England were drawn against the US, Algeria and Slovenia
The US were certainly not the easiest pick from pot 2, but we'll have that, we destroyed them a few years ago, and they haven't beaten us since the abysmal Taylor era - the weakest African nation and arguably the weakest European team too - the word describing Capello is currently 'delighted'
England will play their first match on day 2 against the yanks in Rustenburg - exactly where Capello has been looking - it would seem the gods are on our side
Full draw here
Other groups of note
Group A features France getting a right let-off by facing probably the weakest team in the whole thing, but they got Mexico to hopefully present a challenge, unfortunately the opening game will be a rather uninspiring S.Africa vs Mexico, but that was always likely
Group D is not nice for the Ozzies, facing Germany, Serbia and the Ghana - all four good sides, I think all three non-seeds have a chance
Group D would've been the 'group of death' but for group G - featuring Brazil, Portugal and Ivory Coast - last time they got the Argies and the Dutch, now they get the Portuguese axis - North Korea make up the numbers, a toss-up between the Portuguese and Ivorians who meet in their first match is likely I think - my money's on the Africans
I'm not flushed for time so I'll be brief
Most groups went pretty well apart from D and G - Argentina have the chance to throw it away with Korea, Italy and the Netherlands have it easy, Spain will be happy and France are honourary seeds who've probably got it better than us...
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
04 December 2009
14 September 2009
School daze
According to the Mail, History is 'in danger' with only 30% taking it at GCSE, while 30% don't teach history as a stand-alone subject at key stage three (years 7-9), and one in three primary school children thought Churchill was the first man on the moon
Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:
Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?
Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...
Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:
1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French
So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...
So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)
So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...
If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it
Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly
Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!
As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it
It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'
Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...
So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill
Jesus wept...
----
In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that
Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff
But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'
Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me
Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies
It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country
And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?
Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?
It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing
Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history
---
I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening
But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?
You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?
Answers on a postcard...
Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:
History may soon become extinct in our secondary schools, go the way of domestic science and handwriting classes, only less missed and less lamented than either. A major new study by the Historical Association and teacher training experts found that three out of 10 comprehensives no longer bother to teach the subject, which isn't part of the core curriculum after the age of 13. Only 30 per cent do GCSE history.
Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?
Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...
Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:
1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French
So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...
So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)
So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...
If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it
Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly
Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!
As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it
It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'
Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...
So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill
Jesus wept...
----
In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that
'found three-quarters of teachers believed it was their duty to warn pupils about the danger of patriotism ' (Mail)Intriguing, here you can read the lovely Melanie Philips' take on it, and it's even doing the rounds in the blogosphere, here's Cranmer's take (see: Sat 12 Sept 09)
Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff
But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'
Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me
Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies
It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country
And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?
Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?
It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing
Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history
---
I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening
But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?
You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?
Answers on a postcard...
05 June 2009
Surely this is it?
Surely a crushing defeat must signal the end for Brown today?
Purnell has now gone, 3 ministers in 3 days, and the reshuffle is looking more like a game of 'guess who' with the little plastic pictures being flicked down in succession - there's nobody left, it's going to just be Brown, Balls and Milliband after this - and if you ask me I think the ministers have realised their public ratings are only going to go up if they get out now, I'm surprised the Millipede hasn't gone yet
So that's a cabinet falling apart (or 'working really hard' according to the party line) and some highly damaging results, Labour are clearly splitting - people often compare the equivalent Tory ideological split over the EU as not being present in Labour, but there's clearly a scrap between the Blairites and the Brownites - or left and right in ideological terms , it's not as massive as the European rift but it is too much on such a weak government - and frankly all the statements that they are working hard and doing a good job are just facile now, they are weak, and they are falling apart
But I just have to ask - in this stuation surely he MUST go?! Almost the whole of England is voting, and the other part of the country crushed Labour a year or two ago, if that happens it is a massive vote of no confidence from the people
You cannot put it down to simple 'mid-term blues' - we are less than a year away from the use-by date and the convention is four years
This PM already has no democratic mandate and there's about to be clear electoral proof they don't want Labour anymore - anyone with a shred of decency would surely see a general election as being in the national interest
There's nowhere to hide anymore, if Brown really does cling on through this situation he is going to become the most ridiculed and hated PM in British history, he's going down as worse than Eden and Chamberlain
The advantage of being down under is I can now watch as the overnight results come in - what I'm really looking forward to is Tory or Lib Dem areas losing Labour concillors from minority poisitions
Sure to be updates..
UPDATE: True to my word, I'm keeping an eye on developments - Labour slip to third and hand Lib Dems control in Bristol
The first result is an eight seat loss for Labour, putting them third and handing a majority to the Lib Dems - I told you the interesting feature would be the losses in non-Labour areas - the Tories second in the south-west? Quite telling
So much for the threat of the BNP...
UPDATE: It would appear the new county of Central Bedfordshire hasn't even returned a Labourite - 11 Lib Dems and 54 Tories...ouch - It's a Tory heartland, but no seats? It's right next to Luton, I'm really interested to see if Cambridgeshire can drop all four of its Labour councillors
UPDATE: Morning, big news: Lincolnshire remains Tory, wow... but again, Labour slip to third with only 4 seats - losing 15 seats, the Tories gain, slight Lib Dem loss, and there's a gain for 'others' - I don't know who this is, but it's a small party (not BNP, UKIP or Green) - if they are the same party they are in fact third, above Labour...(mini-update: 'Lincolnshire Independents' took four seats - tying with Labour for third)
Interesting how the Lib Dems have lost out while the Tories and independents gained, I find that quite strange, I shall have to research Lincolnshire's local situation
So far Labour have lost 23 out of only 43...more than half
Purnell has now gone, 3 ministers in 3 days, and the reshuffle is looking more like a game of 'guess who' with the little plastic pictures being flicked down in succession - there's nobody left, it's going to just be Brown, Balls and Milliband after this - and if you ask me I think the ministers have realised their public ratings are only going to go up if they get out now, I'm surprised the Millipede hasn't gone yet
So that's a cabinet falling apart (or 'working really hard' according to the party line) and some highly damaging results, Labour are clearly splitting - people often compare the equivalent Tory ideological split over the EU as not being present in Labour, but there's clearly a scrap between the Blairites and the Brownites - or left and right in ideological terms , it's not as massive as the European rift but it is too much on such a weak government - and frankly all the statements that they are working hard and doing a good job are just facile now, they are weak, and they are falling apart
But I just have to ask - in this stuation surely he MUST go?! Almost the whole of England is voting, and the other part of the country crushed Labour a year or two ago, if that happens it is a massive vote of no confidence from the people
You cannot put it down to simple 'mid-term blues' - we are less than a year away from the use-by date and the convention is four years
This PM already has no democratic mandate and there's about to be clear electoral proof they don't want Labour anymore - anyone with a shred of decency would surely see a general election as being in the national interest
There's nowhere to hide anymore, if Brown really does cling on through this situation he is going to become the most ridiculed and hated PM in British history, he's going down as worse than Eden and Chamberlain
The advantage of being down under is I can now watch as the overnight results come in - what I'm really looking forward to is Tory or Lib Dem areas losing Labour concillors from minority poisitions
Sure to be updates..
UPDATE: True to my word, I'm keeping an eye on developments - Labour slip to third and hand Lib Dems control in Bristol
The first result is an eight seat loss for Labour, putting them third and handing a majority to the Lib Dems - I told you the interesting feature would be the losses in non-Labour areas - the Tories second in the south-west? Quite telling
So much for the threat of the BNP...
UPDATE: It would appear the new county of Central Bedfordshire hasn't even returned a Labourite - 11 Lib Dems and 54 Tories...ouch - It's a Tory heartland, but no seats? It's right next to Luton, I'm really interested to see if Cambridgeshire can drop all four of its Labour councillors
UPDATE: Morning, big news: Lincolnshire remains Tory, wow... but again, Labour slip to third with only 4 seats - losing 15 seats, the Tories gain, slight Lib Dem loss, and there's a gain for 'others' - I don't know who this is, but it's a small party (not BNP, UKIP or Green) - if they are the same party they are in fact third, above Labour...(mini-update: 'Lincolnshire Independents' took four seats - tying with Labour for third)
Interesting how the Lib Dems have lost out while the Tories and independents gained, I find that quite strange, I shall have to research Lincolnshire's local situation
So far Labour have lost 23 out of only 43...more than half
27 May 2009
There are other choices
I feel I must be partisan for a second
I have already blogged about how I hate the attention the BNP get and the fear they supposedly inspire - if they didn't get such attention I doubt anyone would even contemplate voting for them - it's ridiculous
Take the English Democrats, nobody pays attention to them because they're just another little party, but if they were racist they'd be a hit!
Anyway, having looked at them a bit I can't say I disagree with them in any way - and I think they express pretty widely held fears
They support an English Parliament, tighter controls on illegal immigration and action in the EU - all things a right-wing nationalist should love
The things they say make perfect sense - but as usual people don't pay attention because they don't expect them to win, it's part of the British peoples' conditioning towards the major two parties
But regardless, there is very little between the 'legitimate' issues of the BNP and the English Democrats (the BNP are an English party, despite the name) - the only real difference is you can probably trust that they aren't full of closet racists
So if you like the stuff the BNP spout then I'd say you have an alternative in the English Dems,
I can't see why you would choose them over the Democrats, unless you actually were racist, in which case we haven't got much hope I guess
I will never vote Labour or Tory, and I intend to vote for Jury Team assuming I actually agree with the candidate, but I would also consider the English Democrats, who I think have an excellent platform that should appeal to (English) people and that their only obstacle is the usual barrier that everyone not in the major party faces
I have already blogged about how I hate the attention the BNP get and the fear they supposedly inspire - if they didn't get such attention I doubt anyone would even contemplate voting for them - it's ridiculous
Take the English Democrats, nobody pays attention to them because they're just another little party, but if they were racist they'd be a hit!
Anyway, having looked at them a bit I can't say I disagree with them in any way - and I think they express pretty widely held fears
They support an English Parliament, tighter controls on illegal immigration and action in the EU - all things a right-wing nationalist should love
The things they say make perfect sense - but as usual people don't pay attention because they don't expect them to win, it's part of the British peoples' conditioning towards the major two parties
But regardless, there is very little between the 'legitimate' issues of the BNP and the English Democrats (the BNP are an English party, despite the name) - the only real difference is you can probably trust that they aren't full of closet racists
So if you like the stuff the BNP spout then I'd say you have an alternative in the English Dems,
I can't see why you would choose them over the Democrats, unless you actually were racist, in which case we haven't got much hope I guess
I will never vote Labour or Tory, and I intend to vote for Jury Team assuming I actually agree with the candidate, but I would also consider the English Democrats, who I think have an excellent platform that should appeal to (English) people and that their only obstacle is the usual barrier that everyone not in the major party faces
24 May 2009
A day off?
Apparently it's a long weekend
I didn't know this, and thinking we only had two in August, I looked it up - on what has to be the first government website I've ever found helpful (seriously, do they deliberately set out to tell you nothing?)
Lo and behold, I was wrong - but what I did notice that in rather brazen fashion it declares that we (ie. England and Wales) get eight days, Scotland get nine, and Northern Ireland ten
Now this I already knew, but seeing it on the government's own website, willingly admitting that the Scots and Irish get better treatment than the other 55 million of us just really set me off
I mean, if you were the one setting up that website (not that you, as a lackey, have any power of course) wouldn't you just think that it's a bit unfair to give certain citizens of the same bloody country an extra day off?
Why has this never received more attention than a few petitions and facebook groups? Why don't the government address a frankly glaring inequality? (stop laughing)
My mind does wonder if it's because public holidays count as eight of your statutory 28 days leave (and another thing - when did 'holiday' become 'annual leave'? - I thought somebody had left for a year off or something when I first heard that) - maybe all it would do is restrict holiday times - but it is well-known we get a raw deal, with the lowest amount of public holidays in the western world - and it's not even the whole country!!
What a jip - I think they should have Question Time in Edinburgh near St. Andrew's day and have a question asking, "should shops open on this bank holiday" or something - and then the English viewers go "what bank holiday...? Oi Maureen, is it a bloody bank holiday? It's November!"
Then we'd have some fun
I didn't know this, and thinking we only had two in August, I looked it up - on what has to be the first government website I've ever found helpful (seriously, do they deliberately set out to tell you nothing?)
Lo and behold, I was wrong - but what I did notice that in rather brazen fashion it declares that we (ie. England and Wales) get eight days, Scotland get nine, and Northern Ireland ten
Now this I already knew, but seeing it on the government's own website, willingly admitting that the Scots and Irish get better treatment than the other 55 million of us just really set me off
I mean, if you were the one setting up that website (not that you, as a lackey, have any power of course) wouldn't you just think that it's a bit unfair to give certain citizens of the same bloody country an extra day off?
Why has this never received more attention than a few petitions and facebook groups? Why don't the government address a frankly glaring inequality? (stop laughing)
My mind does wonder if it's because public holidays count as eight of your statutory 28 days leave (and another thing - when did 'holiday' become 'annual leave'? - I thought somebody had left for a year off or something when I first heard that) - maybe all it would do is restrict holiday times - but it is well-known we get a raw deal, with the lowest amount of public holidays in the western world - and it's not even the whole country!!
What a jip - I think they should have Question Time in Edinburgh near St. Andrew's day and have a question asking, "should shops open on this bank holiday" or something - and then the English viewers go "what bank holiday...? Oi Maureen, is it a bloody bank holiday? It's November!"
Then we'd have some fun
01 April 2009
Never Happy
So England won...just - and yet my confidence has ebbed away - it was not an emphatic victory, but it was against the no.3 team, so the mathematics should give me hope
Still 5 games to go, a 5 point lead - our next games are Kazakhstan away and Andorra at home - Kazakhstan doesn't look too fun but surely Andorra are a guaranteed rout, and the Kazaks have been beaten by both Belarus and Ukraine at home so it should be fine - that will take us to the brink with 21 points and 3 games remaining
and yet I still worry - Croatia and Ukraine are both very good and will keep winning, if they could draw with each other again that would be very useful - I guess my fears are partly based on paranoia, but also a realisation that this group is clearly the best - we all knew Ukraine were the toughest third ranks and should've been in the second pot, so I guess it's not surprising - not dissimilar to Euro 08 qualifying I guess - with us and Russia the two scrapping it out, and us coming off worse (remember watering an artificial pitch?)
But realistically we should be fine - it just feels like there's no room for error, we may well end up with a 6 or more point cushion in the end
Then of course remember that we are probably the third most secure team in qualifying - only the Netherlands and Spain have it better, with the Netherlands only needing a point to secure 1st place, and Spain with a 6 point lead and 6 played
Speaking of the Dutch, we may as well look at Scotland in all its patheticness - as predicted, they got that win over Iceland, which is good - but because this is a small group and it's tight it's very precarious - Scotland have to welcome Macedonia and the Netherlands, and go to Norway - frankly that's only one likely win, and maybe a draw - even if the Dutch aren't really concerned (fortunately that will be their last, and almost certainly pointless, game)
Iceland arguably have it harder - Norway and the Netherlands are coming, and they have to go to Macedonia - I think they'll be lucky to get 3 points, so in actual fact Scotland are looking good for second
The problem lies in the fact that they are currently the lowest ranked of the second place teams - meaning they will be the ones to miss the play-offs - this is a group with very few results, the Netherlands has dominated a bunch of no-hopers, so there's very few points - now I do believe having a smaller group makes it harder - even though the bottom teams won't be counted in the other groups, it has made every game more important
Either way, the Scots, if they make it, will be at the bottom end of that second place table and so need to play all three remaining games like they are cup finals
(One possible chink of light may be the French, who unfortunately did win that double header against Lithuania and now look a bit safer - but only have three games left that will count for the play-offs, that is of course assuming Serbia keep beating everybody else)
Northern Ireland meanwhile produced two home wins, the best of the home nations - so you can't really fault that - but it's a damn tight group and Slovakia managed to beat the Czechs away - not good for NI, who have played an extra two games and face a serious threat from Poland, Slovakia and the Czechs - it's going to be very tight - you've got to say Slovakia are good for the 10 points off 5 they need to be assured of winning, but should NI get those last three wins they should be safe - big ask though (Slovakia at home, Poland and Czech Rep away) - I've got to admit I foresee yet another heartbreak as NI are screwed over by being in one of the toughest groups again
Wales are effectively out - they beat even my tepid prediction and lost to Finland at home, game over there
As for Ireland - well, they didn't make it easy for themselves by drawing with Bulgaria at home, after which I started working out likely scenarios - two wins off Montenegro and Cyprus are in order I think, and that's if Bulgaria win their 'easy' three and lose to Italy - and that will mean Ireland need to avoid defeat in Bulgaria in their next match, and their performance in Italy provided a potentially helpful, and unlikely, point - so it's hopeful
And that's it for the home nations - as for those other games I mentioned - well Spain won both against Turkey to pretty much guarantee qualification (Bosnia with a 4 point lead? seriously), Germany only won 4-0 and still need to watch out for Russia
That Slovak away win could be deadly for NI, Group 2 reamins boring and Portugal actually drew with Sweden! 6 points off five games for the gelled tumblers lot! They now have to go to Denmark and Hungary to have any chance of recouping that 7 point deficit and getting second, let alone first (I'm not getting my hopes up..honest)
France avoided embarrassment and got two 1-0 wins over Lithuania to battle it out with Serbia for the top spot (and they do actually look good for it, Serbia)
Australia meanwhile, beat Uzbekistan to almost be the first team in the World Cup but unfortuantely still need one more match (they are however guarateed a play-off) - will it be the Ozzies or the Dutch? My money is on the Ozzies, due to the time difference - Also the Japanese are also pretty much there - is it just me or has Asia got it a little too easy? Methinks they could do with dropping a berth, it has also taken away any sense of achievement for the Ozzies - they've been trying to big it up as a success like 2006 but it's just too easy to qualify now
I say this in all seriousness - but surely they should be giving even more representation to UEFA? Either increase the amount of teams in the finals, or give an extra one or two spots - take one off the Asians and one off the North Americans, for example - I know it's all about giving a chance to the useless teams from each confederation but do you think Wales ever get so much as a chance? These guys like Costa Rica and Iran are easily comparable to no-hopers in Europe - maybe I am being selfish but in Europe good teams will go out, in North America the US and Mexico are guaranteed, in Asia it's Australia, Japan and Korea, even South America gets useless teams like Ecuador in - European qualification is incredibly difficult compared to the rest.
Europe loses teams like Turkey, Ukraine, Czech Rep, Northern Ireland and possibly even Portugal - Europe struggled in 2008 with 16 berths (notably England) and the only real dead weights were the hosts...and France. Which is why the European championships are being increased - you risk the problem of the Euros becoming more representative than the actual World Cup - I know it seems unfair on the rest of the world - but think about it, we are only in this situation because of fairly arbitrary geographical distinctions - surely we could make it fairer by letting the whole world compete rather than squeeze the best area of football for the sake of everyone else, why not let Asia and Africa compete with Europe, and North with South America?
My two cents
Still 5 games to go, a 5 point lead - our next games are Kazakhstan away and Andorra at home - Kazakhstan doesn't look too fun but surely Andorra are a guaranteed rout, and the Kazaks have been beaten by both Belarus and Ukraine at home so it should be fine - that will take us to the brink with 21 points and 3 games remaining
and yet I still worry - Croatia and Ukraine are both very good and will keep winning, if they could draw with each other again that would be very useful - I guess my fears are partly based on paranoia, but also a realisation that this group is clearly the best - we all knew Ukraine were the toughest third ranks and should've been in the second pot, so I guess it's not surprising - not dissimilar to Euro 08 qualifying I guess - with us and Russia the two scrapping it out, and us coming off worse (remember watering an artificial pitch?)
But realistically we should be fine - it just feels like there's no room for error, we may well end up with a 6 or more point cushion in the end
Then of course remember that we are probably the third most secure team in qualifying - only the Netherlands and Spain have it better, with the Netherlands only needing a point to secure 1st place, and Spain with a 6 point lead and 6 played
Speaking of the Dutch, we may as well look at Scotland in all its patheticness - as predicted, they got that win over Iceland, which is good - but because this is a small group and it's tight it's very precarious - Scotland have to welcome Macedonia and the Netherlands, and go to Norway - frankly that's only one likely win, and maybe a draw - even if the Dutch aren't really concerned (fortunately that will be their last, and almost certainly pointless, game)
Iceland arguably have it harder - Norway and the Netherlands are coming, and they have to go to Macedonia - I think they'll be lucky to get 3 points, so in actual fact Scotland are looking good for second
The problem lies in the fact that they are currently the lowest ranked of the second place teams - meaning they will be the ones to miss the play-offs - this is a group with very few results, the Netherlands has dominated a bunch of no-hopers, so there's very few points - now I do believe having a smaller group makes it harder - even though the bottom teams won't be counted in the other groups, it has made every game more important
Either way, the Scots, if they make it, will be at the bottom end of that second place table and so need to play all three remaining games like they are cup finals
(One possible chink of light may be the French, who unfortunately did win that double header against Lithuania and now look a bit safer - but only have three games left that will count for the play-offs, that is of course assuming Serbia keep beating everybody else)
Northern Ireland meanwhile produced two home wins, the best of the home nations - so you can't really fault that - but it's a damn tight group and Slovakia managed to beat the Czechs away - not good for NI, who have played an extra two games and face a serious threat from Poland, Slovakia and the Czechs - it's going to be very tight - you've got to say Slovakia are good for the 10 points off 5 they need to be assured of winning, but should NI get those last three wins they should be safe - big ask though (Slovakia at home, Poland and Czech Rep away) - I've got to admit I foresee yet another heartbreak as NI are screwed over by being in one of the toughest groups again
Wales are effectively out - they beat even my tepid prediction and lost to Finland at home, game over there
As for Ireland - well, they didn't make it easy for themselves by drawing with Bulgaria at home, after which I started working out likely scenarios - two wins off Montenegro and Cyprus are in order I think, and that's if Bulgaria win their 'easy' three and lose to Italy - and that will mean Ireland need to avoid defeat in Bulgaria in their next match, and their performance in Italy provided a potentially helpful, and unlikely, point - so it's hopeful
And that's it for the home nations - as for those other games I mentioned - well Spain won both against Turkey to pretty much guarantee qualification (Bosnia with a 4 point lead? seriously), Germany only won 4-0 and still need to watch out for Russia
That Slovak away win could be deadly for NI, Group 2 reamins boring and Portugal actually drew with Sweden! 6 points off five games for the gelled tumblers lot! They now have to go to Denmark and Hungary to have any chance of recouping that 7 point deficit and getting second, let alone first (I'm not getting my hopes up..honest)
France avoided embarrassment and got two 1-0 wins over Lithuania to battle it out with Serbia for the top spot (and they do actually look good for it, Serbia)
Australia meanwhile, beat Uzbekistan to almost be the first team in the World Cup but unfortuantely still need one more match (they are however guarateed a play-off) - will it be the Ozzies or the Dutch? My money is on the Ozzies, due to the time difference - Also the Japanese are also pretty much there - is it just me or has Asia got it a little too easy? Methinks they could do with dropping a berth, it has also taken away any sense of achievement for the Ozzies - they've been trying to big it up as a success like 2006 but it's just too easy to qualify now
I say this in all seriousness - but surely they should be giving even more representation to UEFA? Either increase the amount of teams in the finals, or give an extra one or two spots - take one off the Asians and one off the North Americans, for example - I know it's all about giving a chance to the useless teams from each confederation but do you think Wales ever get so much as a chance? These guys like Costa Rica and Iran are easily comparable to no-hopers in Europe - maybe I am being selfish but in Europe good teams will go out, in North America the US and Mexico are guaranteed, in Asia it's Australia, Japan and Korea, even South America gets useless teams like Ecuador in - European qualification is incredibly difficult compared to the rest.
Europe loses teams like Turkey, Ukraine, Czech Rep, Northern Ireland and possibly even Portugal - Europe struggled in 2008 with 16 berths (notably England) and the only real dead weights were the hosts...and France. Which is why the European championships are being increased - you risk the problem of the Euros becoming more representative than the actual World Cup - I know it seems unfair on the rest of the world - but think about it, we are only in this situation because of fairly arbitrary geographical distinctions - surely we could make it fairer by letting the whole world compete rather than squeeze the best area of football for the sake of everyone else, why not let Asia and Africa compete with Europe, and North with South America?
My two cents
27 March 2009
Time to get cocky
It's that time of year again - International Break!
Unfortunately all England get competitively is a home tie against Ukraine after a friendly against Slovakia (who ain't bad) - but the rest of the home nations and most of Europe are playing two real games
Well the Slovakia game should be pretty cut and dry, although they are the top of their group it is somewhat of an average group, and the Czechs are yet to play them - and it's only a friendly so who cares...
As for Ukraine - I'm imagining we'll be entirely focused on that, one single game with the intention of absolute victory - England are one of only three teams with a 100% win record and I expect that to hold up in what is only their second home game - it will surely cement England as at least second place, and the team is mostly fit: game no.5 = win no.5
While we're on Slovakia we might as well look at groupies Northern Ireland, currently second and with a fair chance of qualifying, two home ties against Poland and Slovenia will be crucial indicators of their chances this time round, they may even stand a chance of getting the automatic spot after holding the Czechs at home in this average group (though don't hold your breath, their away form is dire) - I'd go for a draw and a win for their two ties
Wales are next down in group 4 - with the pleasure of Germany and Russia for company, lucky them
Wales are pretty solid, but lack a goal threat - they will need to beat Finland to at least stand a chance, they can't hope for much from the German visit other than a 0-0, but with the two hardest away games done with (and lost) it is at least in their own hands, but I foresee a draw and a defeat, and consequently failure to progress
Then there's Ireland - in a very weak group, with Bulgaria the only real threat to the top two spots - we all know Italy are hardly worthy of their 'world champions' title, but they won't struggle with this group, there's a slim chance Ireland could pip them, but Italy invariably come through - should Ireland beat Bulgaria at home they will be very close to security, the trip to Italy won't mean much, all eyes on Bulgaria methinks - win and a loss
Then last, but not least - Scotland, surely worthy of a play-off place in a group that features Iceland, Norway and Macedonia (talk about mediocre, thank God for the play-off system this time)
The Netherlands are the only big boys and should walk this group, and their 100% record is testament to that. Meanwhile Scotland are not making it easy for themselves, held by Norway at home, losing to Macedonia away (although any England fan can tell you that's no easy game) - the win in Iceland was crucial and the size of this group means each game is more important here. Scotland are going to be flying by the seat of their pants once again I feel, except this time they have to be favourites for second, but it's going to be a hotchpotch group I think, if anything the Scots want the Dutch to win every single game (except against them obviously). I predict a defeat across the North Sea, and a crucial win at home.
All in all it's looking pretty good that we might get more than England into the cup itself, it will probably come down to a case of play-offs but you never know, Ireland and Scotland might draw each other...
In summary:
England v Ukraine
NI v Poland (draw)
NI v Slovenia
Wales v Finland (draw)
Wales v Germany
Ireland v Bulgaria
Italy v Ireland
Netherlands v Scotland
Scotland v Iceland
**Other selected games of interest:
Spain v Turkey, then Turkey v Spain in the space of a week - who drew up that one? These two matches will pretty much decide group 5, unless Belgium cause a shock - you've got to go for the best team in the world for both, or certainly 4 points
Germany v Lichenstein - they beat them 6-0 away, bet on 'other' for this scoreline from a team who regularly thump in goals against minnows
Czech Rep v Slovakia - interesting if you live in Ulster, a Czech win would be preferable
Group 2 is even more mediocre than Group 9
Portugal v Sweden - Portugal's 1 win out of 4 has come courtesy of mighty Malta, anything other than a home win here will really screw them over as Sweden are big threats
Lithuania v France, France v Lithuania - another double header, I'm being highly optimistic about France going out, but this is a crucial pair of games for a seriously pathetic French team. Yes that's right, Serbia, Lithuania, Austria and Romania are giving France serious problems (if you can be anything serious after only 3 games), let's hope France's usual away form provides much amusement - it's a tight group
Australia v Uzbekistan - Over to Asia (?) for this one, Australia should walk it and will be pretty much guaranteed qualification after the frankly bizarre qualification route (two knock out rounds followed by two group rounds, followed by a last-place play-off, then another play-off). Hell, Australia and Japan both pretty much got a bye into the finals. Also, watch out for North Korea - we may well see them or New Zealand actually in the finals.
Unfortunately all England get competitively is a home tie against Ukraine after a friendly against Slovakia (who ain't bad) - but the rest of the home nations and most of Europe are playing two real games
Well the Slovakia game should be pretty cut and dry, although they are the top of their group it is somewhat of an average group, and the Czechs are yet to play them - and it's only a friendly so who cares...
As for Ukraine - I'm imagining we'll be entirely focused on that, one single game with the intention of absolute victory - England are one of only three teams with a 100% win record and I expect that to hold up in what is only their second home game - it will surely cement England as at least second place, and the team is mostly fit: game no.5 = win no.5
While we're on Slovakia we might as well look at groupies Northern Ireland, currently second and with a fair chance of qualifying, two home ties against Poland and Slovenia will be crucial indicators of their chances this time round, they may even stand a chance of getting the automatic spot after holding the Czechs at home in this average group (though don't hold your breath, their away form is dire) - I'd go for a draw and a win for their two ties
Wales are next down in group 4 - with the pleasure of Germany and Russia for company, lucky them
Wales are pretty solid, but lack a goal threat - they will need to beat Finland to at least stand a chance, they can't hope for much from the German visit other than a 0-0, but with the two hardest away games done with (and lost) it is at least in their own hands, but I foresee a draw and a defeat, and consequently failure to progress
Then there's Ireland - in a very weak group, with Bulgaria the only real threat to the top two spots - we all know Italy are hardly worthy of their 'world champions' title, but they won't struggle with this group, there's a slim chance Ireland could pip them, but Italy invariably come through - should Ireland beat Bulgaria at home they will be very close to security, the trip to Italy won't mean much, all eyes on Bulgaria methinks - win and a loss
Then last, but not least - Scotland, surely worthy of a play-off place in a group that features Iceland, Norway and Macedonia (talk about mediocre, thank God for the play-off system this time)
The Netherlands are the only big boys and should walk this group, and their 100% record is testament to that. Meanwhile Scotland are not making it easy for themselves, held by Norway at home, losing to Macedonia away (although any England fan can tell you that's no easy game) - the win in Iceland was crucial and the size of this group means each game is more important here. Scotland are going to be flying by the seat of their pants once again I feel, except this time they have to be favourites for second, but it's going to be a hotchpotch group I think, if anything the Scots want the Dutch to win every single game (except against them obviously). I predict a defeat across the North Sea, and a crucial win at home.
All in all it's looking pretty good that we might get more than England into the cup itself, it will probably come down to a case of play-offs but you never know, Ireland and Scotland might draw each other...
In summary:
England v Ukraine
NI v Poland (draw)
NI v Slovenia
Wales v Finland (draw)
Wales v Germany
Ireland v Bulgaria
Italy v Ireland
Netherlands v Scotland
Scotland v Iceland
**Other selected games of interest:
Spain v Turkey, then Turkey v Spain in the space of a week - who drew up that one? These two matches will pretty much decide group 5, unless Belgium cause a shock - you've got to go for the best team in the world for both, or certainly 4 points
Germany v Lichenstein - they beat them 6-0 away, bet on 'other' for this scoreline from a team who regularly thump in goals against minnows
Czech Rep v Slovakia - interesting if you live in Ulster, a Czech win would be preferable
Group 2 is even more mediocre than Group 9
Portugal v Sweden - Portugal's 1 win out of 4 has come courtesy of mighty Malta, anything other than a home win here will really screw them over as Sweden are big threats
Lithuania v France, France v Lithuania - another double header, I'm being highly optimistic about France going out, but this is a crucial pair of games for a seriously pathetic French team. Yes that's right, Serbia, Lithuania, Austria and Romania are giving France serious problems (if you can be anything serious after only 3 games), let's hope France's usual away form provides much amusement - it's a tight group
Australia v Uzbekistan - Over to Asia (?) for this one, Australia should walk it and will be pretty much guaranteed qualification after the frankly bizarre qualification route (two knock out rounds followed by two group rounds, followed by a last-place play-off, then another play-off). Hell, Australia and Japan both pretty much got a bye into the finals. Also, watch out for North Korea - we may well see them or New Zealand actually in the finals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
