. Your best bet is to accept, take your kicking (hopefully briefly) and move on. Better still, love your wife and kids and keep temptation securely in your trousers.
A strong question still, after more than 2000 years (and probably much earlier). Who, among us is whiter than white? Unblemished by weakness, a paragon of virtue, able without conscience, to throw that first stone? Presumably thrown at a criminal, beyond doubt, someone who deserves to suffer or to die. And who decides that? Who makes the laws, writes the history, takes the glory, or the blame?
Certainly not me and probably not you either. So while we're choosing our stones, buying six flats and a bag of gravel (Life of Brian), perhaps we should look in the mirror, admit our failings, perhaps even apologize for our own sins and show some mercy and generosity?
Trouble is, if we all did that then anyone could get away with anything, without punishment for wrongdoing. And then where would we be? where would the rule of law be? where would our innate sense of fairness be?
But the villain might be a vicious murderer or rapist or kidnapper. Might also be a woman who has inadvertently allowed her ankle to be seen by a man, or to have driven a car or to have gone to school when it is not allowed in that country. Are you buying some 'pointy' stones yet?
My apologies, I didn't intend to drift so much off the point of this blog but the above is worth thinking about in my humble opinion. One final thought in this area, since I seem to have touched on what i believe are medieval and religion-driven laws, is this: name me one religion, anywhere in the world, that has been 'good' or 'positive' for women?
OK I admit, far to much preamble, I will clearly split this next bit from this blog and use it in it's own right, if you're reading the full version, my apologies:
The thing is this: The background is that Ryan Giggs has been at the centre of mega media coverage these past few days for a sexual relationship he has had with a woman who is not his wife. The wife of his kids in what was hitherto regarded as a loving family relationship. He tried to cover this up through his wealth - he was able to pay for an injunction to stop the media from reporting his failings. Unfortunately for him, he has not succeeded and has been found out. If he had admitted his failing, apologized and come clean, we would almost certainly now be following a different story, have paused to say 'silly boy' and have moved on.
He would have had to face the consequences of course, but he could perhaps have done so in a quiet and private way and who knows what he might have agreed with his wife, away from the spotlight of the media. In my opinion he might have been able to save his marriage (and he may still do, who knows?). He could surely argue that a 'fling' with someone who was only in the relationship in order to make money from it, was not as important as a committed relationship, with kids involved. and she may have understood this.
By trying to gag the media, to stop them getting the story, he has made the whole thing uncontrolable. And he has increased the attention on his failure by a million percent. (I am not a fan of the 'we give 110% brigade', you can only give 100% as a maximum but this is different). He has exasserbated the problem massively by trying to control the media, by trying to stop them doing what they do.
Ron Davies MP tried to do the same with the same results. It became a much bigger story because he tried to stop it. One can understand that the revelation would be damaging to him and his political career, but to try to cover it up was to make it a much bigger story. The media will get there in the end, you have to understand that and live with it and behave accordingly.
In my humble opinion, Chris Huhne is doing the same now. Thinking that one is more important than the press is always doomed to fail. Admit and try to move on, or be pillaried because you tried to be above the media is just stupid.
Tiger Woods..? Don't get me started! But the same is true. You will not outrun the media, especially if you try to control them and actually, now that Twitter is on the case you have even less chance. Your best bet is to accept, take your kicking (hopefully briefly) and move on. Better still, love your wife and kids and keep temptation securely in your trousers.
Thursday 26 May 2011
Libya
So the Americans don’t want to be involved. The Brits have said, explicitly, that we’re not about regime change, just protecting civilians. The French, in at the start and on the front foot perhaps for the first time since Napoleon, want everyone to be ‘gung ho’ about smashing Gaddafi’s regime.
Then there are the Libyan ‘civilians’ calling down air support, complaining bitterly when they can’t hear fighter planes in the sky, as if they’d paid for the fuel and the arms they’re carrying. Like NATO is their own private air force. And NATO, reluctant, but being pushed around by the US and UK/France to take the lead and take responsibility for the air strikes against Gaddafi.
And all this after the organisation that was set up to do this kind of work, the United Nations (UN) had singularly failed to do so, commanding not enough respect or influence over its members to get anything meaningful done – echoes of the failed League of Nations between the wars, which arguably contributed to the outbreak of WW (together with many other factors of course).
If we (the Brits) are now saying that this is not going to be over until Gaddafi is ousted, then policy has changed considerably: I would argue that it has changed enough for the whole subject to be re-visited by the UK parliament. Clearly the last Labour Government would not have contemplated this – indeed they went against all advice in order to go to war in the first place in IRAQ, but the Tories have set great store by the fact that this action (enforcing the no-fly zone) was both right and ‘legal’ (a clear ‘nod’ towards the previous Labour regime’s actions).
I would argue that if we have changed the goals of this operation, the legality of it, in relation to UN resolution 1973, is no longer so certain and we must, therefore, take another look if the Coalition government is not to be dogged like their predecessors have been over their sojurn (ongoing) in the Middle East.
One thing that this second look might also consider, is the make-up of the ‘Civilians’ that we’re protecting and now actively supporting (proposing to anyway): are we sure we want them as near neighbours to Europe? Are we sure that in return for our support and help, they will be at least on respectful, friendly terms, regardless of whatever means of government they eventually install?
Are these people really campaigning for democracy? Are they that sophisticated? Or are they simply trying to secure better lives for themselves and their kids? I believe it’s the latter but I would certainly not criticise them for that – we all do the same thing in whatever ways we can after all. But the danger must be that they have been motivated to rebel and to demonstrate and to turn out for these completely understandable reasons, without their goals being in any way achievable.
Sure, a few leaders of the movement will secure a massive uplift in their lives when they get their hands on the levers of power, but will the lives of the ordinary people (brave people no doubt) who have got them there really change? Will the situation revert back to the power and corruption of those new people in power just as it has done since the Crusades of the 12th Century? Why is this time different?
It’s different because of new media and social media and the internet and better universal communications of course, but have the fundamentals changed? Is it not still the case that vested interests and nepotism and power and control, as the driving forces in all of these ‘wobbling’ countries will emerge anew, just with different characters at the helm? And the same characters under the yolk of different rulers?
And remember that these different rulers understand the power of modern communications – these are what got them their break in the first place – manipulating tens nay hundreds of thousands to demonstrate. They might well feel that they need even more draconian powers in order to control tribal – and disappointed – masses in the future.
I’m not saying it’s easy, or that there is a simple solution – or even a solution at all, short of occupation and imposing our laws and values on people who don’t want them. God forbid another empire approach but we seem to be trying to apply our values and beliefs on people that we don’t really understand and who certainly don’t share our values or our views on fairness and ‘society’.
And now we’re sending in ‘advisors’ not to fight but to ‘help’ whatever that means. And we have shown our hand, that this will not be over until Gaddafi goes. Whoever said that – and it is now the universal mantra – is not a good poker player or even a good diplomat. It means, effectively, that we are at war with Gaddafi. Tell me it doesn’t?
It’s suddenly not as straightforward as it seemed when the ‘civilians’ were in danger of being swept away by Gaddafi. From a practical point of view, if the UK Government doesn’t revisit this in terms of legality and legitimacy it will be committing the same mistakes as the Blair Government and will, justifiably in my view, be subject to the same criticism that it has so pointedly aimed at Blair. It’s time to take a new look at this whole situation, not just because of Libya, but because there may well be many other similar situations coming forward in the very near future – Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al.
Then there are the Libyan ‘civilians’ calling down air support, complaining bitterly when they can’t hear fighter planes in the sky, as if they’d paid for the fuel and the arms they’re carrying. Like NATO is their own private air force. And NATO, reluctant, but being pushed around by the US and UK/France to take the lead and take responsibility for the air strikes against Gaddafi.
And all this after the organisation that was set up to do this kind of work, the United Nations (UN) had singularly failed to do so, commanding not enough respect or influence over its members to get anything meaningful done – echoes of the failed League of Nations between the wars, which arguably contributed to the outbreak of WW (together with many other factors of course).
If we (the Brits) are now saying that this is not going to be over until Gaddafi is ousted, then policy has changed considerably: I would argue that it has changed enough for the whole subject to be re-visited by the UK parliament. Clearly the last Labour Government would not have contemplated this – indeed they went against all advice in order to go to war in the first place in IRAQ, but the Tories have set great store by the fact that this action (enforcing the no-fly zone) was both right and ‘legal’ (a clear ‘nod’ towards the previous Labour regime’s actions).
I would argue that if we have changed the goals of this operation, the legality of it, in relation to UN resolution 1973, is no longer so certain and we must, therefore, take another look if the Coalition government is not to be dogged like their predecessors have been over their sojurn (ongoing) in the Middle East.
One thing that this second look might also consider, is the make-up of the ‘Civilians’ that we’re protecting and now actively supporting (proposing to anyway): are we sure we want them as near neighbours to Europe? Are we sure that in return for our support and help, they will be at least on respectful, friendly terms, regardless of whatever means of government they eventually install?
Are these people really campaigning for democracy? Are they that sophisticated? Or are they simply trying to secure better lives for themselves and their kids? I believe it’s the latter but I would certainly not criticise them for that – we all do the same thing in whatever ways we can after all. But the danger must be that they have been motivated to rebel and to demonstrate and to turn out for these completely understandable reasons, without their goals being in any way achievable.
Sure, a few leaders of the movement will secure a massive uplift in their lives when they get their hands on the levers of power, but will the lives of the ordinary people (brave people no doubt) who have got them there really change? Will the situation revert back to the power and corruption of those new people in power just as it has done since the Crusades of the 12th Century? Why is this time different?
It’s different because of new media and social media and the internet and better universal communications of course, but have the fundamentals changed? Is it not still the case that vested interests and nepotism and power and control, as the driving forces in all of these ‘wobbling’ countries will emerge anew, just with different characters at the helm? And the same characters under the yolk of different rulers?
And remember that these different rulers understand the power of modern communications – these are what got them their break in the first place – manipulating tens nay hundreds of thousands to demonstrate. They might well feel that they need even more draconian powers in order to control tribal – and disappointed – masses in the future.
I’m not saying it’s easy, or that there is a simple solution – or even a solution at all, short of occupation and imposing our laws and values on people who don’t want them. God forbid another empire approach but we seem to be trying to apply our values and beliefs on people that we don’t really understand and who certainly don’t share our values or our views on fairness and ‘society’.
And now we’re sending in ‘advisors’ not to fight but to ‘help’ whatever that means. And we have shown our hand, that this will not be over until Gaddafi goes. Whoever said that – and it is now the universal mantra – is not a good poker player or even a good diplomat. It means, effectively, that we are at war with Gaddafi. Tell me it doesn’t?
It’s suddenly not as straightforward as it seemed when the ‘civilians’ were in danger of being swept away by Gaddafi. From a practical point of view, if the UK Government doesn’t revisit this in terms of legality and legitimacy it will be committing the same mistakes as the Blair Government and will, justifiably in my view, be subject to the same criticism that it has so pointedly aimed at Blair. It’s time to take a new look at this whole situation, not just because of Libya, but because there may well be many other similar situations coming forward in the very near future – Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al.
Saturday 21 May 2011
Arsenal - what does success look like for next season?
Just as the young lad with the welding goggles replied - 'I'm not a real welder mister', so I am not really a blogger or indeed an expert on very much at all. Certainly not the minutiae of transfer targets or the vagaries of 442 or 433 or 451, but I am a football fan, an Arsenal fan to be exact, and it's been a tough few weeks to say the very least.
I should also say that while I love the game, and my team above all others, I do not enjoy the tribalism that often seems to go with it and would certainly not ever use the term 'scum' in relation to any opponent or opposing teams' supporters. Sure, I enjoy the odd light-hearted banter at the expense of the 'Spuds' or Chel$ki etc., but not in a vehement or violent way like some do. But hey, each to their own I suppose.
So whilst the Black scarf brigade - perhaps 'squad' would be more accurate - and others are predictably debating the end of the world and the possible 'ousting' of the manager after yet another season without silverwear, I was wondering what success might look like next season?
Firstly, I think Wenger is the best man for the job - there is only one manager in the Premiership who is anywhere near as good as him, and he won't be coming to the Emirates anytime soon. Looking further afield, I don't see anyone else at the moment who would represent an improvement on who we are, IMHO lucky to have right now. Guardiola? Mourihno? Not out of the question, but also not very likely to come.
But, and as @rioferdy5 might say about PiersMorgan, it's a big 'but'. You might think that only the winning of a trophy next year will be enough for AW to keep his job - even if it is only the Carling Cup, and that might not be enough for the faithful. It's difficult to judge what the best case scenario would be - the Premiership is clearly the most difficult title to win, but we've done that. Many Gooners would swap that for the Champion's League trophy which we haven't. Difficult to call and I too am undecided. It would be a fantastic problem to have of course.
But how likely is it that Arsenal can win anything next season? One would have to say that this season has been one of the 'softest' for years. Man-U have not been great but have been very strong at the business end. Chelsea have been poor by recent standards but will finish above us. Man-City have been sporadic, never really sparkling, but again will likely finish above us.
All will spend more than Arsenal in the summer: Citeh by a massive margin with Chel$ki very close behind them. United will undoubtedly build and might be Champions League winners which would help them to attract the best. Liverpool now seem to be ominously back on track.
Next year will be much more difficult for Arsenal than this year.
The danger (for Wenger) is that the fans will measure the success, or otherwise, against the standards of this season. Not an easy prospect for him or the club.
In my non-expert opinion if AW sorts out the problems we all know about - positions including keeper, centre-back, a Viera-style centre midfielder and a 20-goals a season striker but most importantly attitude and commitment, then (and I hesitate to say this) I think the fans will be happy, even if we don't win a trophy next season. I'd even say that if he doesn't sort these issues out, and we were to win something like the Carling/FA cup through luck, that I'd be joining the calls for him to go.
I guess it remains to be seen. And that's why he's paid the big bucks. But he has the biggest challenge yet next year in my opinion - priority must be to put the fight back in the dog. Tony Adams would have gone berserk about attitude during the last ten games. We need to get to the position where he would have been proud of the team's attitude, win lose or draw next season.
I should also say that while I love the game, and my team above all others, I do not enjoy the tribalism that often seems to go with it and would certainly not ever use the term 'scum' in relation to any opponent or opposing teams' supporters. Sure, I enjoy the odd light-hearted banter at the expense of the 'Spuds' or Chel$ki etc., but not in a vehement or violent way like some do. But hey, each to their own I suppose.
So whilst the Black scarf brigade - perhaps 'squad' would be more accurate - and others are predictably debating the end of the world and the possible 'ousting' of the manager after yet another season without silverwear, I was wondering what success might look like next season?
Firstly, I think Wenger is the best man for the job - there is only one manager in the Premiership who is anywhere near as good as him, and he won't be coming to the Emirates anytime soon. Looking further afield, I don't see anyone else at the moment who would represent an improvement on who we are, IMHO lucky to have right now. Guardiola? Mourihno? Not out of the question, but also not very likely to come.
But, and as @rioferdy5 might say about PiersMorgan, it's a big 'but'. You might think that only the winning of a trophy next year will be enough for AW to keep his job - even if it is only the Carling Cup, and that might not be enough for the faithful. It's difficult to judge what the best case scenario would be - the Premiership is clearly the most difficult title to win, but we've done that. Many Gooners would swap that for the Champion's League trophy which we haven't. Difficult to call and I too am undecided. It would be a fantastic problem to have of course.
But how likely is it that Arsenal can win anything next season? One would have to say that this season has been one of the 'softest' for years. Man-U have not been great but have been very strong at the business end. Chelsea have been poor by recent standards but will finish above us. Man-City have been sporadic, never really sparkling, but again will likely finish above us.
All will spend more than Arsenal in the summer: Citeh by a massive margin with Chel$ki very close behind them. United will undoubtedly build and might be Champions League winners which would help them to attract the best. Liverpool now seem to be ominously back on track.
Next year will be much more difficult for Arsenal than this year.
The danger (for Wenger) is that the fans will measure the success, or otherwise, against the standards of this season. Not an easy prospect for him or the club.
In my non-expert opinion if AW sorts out the problems we all know about - positions including keeper, centre-back, a Viera-style centre midfielder and a 20-goals a season striker but most importantly attitude and commitment, then (and I hesitate to say this) I think the fans will be happy, even if we don't win a trophy next season. I'd even say that if he doesn't sort these issues out, and we were to win something like the Carling/FA cup through luck, that I'd be joining the calls for him to go.
I guess it remains to be seen. And that's why he's paid the big bucks. But he has the biggest challenge yet next year in my opinion - priority must be to put the fight back in the dog. Tony Adams would have gone berserk about attitude during the last ten games. We need to get to the position where he would have been proud of the team's attitude, win lose or draw next season.
Sunday 8 May 2011
Who is on your side?
Trepidation sums up how I feel about this blog. Very few people (followers) will see it and whilst that is, in my view, a shame, it is also a comfort because it would surely be unpopular amongst a wider audience and those who will certainly disagree with it tend to be both vociferous and quick to judge and with many 'mates' to call on to denounce any conflicting views of others.
I recently commented on an Israeli discussion page stating, whilst trying to be as even handed as possible, that while I completely agree with the right of Israel to exist and to defend its borders, and that I abhor the extremism and violence perpetrated by the likes of Hamas and others, Israel, above all other states in the world, should also surely recognise the rights of the Palestinians to have their own, internationally recognised homeland. And that Israel should also be held account to accept the internationally agreed resolutions that they should not continue to create illegal settlements against the agreements of the whole world, including the US and the UK, which are clearly a provocation. My expressed opinion was (and is) that both sides should comply with international law rather than ignoring it and that only then would we be able to secure peace on the basis of trust and fairness. Niaive of course but nonetheless a view based on principle and hope.
After what I felt was a reasoned and fair view, I was immediately branded a 'racist' and a 'holocaust denier' by others on the blog. When I am neither of those reprehensible things.
It sometimes seems to me that discussion is not really about right or wrong, but about how many supporters one might have - for a cause, without ever thinking about the argument at issue - and I think that the reaction to my views in many ways proves my original point.
The protagonists on both sides are simply not interested in peace or fairness but only in their own interests. I have found that there are some people in this life who cannot do a deal, cannot come to an agreement, unless the people with whom they have dealt are seen to have lost out on the deal. They are not interested in a fair, equitable agreement but in 'stuffing' their partner/opponent and then crowing about it. There is no such thing as a win-win in their eyes, only a me-win-they-lose scenario. If we find peace in the Middle east (for example) it will surely be a win-win situation, but with these people at the forefront it will never happen. Even if the vast majority want fairness and peace and to go about their daily lives unencumbered by political or religious crap:
If you don't vote for freedom we'll impose it by military might. And if you don't support Israel, blindly, without question, and against the rights of another culture to survive, we will withdraw our funding of the country and you'll go bust - America. Sad. Outrageous. how can we, as a species, let this happen?
All of which was not what I started out to discuss. sigh, more to follow
I recently commented on an Israeli discussion page stating, whilst trying to be as even handed as possible, that while I completely agree with the right of Israel to exist and to defend its borders, and that I abhor the extremism and violence perpetrated by the likes of Hamas and others, Israel, above all other states in the world, should also surely recognise the rights of the Palestinians to have their own, internationally recognised homeland. And that Israel should also be held account to accept the internationally agreed resolutions that they should not continue to create illegal settlements against the agreements of the whole world, including the US and the UK, which are clearly a provocation. My expressed opinion was (and is) that both sides should comply with international law rather than ignoring it and that only then would we be able to secure peace on the basis of trust and fairness. Niaive of course but nonetheless a view based on principle and hope.
After what I felt was a reasoned and fair view, I was immediately branded a 'racist' and a 'holocaust denier' by others on the blog. When I am neither of those reprehensible things.
It sometimes seems to me that discussion is not really about right or wrong, but about how many supporters one might have - for a cause, without ever thinking about the argument at issue - and I think that the reaction to my views in many ways proves my original point.
The protagonists on both sides are simply not interested in peace or fairness but only in their own interests. I have found that there are some people in this life who cannot do a deal, cannot come to an agreement, unless the people with whom they have dealt are seen to have lost out on the deal. They are not interested in a fair, equitable agreement but in 'stuffing' their partner/opponent and then crowing about it. There is no such thing as a win-win in their eyes, only a me-win-they-lose scenario. If we find peace in the Middle east (for example) it will surely be a win-win situation, but with these people at the forefront it will never happen. Even if the vast majority want fairness and peace and to go about their daily lives unencumbered by political or religious crap:
If you don't vote for freedom we'll impose it by military might. And if you don't support Israel, blindly, without question, and against the rights of another culture to survive, we will withdraw our funding of the country and you'll go bust - America. Sad. Outrageous. how can we, as a species, let this happen?
All of which was not what I started out to discuss. sigh, more to follow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)