Wave of Beards
One of the most romantic aspects of the Elizabethan age was the wave of beards which suddenly swept across History and settled upon all the great men of the period. The most memorable of these beards was the cause of the outstanding event of the reign, which occurred in the following way.
The Great Armadillo
The Spaniards complained that Captain F. Drake, the memorable bowlsman, had singed the King of Spain's beard (or Spanish Mane, as it was called) one day when it was in Cadiz Harbour. Drake replied that he was in his hammock at the time and a thousand miles away. The King of Spain, however, insisted that the beard had been spoilt and sent the Great Spanish Armadillo to ravish the shores of England.
- W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman, 1066 and All That (1930).
All your dreams are made,
When you're chained to the mirror and the razor blade.
- Morning Glory, Oasis (1995).
There was a question posed on a motorsport forum which I frequent about the last time that people with either moustaches or beards had occupied all three places on the podium in a Formula One race. It happened at the Canadian GP this year when Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton finished in that order. Though to be fair, Sebastian's beard is kind of a bit wispy and sad, Fernando Alonso's face foliage has in recent races looked far more established and Lewis Hamilton appears to be going for some sort of 1950's do-wop chinstrap beard thing.
The weird thing is that although I could find World Champions like Nigel Mansell (1992), Keke Rosberg (1982), Graham Hill (1962, 1968) who had proper moustaches, finding three in any given race was a difficult task and I failed miserably - there might be some though. The most obvious explanation for this is that the so-called modern era of Formula One starts in 1950 which is well after Mr Gillette patented his safety razor.
King Camp Gillette whose name would be lent to the company which bore his name, had his patent accepted for the Saftey Razor in 1904. The company then achieved massive amounts of success when it won a contract to supply the US Army with 3.5 million razors and 32 million replacement blades during the First World War.
This might seem a little trivial but the last time that the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia all had mustachioed leaders was the year 1909 when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, William Howard Taft and Alfred Deakin all led their respective countries. Admittedly this was before the First World War had even been thought of but it says something if before the war, finding beardy leaders was commonplace but after, not quite so much.
Gillette's contract to supply Doughboys during the First World War was more than likely the trigger which stroked beards and moustaches off of mens' faces and into the bathroom sink of history.
If we look at old photographs from the First World War, quite often the ranks of normal fighting men who were only 18-25 weren't old enough to grow proper beards and moustaches but the officer class, still had quite fine facial hair; Lord Kitchener immediately springs to mind as he points outwards from those recruitment posters. Though by the Second World War, the percentage of officers with facial hair also seems to have declined.
Certainly Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and John Curtin never sported facial fuzz but that doesn't seem to have affected their leadership at all. All three however had other distinctive trademarks: Churchill is famous for his cigars but was almost never seen at official engagements without a silken polka-dot bow-tie, the first a gift from Clemmy; Curtin deliberately chose his severe round spectacles because it distinguished him from other MPs and Roosevelt is perhaps more famous for the manner in which he delivered his 'fireside chats' rather than anything else (except polio).
Of course people like the fictional Dr. Fu Manchu and the very real dictators like Stalin and Hitler and seem to have ruined certain moustaches for everyone. Charlie Chaplin couldn't overcome the stigma that the real 'Great Dictator' had created for his toothbrush 'tache and he got rid of it. Not even comedian Richard Herring in his BBC Radio 4 series could successfully 'reclaim' the Toothbrush Moustache in the name of giving it back to Chaplin.
It has now been more than 100 years since Gillette's invention and there doesn't appear to be any signs that we'll see another wave of beards and moustaches in the near future. I don't for instance see another great beard like James A. Garfield's or Henry Parkes' making a comeback in a hurry.
It's a little sad that the last Prime Minister that Australia had with a moustache was Billy Hughes; in the UK it was Clement Atlee and in the United States, their last President with a moustache was William Howard Taft.
Even royalty succumbed in abandoning beards as George V was the last monarch to have a beard and neither Edward VIII, George VI grew them and the future kings Charles III, William V or George VII have not shown any inklings that they might grow one (though given that George is less than six months old that might be a bit difficult).
I don't know if Gillette's invention has necessarily made the world a happier place but I do suspect that when it comes to the way that we view history, the leaders of especially the last 50 yards who don't sport any facial hair, don't give the impression that they have the same level of authority that leaders of old did. I bet that if you saw Hughes, Atlee or Taft walking down the street, that you'd think just a little that 'hey there, that looks like someone'.
At the moment, Abbott, Cameron and Obama who hold exactly the same positions, just don't look to have the same perceived level of statesmanship that people who went before them did and I'm willing to bet that something as simple as growing a moustache, might be enough to change peoples' perceptions. Abbott and Cameron both present as kind of mousey and Obama is seen as a relatively weak leader, though a lot of that is because of the way in which the American political system works.
Okay, I completely concede that having more leaders with beards and moustaches won't change the world radically but at least we would get nicer portraits and it would make life a little easier for political cartoonists.
November 10, 2013
November 09, 2013
Horse 1566 - Just a Small Thing
- Crash Course Chemistry #37, The History of Atomic Chemistry
Hank Green explains very early in this video, the idea that the ancient Greeks; specifically Leucippus and Democritus came up with the idea that it you keep on cutting things in half, eventually you'll find a particle which is uncuttable. Indeed the word 'atom' itself comes from the two Greek words 'a' meaning 'not' and 'temnō' for 'I cut'.
Now whilst the rest of the video is interesting and does a very good job at explaining Atomic Chemistry, I think that it's worth revisiting the thought experiment. Just how far can you cut something? Whilst Atoms can be broken into Protons, Electrons and Neutrons, they themselves can be broken into things like Bosons, Leptons, Quarks and Mesons. How far can those be cut? Just how far can you keep on smashing things into ever smaller spaces until they cease to be matter?
Or is something else going on here? Is matter itself like some sort of fractal thing? If we were to keep on zooming in on the infinitesimally small, would we just keep on finding infinitely smaller particles? That brings into question the existence of particles smaller than we can measure and indeed smaller than current models of matter and indeed mathematics itself can handle.
Of course the existence of an infinite God in all of this wouldn't cause any problems at all, because if God is infinite in the scale of the very big, then He'd easily be able to handle the infinitesimally small as well.
If there genuinely is an actual uncuttable 'atom' which would be more like Leucippus and Democritus actually suggested instead of what we call an atom, which would be wrongly named, then why pray tell would it have such properties.
Again I turn to mathematics here and the incredibly strange properties of the number 1. 1 one is the identity for multiplication and is therefore as a result, its own square, its own cube its own nth root in every direction. 1 is its own factorial as well. 1 is also the empty product as any given number multiplied by 1 will give that given number. Actually come to think of it, log base 1 is a stupid concept since 1 raised to the anything equals 1 and therefore can not really have an inverse.
Just how small does a thing have to be before its uncuttable? Is it some form of energy popping in and out of existence like virtual particles? Are there things so small that they float between the realms of reality and not reality? Did Mr Schrodinger and his poor cat happen to hit on something?
It should be obvious to all and sundry by now that I do not possess the ability to answer any of these questions; I don't know even how to frame most of them. I do know though that it's possible that maybe Leucippus and Democritus idea of an actual atom, one that is uncuttable is entirely possible.
Maybe the whole universe itself is merely an idea. If it could be created out of nothing (and no, Quantum Mechanics predict that matter can be created and destroyed from nothing; so sorry to those people who think that the 'law' of conservation of mass/energy is a hard and fast rule) then maybe the smallest true atom is really nothing more than an idea. Maybe the idea of a universe being created from a word isn't so stupid after all.
Or is something else going on here? Is matter itself like some sort of fractal thing? If we were to keep on zooming in on the infinitesimally small, would we just keep on finding infinitely smaller particles? That brings into question the existence of particles smaller than we can measure and indeed smaller than current models of matter and indeed mathematics itself can handle.
Of course the existence of an infinite God in all of this wouldn't cause any problems at all, because if God is infinite in the scale of the very big, then He'd easily be able to handle the infinitesimally small as well.
If there genuinely is an actual uncuttable 'atom' which would be more like Leucippus and Democritus actually suggested instead of what we call an atom, which would be wrongly named, then why pray tell would it have such properties.
Again I turn to mathematics here and the incredibly strange properties of the number 1. 1 one is the identity for multiplication and is therefore as a result, its own square, its own cube its own nth root in every direction. 1 is its own factorial as well. 1 is also the empty product as any given number multiplied by 1 will give that given number. Actually come to think of it, log base 1 is a stupid concept since 1 raised to the anything equals 1 and therefore can not really have an inverse.
Just how small does a thing have to be before its uncuttable? Is it some form of energy popping in and out of existence like virtual particles? Are there things so small that they float between the realms of reality and not reality? Did Mr Schrodinger and his poor cat happen to hit on something?
It should be obvious to all and sundry by now that I do not possess the ability to answer any of these questions; I don't know even how to frame most of them. I do know though that it's possible that maybe Leucippus and Democritus idea of an actual atom, one that is uncuttable is entirely possible.
Maybe the whole universe itself is merely an idea. If it could be created out of nothing (and no, Quantum Mechanics predict that matter can be created and destroyed from nothing; so sorry to those people who think that the 'law' of conservation of mass/energy is a hard and fast rule) then maybe the smallest true atom is really nothing more than an idea. Maybe the idea of a universe being created from a word isn't so stupid after all.
November 03, 2013
Horse 1565 - Infinite Zaccheus
In church this morning, before communion we looked at a passage in Luke and Zacchaeus the Tax Collector. There are all sorts of lessons that can be learnt here such as who is redeemable, the sort of attitudes that happen once we meet Christ and Christ's willingness to meet people irrespective of their place or reputation in life.
This passage can be found in Luke 19 - Link:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:1
Really the thing that most people remember about Zacchaeus isn't the efforts he took to meet Christ or his generosity but the fact that he was short and could not see over the crowd.
Invariably there are jokes which can be made about who the shortest person in the bible was. Was it Zacchaeus or Nehemiah (knee-high-miah) or one of Job's mates, Bildad the Shuhite?
What would happen though if we took Zacchaeus, Nehemiah, Bildad the Shuhite and placed them on top of each other?
The total height of them would be 1 + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27... + 1/3^infinite.
Surely if the fractions on the end are 1/3^(n+1) where n is the nth term, then this series must have a limit.
If we assume that ratio r is amount required to go from term n to term n+1 then, r = n/n-1 I think that works for any two consecutive terms. Take the first two:
r = (1/3)/1 = 1/3
or maybe the 9th and 10th:
r = (1/19683) / (1/59409) = 1/3
the sum of the first terms is going to be defined by:
S = 1 - r^(n+1) / 1 - r
or:
S = 1 - (1+ 1/59409) / 1 - 1/3
S = 1.499974751301808
if n is infinite then r^(n+1) will tend towards zero.
S = 1 - 0 / 1 - 1/3
S = 1 / 1/3
S = 3/2
So placing Zacchaeus, Nehemiah, Bildad the Shuhite and an infinite number of increasing short people in the ratio of 1/3 on top of each other means that the top of the very top most person can not be any more than 1.5 times the height of Zacchaeus.
If Zacchaeus was a head shorter than an average person today, they he'd be about 5'4" tall and as such, this tower of people would only be about 8ft tall. Mind you, even if there was such an 8ft tower of an infinitive number of increasingly smaller people, Zacchaeus would have still been at the bottom of it all and would have still been to short to see anything.
This passage can be found in Luke 19 - Link:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:1
Really the thing that most people remember about Zacchaeus isn't the efforts he took to meet Christ or his generosity but the fact that he was short and could not see over the crowd.
Invariably there are jokes which can be made about who the shortest person in the bible was. Was it Zacchaeus or Nehemiah (knee-high-miah) or one of Job's mates, Bildad the Shuhite?
What would happen though if we took Zacchaeus, Nehemiah, Bildad the Shuhite and placed them on top of each other?
The total height of them would be 1 + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27... + 1/3^infinite.
Surely if the fractions on the end are 1/3^(n+1) where n is the nth term, then this series must have a limit.
If we assume that ratio r is amount required to go from term n to term n+1 then, r = n/n-1 I think that works for any two consecutive terms. Take the first two:
r = (1/3)/1 = 1/3
or maybe the 9th and 10th:
r = (1/19683) / (1/59409) = 1/3
the sum of the first terms is going to be defined by:
S = 1 - r^(n+1) / 1 - r
or:
S = 1 - (1+ 1/59409) / 1 - 1/3
S = 1.499974751301808
if n is infinite then r^(n+1) will tend towards zero.
S = 1 - 0 / 1 - 1/3
S = 1 / 1/3
S = 3/2
So placing Zacchaeus, Nehemiah, Bildad the Shuhite and an infinite number of increasing short people in the ratio of 1/3 on top of each other means that the top of the very top most person can not be any more than 1.5 times the height of Zacchaeus.
If Zacchaeus was a head shorter than an average person today, they he'd be about 5'4" tall and as such, this tower of people would only be about 8ft tall. Mind you, even if there was such an 8ft tower of an infinitive number of increasingly smaller people, Zacchaeus would have still been at the bottom of it all and would have still been to short to see anything.
November 01, 2013
Horse 1564 - Attack Is The Best Defence
Western Sydney Wanderers 2 - Adelaide United 1
Carrusca 54'
Jurić 61'
Jurić 80'
Sometimes I will often speak about how a solid defence is a good way to win a football match. Adelaide United have now had two disappointing away trips to the Central Coast and now to Western Sydney which show that but whilst it is fair to say that they've met with probably the best set of defenses in the A-League, tonight they were beaten by more optimistic football.
Adelaide went into this match trying to play a new system of 4-5-1. Western Sydney on the other hand were far more positive with a 4-3-3. Carrusca's goal before the hour mark was basically proof that whilst it is possible to eek out a goal by a patient build-up, Western Sydney had vastly different ideas.
Even if you just plot the two basic formations on a piece of paper, you can see that Adelaide's 4-5-1 is wider and more expansive. This is all good and well if you happen to be playing on a nice expansive pitch like Hindmarsh Stadium which is 120yds x 87yds but at Parramatta Stadium which is 120yds x 75yds, it suits a more compact formation.
Adelaide like to swing the ball out before arcing it back to the centre; this was in stark contrast to Western Sydney who through a mid and front section with only 3 in the line, play a punchier and more abrupt style of football. To be honest that lesson should have been learnt last season at this very venue when Western Sydney ripped them apart 6-1.
Jurić's two goals, the first which was a low level rocket and the second which was off a brilliantly timed header, were both scored within the 18 yard box. Again, if you were arranging a set of defences to deal with that, 5 in the back might have been better to cope with Western Sydney who can strike with 6 players all playing very high up the line.
Western Sydney's danger and this was apparent a fair bit, was that particularly Aaron Mooy would be caught out by trying to be too eager and running into an offside position; even when there was no trap being set.
I will say this though, this was the first time that I have seen Awer Mabil on the park and he is as fluid and natural a player as you are ever likely to see. Even before his first touch, he is in position and is playing the ball off the chest and head like he's playing in a World Cup Final.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/red-tape-holds-up-adelaide-uniteds-awer-mabil-in-his-dream-of-winning-a-socceroos-cap/story-fnii0g1d-1226745536555
The 18-year-old Adelaide United attacker needs the official paperwork to appease FIFA's international status regulations.
"I don't know about the situation,'' Mabil said.
"They (Australian authorities) haven't rang me yet so I hope they're in the process of doing it.
"I hope so because I want to go to the next Young Socceroos camp.
- The Adelaide Advertiser, 23rd Oct 2013
In all seriousness, I hope that he isn't picked up by the Young Socceroos, I hope that Ange Postecoglou picks him up immediately for full Socceroos' duty. If he doesn't, I suspect that Awer won't be playing in the A-League for much longer but be picked up by a European club. Ange needs to make sure that Awer's ticket to Rio next year is sorted and sorted quickly, he's simply that good.
The downside to Western Sydney's game tonight is that they were clumsy. Too many two-footed sliding tackles resulted in five yellow cards. Whilst there's a place for enthusiasm, being sent off doesn't help one's cause.
Western Sydney were worth their 2-1 win tonight and they've achieved something new. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I think that that's the first match that they have ever won after going a goal down. Admittedly they've only been around for one season and so there weren't that many stats for me to check but I think I'm right with that one.
At least for the moment, there'll be dancing on the streets of Pirtek tonight (yes, Pirtek have paid for the naming rights to the suburb; I'm sure that Pirtek City Council will be happy about that) as this win puts them for the moment at the top of the league... how I hate it so very much*
*I'm sky blue.
Carrusca 54'
Jurić 61'
Jurić 80'
Sometimes I will often speak about how a solid defence is a good way to win a football match. Adelaide United have now had two disappointing away trips to the Central Coast and now to Western Sydney which show that but whilst it is fair to say that they've met with probably the best set of defenses in the A-League, tonight they were beaten by more optimistic football.
Adelaide went into this match trying to play a new system of 4-5-1. Western Sydney on the other hand were far more positive with a 4-3-3. Carrusca's goal before the hour mark was basically proof that whilst it is possible to eek out a goal by a patient build-up, Western Sydney had vastly different ideas.
Even if you just plot the two basic formations on a piece of paper, you can see that Adelaide's 4-5-1 is wider and more expansive. This is all good and well if you happen to be playing on a nice expansive pitch like Hindmarsh Stadium which is 120yds x 87yds but at Parramatta Stadium which is 120yds x 75yds, it suits a more compact formation.
Adelaide like to swing the ball out before arcing it back to the centre; this was in stark contrast to Western Sydney who through a mid and front section with only 3 in the line, play a punchier and more abrupt style of football. To be honest that lesson should have been learnt last season at this very venue when Western Sydney ripped them apart 6-1.
Jurić's two goals, the first which was a low level rocket and the second which was off a brilliantly timed header, were both scored within the 18 yard box. Again, if you were arranging a set of defences to deal with that, 5 in the back might have been better to cope with Western Sydney who can strike with 6 players all playing very high up the line.
Western Sydney's danger and this was apparent a fair bit, was that particularly Aaron Mooy would be caught out by trying to be too eager and running into an offside position; even when there was no trap being set.
I will say this though, this was the first time that I have seen Awer Mabil on the park and he is as fluid and natural a player as you are ever likely to see. Even before his first touch, he is in position and is playing the ball off the chest and head like he's playing in a World Cup Final.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/red-tape-holds-up-adelaide-uniteds-awer-mabil-in-his-dream-of-winning-a-socceroos-cap/story-fnii0g1d-1226745536555
The 18-year-old Adelaide United attacker needs the official paperwork to appease FIFA's international status regulations.
"I don't know about the situation,'' Mabil said.
"They (Australian authorities) haven't rang me yet so I hope they're in the process of doing it.
"I hope so because I want to go to the next Young Socceroos camp.
- The Adelaide Advertiser, 23rd Oct 2013
In all seriousness, I hope that he isn't picked up by the Young Socceroos, I hope that Ange Postecoglou picks him up immediately for full Socceroos' duty. If he doesn't, I suspect that Awer won't be playing in the A-League for much longer but be picked up by a European club. Ange needs to make sure that Awer's ticket to Rio next year is sorted and sorted quickly, he's simply that good.
The downside to Western Sydney's game tonight is that they were clumsy. Too many two-footed sliding tackles resulted in five yellow cards. Whilst there's a place for enthusiasm, being sent off doesn't help one's cause.
Western Sydney were worth their 2-1 win tonight and they've achieved something new. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I think that that's the first match that they have ever won after going a goal down. Admittedly they've only been around for one season and so there weren't that many stats for me to check but I think I'm right with that one.
At least for the moment, there'll be dancing on the streets of Pirtek tonight (yes, Pirtek have paid for the naming rights to the suburb; I'm sure that Pirtek City Council will be happy about that) as this win puts them for the moment at the top of the league... how I hate it so very much*
*I'm sky blue.
October 29, 2013
Horse 1563 - Is Australia Stupid and Deluded?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/kohler-car-industry/5025360
What follows is not the bleating of a protectionist: I am in favour of free trade. I am also in favour of not being stupid or deluded.
Yesterday, Toyota Australia announced 100 redundancies because exports are falling. Australia's car manufacturing industry is on the brink of collapse. Ford has announced its closure; Holden and Toyota will soon follow without further cash subsidies from taxpayers, and negotiations are underway with the new Government to agree on the amount.
- Alan Kohler, ABC's The Drum, 16th October 2013.
Yes Mr Kohler, why should we subsidise what amounts to a sunset industry? Perhaps not surprisingly, Ford have announced the closure of Australian manufacturing by 2016 and it would appear that Holden are perhaps about to do likewise with a possible announcement that their Ute will also cease production.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/retiring-at-65-plunging-sales-mean-the-holden-ute-is-reaching-the-end-of-the-line/story-fni0xqrc-1226747396393?sv=b880ac06363f47f6fa9a9fb64d447756
THE homegrown Holden ute is about to be retired forever, after clocking up almost 65 years on Australian roads. The Aussie icon has had its sales - and hopes - crushed by a flood of pick-ups imported from Thailand.
One in five of all new vehicles sold so far this year comes from Thailand, second only to Japan.
Australian-made cars now account for less than one in 10 of all new vehicle deliveries; local production is at its lowest level since 1957.
Enthusiast buyers have less than three years to decide if they want a new Holden ute before it is relegated to the history books alongside arch rival Ford's Falcon ute by the end of 2016.
- Joshua Dowling, Daily Telegraph, 27th Oct 2013.
Of course this raises an interesting point, if it's too expensive to produce elaborately transformed manufactures like motor cars, why should Australia produce anything at all?
It's really telling that the ASX200 doesn't contain a single corporation that describes itself as a manufacturer. The last reliable World Bank report that I could find, indicates that less than 10% of Australia's GDP comes from manufacturing.
It's also really telling that there is no longer an S&P/ASX200 index for manufacturing on the boards because it was deemed insignificant.
In fact so dire is Australia's manufacturing sector that I did a survey of my house to try and find out exactly what I owned that even was produced in Australia. I found that none of my clothing was produced in Australia. None of the consumer goods such as TVs, computers and mobile phones were made in Australia, our washing machine was made in Thailand, the kitchen sink was made in China and our car was made in France.
Really the only things which actually were made in Australia were some of the food in the pantry, some books, our two cats and myself.
If the ASX200 is anything to go by, Australia has only three main purposes, to borrow from and lend each other money, to sell and rent each other buildings and to dig stuff out of the ground which magically gets turned into everything else we have in a magical place called "overseas".
You could look at all of this and suggest that the reason why manufacturing costs are so high in Australia are because wages are too. Ideally, to bring manufacturing back to Australia, firms would love to lower their input costs and pay workers less. The problem with this is that there are underlying issues with the cost of housing being ridiculously expensive and the double whammy that that pushes wage earners to demand higher wages, which drives input costs even higher.
I hold the opinion that with proper economic incentives, you can design an economy to produce any outcome you like; it's just that it takes at least a generation to get there. Here we are 20 odd years after the introduction of compulsory superannuation and people by inference demand investment choices that are stable and will provide stable incomes in their retirement; thus Australia went from a nation where we used to be able to make... things... to a nation of landlords. We could have chosen to invest in education and manufacturing incentives but no, we did not.
Of course it could be argued that Western Society generally has always been about lowering input costs. Once upon a time, the vehicle for doing that was slavery, then machinery was employed, then children working on machinery because paying adults was too expensive, and now the search for ever cheaper labour and other input costs means that a factory worker in places like Bangladesh or Laos can be paid even less than total input costs of keeping slaves in the 1860s. I find it quite insulting that a shop in Sydney would want to charge me $60 for a shirt, which a factory worker was paid $4/week to produce and yet even at those prices, the same shop can not afford to keep enough sales staff around.
It's not only Australia's car industry which has an insurmountable cost barrier but rather Australia's everything industry. Even places like Woolworths and Coles which are some of the very few companies on the ASX200 who don't move money about, dig stuff out of the ground or expect us to pay through the nose for the privildge of living in our houses, don't bother to pay staff when they can replace 5 staff with machines.
It's okay for Mr Kohler not to be "stupid or deluded" because quite frankly he's right. We shouldn't bemoan the loss of a few car manufacturers because that's just the sunset of a 30 year program of economic re-engineering. Arguably it's also alright because the loss of Australian manufacturing can just as easily be spun to suggest that it's really an aid program - that is, the export of manufacturing jobs from Australia, improves the lot of some people in places like Vietnam and Thailand.
What I find really disappointing about Mr Kohler's opinion is that he is one of Australia's most experienced commentators and journalists. This means that his opinions carry a lot of weight and do their part to shape public opinion and policy more than an average person. If he suggests that we should abandon manufacturing and the jobs that go with it, then people and policymakers are more likely to respond to his opinions. For my money, that just further validates the position that Australia should abandon manufacturing; truth be told, I used to hold higher hopes for this country.
Once upon a time, someone of great import said that "No longer content to be just the lucky country, Australia must become the clever country". Well, seeing as we've decided by economic design to be a nation who merely digs stuff out of the ground instead of bothering to manufacture things and innovate new products, we aren't the lucky county, we are very much the stupid and delusional county. Perhaps I should just lower my expectations and hope that China just buys us.
They know how to manufacture things.
What follows is not the bleating of a protectionist: I am in favour of free trade. I am also in favour of not being stupid or deluded.
Yesterday, Toyota Australia announced 100 redundancies because exports are falling. Australia's car manufacturing industry is on the brink of collapse. Ford has announced its closure; Holden and Toyota will soon follow without further cash subsidies from taxpayers, and negotiations are underway with the new Government to agree on the amount.
- Alan Kohler, ABC's The Drum, 16th October 2013.
Yes Mr Kohler, why should we subsidise what amounts to a sunset industry? Perhaps not surprisingly, Ford have announced the closure of Australian manufacturing by 2016 and it would appear that Holden are perhaps about to do likewise with a possible announcement that their Ute will also cease production.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/retiring-at-65-plunging-sales-mean-the-holden-ute-is-reaching-the-end-of-the-line/story-fni0xqrc-1226747396393?sv=b880ac06363f47f6fa9a9fb64d447756
THE homegrown Holden ute is about to be retired forever, after clocking up almost 65 years on Australian roads. The Aussie icon has had its sales - and hopes - crushed by a flood of pick-ups imported from Thailand.
One in five of all new vehicles sold so far this year comes from Thailand, second only to Japan.
Australian-made cars now account for less than one in 10 of all new vehicle deliveries; local production is at its lowest level since 1957.
Enthusiast buyers have less than three years to decide if they want a new Holden ute before it is relegated to the history books alongside arch rival Ford's Falcon ute by the end of 2016.
- Joshua Dowling, Daily Telegraph, 27th Oct 2013.
Of course this raises an interesting point, if it's too expensive to produce elaborately transformed manufactures like motor cars, why should Australia produce anything at all?
It's really telling that the ASX200 doesn't contain a single corporation that describes itself as a manufacturer. The last reliable World Bank report that I could find, indicates that less than 10% of Australia's GDP comes from manufacturing.
It's also really telling that there is no longer an S&P/ASX200 index for manufacturing on the boards because it was deemed insignificant.
In fact so dire is Australia's manufacturing sector that I did a survey of my house to try and find out exactly what I owned that even was produced in Australia. I found that none of my clothing was produced in Australia. None of the consumer goods such as TVs, computers and mobile phones were made in Australia, our washing machine was made in Thailand, the kitchen sink was made in China and our car was made in France.
Really the only things which actually were made in Australia were some of the food in the pantry, some books, our two cats and myself.
If the ASX200 is anything to go by, Australia has only three main purposes, to borrow from and lend each other money, to sell and rent each other buildings and to dig stuff out of the ground which magically gets turned into everything else we have in a magical place called "overseas".
You could look at all of this and suggest that the reason why manufacturing costs are so high in Australia are because wages are too. Ideally, to bring manufacturing back to Australia, firms would love to lower their input costs and pay workers less. The problem with this is that there are underlying issues with the cost of housing being ridiculously expensive and the double whammy that that pushes wage earners to demand higher wages, which drives input costs even higher.
I hold the opinion that with proper economic incentives, you can design an economy to produce any outcome you like; it's just that it takes at least a generation to get there. Here we are 20 odd years after the introduction of compulsory superannuation and people by inference demand investment choices that are stable and will provide stable incomes in their retirement; thus Australia went from a nation where we used to be able to make... things... to a nation of landlords. We could have chosen to invest in education and manufacturing incentives but no, we did not.
Of course it could be argued that Western Society generally has always been about lowering input costs. Once upon a time, the vehicle for doing that was slavery, then machinery was employed, then children working on machinery because paying adults was too expensive, and now the search for ever cheaper labour and other input costs means that a factory worker in places like Bangladesh or Laos can be paid even less than total input costs of keeping slaves in the 1860s. I find it quite insulting that a shop in Sydney would want to charge me $60 for a shirt, which a factory worker was paid $4/week to produce and yet even at those prices, the same shop can not afford to keep enough sales staff around.
It's not only Australia's car industry which has an insurmountable cost barrier but rather Australia's everything industry. Even places like Woolworths and Coles which are some of the very few companies on the ASX200 who don't move money about, dig stuff out of the ground or expect us to pay through the nose for the privildge of living in our houses, don't bother to pay staff when they can replace 5 staff with machines.
It's okay for Mr Kohler not to be "stupid or deluded" because quite frankly he's right. We shouldn't bemoan the loss of a few car manufacturers because that's just the sunset of a 30 year program of economic re-engineering. Arguably it's also alright because the loss of Australian manufacturing can just as easily be spun to suggest that it's really an aid program - that is, the export of manufacturing jobs from Australia, improves the lot of some people in places like Vietnam and Thailand.
What I find really disappointing about Mr Kohler's opinion is that he is one of Australia's most experienced commentators and journalists. This means that his opinions carry a lot of weight and do their part to shape public opinion and policy more than an average person. If he suggests that we should abandon manufacturing and the jobs that go with it, then people and policymakers are more likely to respond to his opinions. For my money, that just further validates the position that Australia should abandon manufacturing; truth be told, I used to hold higher hopes for this country.
Once upon a time, someone of great import said that "No longer content to be just the lucky country, Australia must become the clever country". Well, seeing as we've decided by economic design to be a nation who merely digs stuff out of the ground instead of bothering to manufacture things and innovate new products, we aren't the lucky county, we are very much the stupid and delusional county. Perhaps I should just lower my expectations and hope that China just buys us.
They know how to manufacture things.
October 27, 2013
Horse 1562 - Barad-dûr (Sauron's Tower)
"You wonder if Sauron ever worried about his tower rusting or suffering water damage. Maybe you could make it out of snakes... what? I meant stainless steel, though you could make it out of snakes"
- Vi Hart, Doodling in Math Class: Dragon Dungeons, 18th Oct 2013
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvLLKQCxeA
Apparently in Sindarin, the name of Sauron's Tower was "Barad-dûr" which meant "Dark Tower". Obviously this is rather confusing as JS Pachelbel's "Kanon D-dur" means "Canon in D Minor" but I digress. The question and the point here is what Sauron's Tower was actually built from.
JRR Tokien tells us that the tower took more than six hundred years to complete and was on so massive a scale, it was surreal. Okay, hardly anything to go by but we are told of Barad-dûr that "rising black, blacker and darker than the vast shades amid which it stood, the cruel pinnacles and iron crown of the topmost tower" and that Frodo Baggins perceived the immense tower as "wall upon wall, battlement upon battlement, black, immeasurably strong, mountain of iron, gate of steel, tower of adamant"
It seems then that Sauron's Tower was mainly built from Iron.
Would Sauron have worried about rust or water damage? Possibly not. Though I can think of one hazard which would have trouble him greatly and that is - fire.
I think of the The Crystal Palace which was built in 1851 to house the Great Exhibition and which Crystal Palace F.C (currently 0-0 with Arsenal as I type this) derives its name.
The Crystal Palace itself suffered its final fate by fire when on 30th November 1936 when an explosion of unknown cause, triggered the fire and by the next morning, the whole structure had been razed to the ground.
Fire of course would have been quite the problem from Sauron. Considering that he chose to build his monolithic tower Barad-dûr in Mordor, which has as its most dominant geographical landmark Mount Doom, which is itself a volcano, it leaves it open to damage by molten rock.
Iron itself although being harder to work than say bronze and having a melting point of 1538 °C (or 1811 Kelvins) is quite open to corrosion once it has been heated. Placing a tower made of iron next to a volcano is almost certainly a recipe for disaster and you'd think that someone like Sauron with that sort of intellect would have noticed just how silly it was but given that he still didn't after 600 years, perhaps all that power had just gone to his head.
As for stainless steel, it was German firm Krupp who finally produced it in 1908. Presumably Sauron wouldn't have had access to stainless steel or else he may have considered it.
Could you build a tower out of snakes though? Probably not. Snakes aren't exactly the best building material because as Medusa found out, you can't even build a decent wig out of them; let alone a massive tower that would take 600 years to construct. Virtually all of them would have died and rotting snake flesh again isn't exactly the best building material.
If I was Sauron, I would have considered building the tower from stone as that's quite fire and water resistant and many buildings like the Parthenon have outlived all sorts of buildings. Europe's great cathedrals are all stone buildings; so it seems that quite grand structures can be made from the stuff. Stone is therefore far more suited to the task.
Certainly not iron or snakes.
- Vi Hart, Doodling in Math Class: Dragon Dungeons, 18th Oct 2013
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvLLKQCxeA
Apparently in Sindarin, the name of Sauron's Tower was "Barad-dûr" which meant "Dark Tower". Obviously this is rather confusing as JS Pachelbel's "Kanon D-dur" means "Canon in D Minor" but I digress. The question and the point here is what Sauron's Tower was actually built from.
JRR Tokien tells us that the tower took more than six hundred years to complete and was on so massive a scale, it was surreal. Okay, hardly anything to go by but we are told of Barad-dûr that "rising black, blacker and darker than the vast shades amid which it stood, the cruel pinnacles and iron crown of the topmost tower" and that Frodo Baggins perceived the immense tower as "wall upon wall, battlement upon battlement, black, immeasurably strong, mountain of iron, gate of steel, tower of adamant"
It seems then that Sauron's Tower was mainly built from Iron.
Would Sauron have worried about rust or water damage? Possibly not. Though I can think of one hazard which would have trouble him greatly and that is - fire.
I think of the The Crystal Palace which was built in 1851 to house the Great Exhibition and which Crystal Palace F.C (currently 0-0 with Arsenal as I type this) derives its name.
The Crystal Palace itself suffered its final fate by fire when on 30th November 1936 when an explosion of unknown cause, triggered the fire and by the next morning, the whole structure had been razed to the ground.
Fire of course would have been quite the problem from Sauron. Considering that he chose to build his monolithic tower Barad-dûr in Mordor, which has as its most dominant geographical landmark Mount Doom, which is itself a volcano, it leaves it open to damage by molten rock.
Iron itself although being harder to work than say bronze and having a melting point of 1538 °C (or 1811 Kelvins) is quite open to corrosion once it has been heated. Placing a tower made of iron next to a volcano is almost certainly a recipe for disaster and you'd think that someone like Sauron with that sort of intellect would have noticed just how silly it was but given that he still didn't after 600 years, perhaps all that power had just gone to his head.
As for stainless steel, it was German firm Krupp who finally produced it in 1908. Presumably Sauron wouldn't have had access to stainless steel or else he may have considered it.
Could you build a tower out of snakes though? Probably not. Snakes aren't exactly the best building material because as Medusa found out, you can't even build a decent wig out of them; let alone a massive tower that would take 600 years to construct. Virtually all of them would have died and rotting snake flesh again isn't exactly the best building material.
If I was Sauron, I would have considered building the tower from stone as that's quite fire and water resistant and many buildings like the Parthenon have outlived all sorts of buildings. Europe's great cathedrals are all stone buildings; so it seems that quite grand structures can be made from the stuff. Stone is therefore far more suited to the task.
Certainly not iron or snakes.
October 26, 2013
Horse 1561 - A-League 2023-24... from FIFA'04
| Woolworths A-League | P | W | D | L | For | Against | GD | Pts | |
| 1 | Sydney FC | 38 | 28 | 7 | 3 | 73 | 35 | 38 | 91 |
| 2 | Adelaide Utd | 38 | 26 | 6 | 6 | 66 | 37 | 29 | 84 |
| 3 | Western Syd Wanderers | 38 | 21 | 11 | 6 | 70 | 34 | 36 | 74 |
| 4 | Richmond | 38 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 52 | 35 | 17 | 66 |
| 5 | Melbourne Heart | 38 | 17 | 12 | 9 | 49 | 32 | 17 | 63 |
| 6 | Melbourne Victory | 38 | 17 | 10 | 11 | 64 | 44 | 20 | 61 |
| 7 | Brisbane Roar | 38 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 61 | 47 | 14 | 61 |
| 8 | Hawthorn | 38 | 16 | 13 | 9 | 50 | 38 | 12 | 61 |
| 9 | South Sydney | 38 | 15 | 13 | 10 | 50 | 54 | -4 | 58 |
| 10 | Newcastle Jets | 38 | 14 | 9 | 15 | 43 | 52 | -9 | 51 |
| 11 | Newcastle Knights | 38 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 46 | 44 | 2 | 50 |
| 12 | Adelaide Crows | 38 | 11 | 10 | 17 | 35 | 50 | -15 | 43 |
| 13 | Melbourne Storm | 38 | 12 | 7 | 19 | 40 | 57 | -17 | 43 |
| 14 | Perth Glory | 38 | 10 | 11 | 17 | 55 | 70 | -15 | 41 |
| 15 | Carlton | 38 | 10 | 10 | 18 | 48 | 61 | -13 | 40 |
| 16 | St George-Illawarra | 38 | 8 | 14 | 16 | 42 | 60 | -18 | 38 |
| 17 | Sydney Swans | 38 | 9 | 11 | 18 | 34 | 52 | -18 | 38 |
| 18 | Central Coast Mariners | 38 | 8 | 11 | 19 | 33 | 58 | -25 | 35 |
| 19 | Brisbane Lions | 38 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 38 | 57 | -19 | 24 |
| 20 | Bundaberg Spirit | 38 | 5 | 5 | 28 | 39 | 71 | -32 | 20 |
| Woolworths A2-League | P | W | D | L | For | Against | GD | Pts | |
| 1 | Geelong Cats | 46 | 24 | 16 | 6 | 71 | 32 | 39 | 88 |
| 2 | Melbourne Demons | 46 | 23 | 15 | 8 | 83 | 58 | 25 | 84 |
| 3 | Brisbane Broncos | 46 | 24 | 8 | 14 | 69 | 42 | 27 | 80 |
| 4 | Parramatta Eels | 46 | 23 | 11 | 12 | 76 | 54 | 22 | 80 |
| 5 | Canberra Raiders | 46 | 20 | 17 | 9 | 77 | 51 | 26 | 77 |
| 6 | NZ Warriors | 46 | 20 | 15 | 11 | 69 | 50 | 19 | 75 |
| 7 | Royal Hobart | 46 | 19 | 15 | 12 | 81 | 70 | 11 | 72 |
| 8 | North Melbourne | 46 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 65 | 61 | 4 | 68 |
| 9 | West Coast | 46 | 18 | 13 | 15 | 62 | 48 | 14 | 67 |
| 10 | Pride of The North FC | 46 | 19 | 10 | 17 | 76 | 71 | 5 | 67 |
| 11 | Sturt | 46 | 16 | 17 | 13 | 52 | 51 | 1 | 65 |
| 12 | Penrith Panthers | 46 | 17 | 11 | 18 | 68 | 68 | 0 | 62 |
| 13 | Wests Tigers | 46 | 18 | 8 | 20 | 62 | 68 | -6 | 62 |
| 14 | Wollongong Wolves | 46 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 77 | 71 | 6 | 61 |
| 15 | Manly-Warringah | 46 | 17 | 9 | 20 | 62 | 65 | -3 | 60 |
| 16 | GWS Giants | 46 | 15 | 13 | 18 | 53 | 60 | -7 | 58 |
| 17 | Canberra United | 46 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 55 | 66 | -11 | 56 |
| 18 | St Kilda | 46 | 14 | 13 | 19 | 54 | 58 | -4 | 55 |
| 19 | Auckland Kingz | 46 | 13 | 10 | 23 | 58 | 71 | -13 | 49 |
| 20 | Fremantle | 46 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 44 | 69 | -25 | 48 |
| 21 | Port Adelaide | 46 | 11 | 15 | 20 | 55 | 81 | -26 | 48 |
| 22 | Gold Coast Titans | 46 | 10 | 12 | 24 | 54 | 79 | -25 | 42 |
| 23 | Collingwood | 46 | 11 | 9 | 26 | 44 | 79 | -35 | 42 |
| 24 | Western Bulldogs | 46 | 12 | 6 | 28 | 43 | 87 | -44 | 42 |
| Qantas A3-League | P | W | D | L | For | Against | GD | Pts | |
| 1 | Casey Scorpions | 46 | 26 | 12 | 8 | 85 | 41 | 44 | 90 |
| 2 | Tamworth Guitars | 46 | 22 | 17 | 7 | 80 | 45 | 35 | 83 |
| 3 | Monaro Panthers | 46 | 23 | 13 | 10 | 58 | 37 | 21 | 82 |
| 4 | Swan Districts | 46 | 22 | 11 | 13 | 64 | 43 | 21 | 77 |
| 5 | Hobart Utd | 46 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 74 | 58 | 16 | 73 |
| 6 | Essendon | 46 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 76 | 61 | 15 | 73 |
| 7 | Adelaide Comets | 46 | 21 | 10 | 15 | 73 | 63 | 10 | 73 |
| 8 | Gold Coast Suns | 46 | 17 | 16 | 13 | 59 | 56 | 3 | 67 |
| 9 | Dubbo Elephants | 46 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 56 | 51 | 5 | 66 |
| 10 | Eastern Suburbs | 46 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 69 | 66 | 3 | 66 |
| 11 | Kalgoorlie Super Pit | 46 | 17 | 13 | 16 | 52 | 56 | -4 | 64 |
| 12 | Wellington Phoenix | 46 | 15 | 17 | 14 | 52 | 58 | -6 | 62 |
| 13 | Devonport | 46 | 17 | 9 | 20 | 50 | 60 | -10 | 60 |
| 14 | Bendigo Gold | 46 | 16 | 11 | 19 | 58 | 65 | -7 | 59 |
| 15 | Norwood | 46 | 12 | 21 | 13 | 66 | 60 | 6 | 57 |
| 16 | Logan United | 46 | 13 | 14 | 19 | 48 | 64 | -16 | 53 |
| 17 | Wagga Wagga | 46 | 14 | 11 | 21 | 52 | 69 | -17 | 53 |
| 18 | NE MetroStars | 46 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 58 | 58 | 0 | 52 |
| 19 | Hume City | 46 | 11 | 19 | 16 | 62 | 70 | -8 | 52 |
| 20 | Claremont | 46 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 49 | 71 | -22 | 51 |
| 21 | Darwin City | 46 | 13 | 11 | 22 | 55 | 81 | -26 | 50 |
| 22 | Heidelberg United | 46 | 13 | 9 | 24 | 60 | 74 | -14 | 48 |
| 23 | Glenelg | 46 | 10 | 12 | 24 | 50 | 78 | -28 | 42 |
| 24 | North Qld Cowboys | 46 | 6 | 19 | 21 | 50 | 75 | -25 | 37 |
| Qantas A4-League | P | W | D | L | For | Against | GD | Pts | |
| 1 | Canterbury-Bankstown | 46 | 29 | 9 | 8 | 92 | 38 | 54 | 96 |
| 2 | Belconnen United | 46 | 26 | 10 | 10 | 81 | 41 | 40 | 88 |
| 3 | Redlands United | 46 | 26 | 10 | 10 | 80 | 46 | 34 | 88 |
| 4 | Preston Bullants | 46 | 23 | 10 | 13 | 72 | 56 | 16 | 79 |
| 5 | Ballarat | 46 | 21 | 13 | 12 | 74 | 59 | 15 | 76 |
| 6 | AFC Albany | 46 | 22 | 10 | 14 | 71 | 64 | 7 | 76 |
| 7 | Launceston | 46 | 18 | 16 | 12 | 65 | 53 | 12 | 70 |
| 8 | Capricorn Cougars | 46 | 19 | 9 | 18 | 68 | 57 | 11 | 66 |
| 9 | Cronulla Sharks | 46 | 19 | 7 | 20 | 58 | 57 | 1 | 64 |
| 10 | Whitsunday Miners | 46 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 55 | 63 | -8 | 62 |
| 11 | Coburg Tigers | 46 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 57 | 56 | 1 | 61 |
| 12 | Peel Thunder | 46 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 49 | 46 | 3 | 61 |
| 13 | Nefarious FC | 46 | 17 | 9 | 20 | 56 | 60 | -4 | 60 |
| 14 | Central District | 46 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 53 | 56 | -3 | 56 |
| 15 | Armidale Scorpions | 46 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 49 | 67 | -18 | 56 |
| 16 | Green Gully | 46 | 14 | 13 | 19 | 57 | 71 | -14 | 55 |
| 17 | Orange Orange Oranges | 46 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 55 | 70 | -15 | 52 |
| 18 | SPC Shepparton | 46 | 13 | 13 | 20 | 54 | 64 | -10 | 52 |
| 19 | Wentworthville Uniting | 46 | 13 | 12 | 21 | 50 | 72 | -22 | 51 |
| 20 | Wodonga-Albury | 46 | 10 | 21 | 15 | 48 | 62 | -14 | 51 |
| 21 | Gippsland Electric | 46 | 13 | 11 | 22 | 50 | 64 | -14 | 50 |
| 22 | Subiaco | 46 | 13 | 10 | 23 | 52 | 71 | -19 | 49 |
| 23 | Nth Qld Razorbacks | 46 | 11 | 16 | 19 | 48 | 69 | -21 | 49 |
| 24 | Figtree Albion | 46 | 10 | 11 | 25 | 55 | 87 | -32 | 41 |
I have been playing FIFA '04 now for almost a decade. In that space of time, I've been able to get all sorts of neat editors for it which include the ability to create new kits, new stadia and entire leagues. The problem is that if you let me loose at something long enough, reall strange things start to happen.
Not being content with merely the A-League, I created an entire Australian league system based on the A-League, AFL, NRL; included some clubs from the VFL, SANFL, WAFL, state leagues and leaving out clubs with obvious ethnic ties, I found that I had two more spots left over and so added Wentworthville Uniting who I play for and Nefarious FC which is made up of some of history's greatest monsters (Idi Amin by the way, is a better goalkeeper than you'd think - but still rubbish).
The set of league tables above, are from the 20th season and that point FIFA'04 simply can't take it anymore and just completely freezes. 2023/24 is a vastly different sort of place from 2003/04 in this game. The richest club in the entire league system is Collingwood; yet the in-game news keeps on telling us about management disputes there - is in-game Eddie Maguire disruptive or something?
I've spent 20 seasons playing as Wentworthville Uniting and the best that I've ever been able to achieve is 7th in the league; which still isn't good enough for a play-off spot. Records tell me that the worst defeat that we ever had was in the 2008-09 Johnny Warren League Cup when Brisbane Roar ripped us 16-0. Mind you, it's kind of difficult when your in-game namesake is an equal worst player in the whole game rated paltry 9 and a proper football genius like Del Piero in 2004 was rated 99.
Of course being a computer game it doesn't have to deal with real world issues, like the fact that it's technically impossible to have Brisbane Roar, Brisbane Lions and Brisbane Broncos all play home games at Lang Park at exactly the same time.
I also have had a fair amount of fun copying elements from some grounds to create new ones too. Like the Zoo Stadium where the Dubbo Elephants play which has no grandstands whatsoever, the giant factory towers at all four corners of the ground of SPC Shepparton, the ridiculously orange stadium of the Orange Orange Oranges and the Stadium of Fire where Nefarious FC play, which is exactly as it sounds, a stadium which is made out of fire.
Some teams I had to move out of their existing stadia, like the Western Sydney Wanderers who now play out of the 85,000 seat Bogandome along with GWS Giants; Sydney FC now fills its own 70,000 seat stadium the Stadio Alessandro Del Piero which presumable is also in Moore Park and Hawthorn and St Kilda now play back at the 120,000 seat VFL Park.
At the end of 20 seasons, Sydney FC had won 7, Brisbane Roar 5, Melbourne Victory 5, Adelaide Utd 2 and South Sydney 1. I'd been fired from the management position at Wentworthville Uniting four times and actually had to put up with the computer selecting players in the starting 11 and deciding on the formation and one of the real surprise packets was Central Coast Mariners who after starting in the A-League in season 1, have bounced around through all four leagues at various stages.
If only...
October 25, 2013
Horse 1560 - Postecoglou Post-Haste
Melbourne Victory 1 - Brisbane Roar 0
Troisi 56'
When people suggest that 0-0 or 1-0 scoreline is somehow boring, they to miss the rather obvious fact that matches like this tend to swing on the smallest of points. Quite unlike the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we sometimes see the finest of differences settle the argument.
This is what we saw at Docklands tonight.
Both Postecoglou's Victory and his former club, the Brisbane Roar as led by Mike Mulvey, played a fairly standard 4-4-2 which would swing into 4-2-4 or 2-4-4 depending on how the run of play went. Both sides had players which would move forwards up the flanks to cover the holes left by others. As far as a system goes, it works perfectly fine but does mean that it you encounter a side running exactly the same system, then the whole thing can come grinding to a giant halt; this is precisely what we saw for most of 90 minutes.
In defence we saw forwards with nowhere to go, wingers who would run deep into the corners to find that their deliveries were intercepted and cleared and play when running up the lines, found sideline after sideline.
Not to take anything away from Mike Mulvey but three rounds in to season 2013-14 and this match had all the hallmarks of a Postecoglou v Postecoglou fixture.
So then, what were the points which spun so many angels around on the head of a pin?
Kwame Yeboah for the Roar, fired in a pounder from 9 yards which was dealt with more than adequately by Victory keeper Nathan Coe, some 3 minutes before the half-time break. Less than a minute later, Jack Hingert's effort from about 15 yards away but on the other side was equally dealt with.
After the break, Mitch Nichols and Archie Thompson for the Victory looked like a couple of ravenous sharks, looking to bite at anything but nothing came. Thompson probably holds an A-League record tonight for straying off-side the most number of times in a match - I counted 12 but I could be wrong.
No, the result of this fixture spun on just three touches of the ball.
The first was Archie Thompson's first touch and control, the second was his pass through to release James Troisi in the 56th minute and the third was Troisi's "shot" which was more of a threaded pass through the eye of a needle, between Ivan Franjic and the post and through the legs of the flailing keeper Michael Theo.
Troisi's shot can't have been from anymore than about two yards away from the goal line but cut such a fine angle that it struck the base of the goal post on the other side, some 19 yards away.
Those are the sorts of points which swing such a finely balanced match.
Brisbane again proved my theory that a short corner is entirely pointless and Franjic even had a go at firing a bullet which would have gone in had it not hit Mark Milligan square in the face. Thomas Broich and Franjic tried deep into extra-time to buy an equaliser but they may as well have been trying to buy a battleship with a button, for their efforts were enitrely in vain.
1-0 to the Victory. Ange Postecoglou can walk away from this match knowing that he's left his mark on the domestic game and that perhaps he can do something for the national side. Time will yet see though if he can make angels can dance on the head of a pin at international level.
Troisi 56'
When people suggest that 0-0 or 1-0 scoreline is somehow boring, they to miss the rather obvious fact that matches like this tend to swing on the smallest of points. Quite unlike the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we sometimes see the finest of differences settle the argument.
This is what we saw at Docklands tonight.
Both Postecoglou's Victory and his former club, the Brisbane Roar as led by Mike Mulvey, played a fairly standard 4-4-2 which would swing into 4-2-4 or 2-4-4 depending on how the run of play went. Both sides had players which would move forwards up the flanks to cover the holes left by others. As far as a system goes, it works perfectly fine but does mean that it you encounter a side running exactly the same system, then the whole thing can come grinding to a giant halt; this is precisely what we saw for most of 90 minutes.
In defence we saw forwards with nowhere to go, wingers who would run deep into the corners to find that their deliveries were intercepted and cleared and play when running up the lines, found sideline after sideline.
Not to take anything away from Mike Mulvey but three rounds in to season 2013-14 and this match had all the hallmarks of a Postecoglou v Postecoglou fixture.
So then, what were the points which spun so many angels around on the head of a pin?
Kwame Yeboah for the Roar, fired in a pounder from 9 yards which was dealt with more than adequately by Victory keeper Nathan Coe, some 3 minutes before the half-time break. Less than a minute later, Jack Hingert's effort from about 15 yards away but on the other side was equally dealt with.
After the break, Mitch Nichols and Archie Thompson for the Victory looked like a couple of ravenous sharks, looking to bite at anything but nothing came. Thompson probably holds an A-League record tonight for straying off-side the most number of times in a match - I counted 12 but I could be wrong.
No, the result of this fixture spun on just three touches of the ball.
The first was Archie Thompson's first touch and control, the second was his pass through to release James Troisi in the 56th minute and the third was Troisi's "shot" which was more of a threaded pass through the eye of a needle, between Ivan Franjic and the post and through the legs of the flailing keeper Michael Theo.
Troisi's shot can't have been from anymore than about two yards away from the goal line but cut such a fine angle that it struck the base of the goal post on the other side, some 19 yards away.
Those are the sorts of points which swing such a finely balanced match.
Brisbane again proved my theory that a short corner is entirely pointless and Franjic even had a go at firing a bullet which would have gone in had it not hit Mark Milligan square in the face. Thomas Broich and Franjic tried deep into extra-time to buy an equaliser but they may as well have been trying to buy a battleship with a button, for their efforts were enitrely in vain.
1-0 to the Victory. Ange Postecoglou can walk away from this match knowing that he's left his mark on the domestic game and that perhaps he can do something for the national side. Time will yet see though if he can make angels can dance on the head of a pin at international level.
Horse 1559 - Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You
2013 marks the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of the American President, John F. Kennedy. To mark this, SBS commissioned a documentary, entitled "JFK: The Smoking Gun" which will be shown in November. The promos for this have included a rather famous piece of chiasmus from JFK's Innaugural Address.
"ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
- John F. Kennedy, Jan 20 1961.
Mainly because I'd seen the promo so many times, I was again reminded of it whilst I was reading through the Herald-Sun this morning. Specifically Andrew Bolt's column in which he was in interview with the Prime Minister Tony Abbott:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt-tackles-the-pm-on-the-big-issues/story-fni0ffxg-1226746273889
PM: If the ABC were to come to us, this government, seeking more money to do things that took it into competition with the private sector, we'd say no.
AB: Talking about things that government is funding that perhaps it shouldn't. Your Commission of Audit is going to look into exactly that. Have you got a "for instance"?
PM: I'm just not going to pre-empt the work that it does, Andrew, but I would be amazed if, for argument's sake, we need as many public servants in the areas of health and education, for instance, that we have at the moment, given that we don't run schools, we don't run universities, we don't run hospitals, we don't run medical practices or pharmacies...
- Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun, 25th Oct 2013
Leaving aside the end of the piece of chiasmus above, we're left with the clause "ask not what your country can do for you". If you play with this idea with what both Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott are getting at "that government is funding (things) that perhaps it shouldn't". This paints a very bleak picture indeed.
Ask not what your country can do for you because increasingly, it's policy is to do nothing. Don't expect that government is capable of doing anything anymore.
Don't expect for instance to speak to someone within an hour about your telephone service because the government sold that off in 1997. Also, don't expect to ever see the National Broadband Network up and running because that too will be dismantled and sold off before its finished.
Don't expect that electricity prices are likely to fall. Although the government likes to blame the Carbon Tax, in NSW and Victoria, the real reason for in some cases 300% increases in the price of electricity is simply the fact that the electricity companies have been sold off and that they are more free to let the price of electricity reach equilibrium more "efficiently" and by inference charge more for it if they can get away with it.
Don't expect that the health care system will work at all in 20 years. Mr Abbott has already signalled his intent to sell off Medibank Private; which is precisely the same sort of road map that the United States went down in 1971 and they now have 45 million people who have no medical insurance at all. It's only a short drive down the road from selling off Medibank Private to defunding Medicare entirely - watch as Britain destroys its NHS for the heads up.
Don't expect that the postal service is likely to work properly either. Again Mr Abbott has hinted at selling that off too and again if we look to the experience of the US and UK, the level of service has fallen off the cliff.
Don't expect the public will be able to make informed decisions about anything. Once the newspapers cease to become economically viable and end publication at about circa 2016 and after the ABC and SBS is sold off, their source of reliable and informative news will dry up. At the same time though they won't notice because the general public is becoming more stupid as education funding is backed off. HECS for instance is being considered for sale as well.
Also, be reminded that some of Australia's most profitable businesses which used to provide dividends to consolidated revenue were all sold off. Those foregone dividends from Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and Sydney Airports Corporation were worth collectively $2.9tn to date. Even if you don't allow for inflation, that's still more than 11 times more than the total of gross Australian federal debt.
I always thought that a "Commonwealth" was term for a political community founded for the common good. I just don't see that about Australia any more. Ask then "what you can do for your country"? Well how about a new question... why bother?
Even the business community in Australia has already concluded that not bothering about Australians is the way to go. According for Forbes Magazine of the 40 biggest companies in Australia by market capitalisation, only 3 aren't either financial institutions or mining companies and those three are 2 supermarkets and an airline.
"ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
- John F. Kennedy, Jan 20 1961.
Mainly because I'd seen the promo so many times, I was again reminded of it whilst I was reading through the Herald-Sun this morning. Specifically Andrew Bolt's column in which he was in interview with the Prime Minister Tony Abbott:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt-tackles-the-pm-on-the-big-issues/story-fni0ffxg-1226746273889
PM: If the ABC were to come to us, this government, seeking more money to do things that took it into competition with the private sector, we'd say no.
AB: Talking about things that government is funding that perhaps it shouldn't. Your Commission of Audit is going to look into exactly that. Have you got a "for instance"?
PM: I'm just not going to pre-empt the work that it does, Andrew, but I would be amazed if, for argument's sake, we need as many public servants in the areas of health and education, for instance, that we have at the moment, given that we don't run schools, we don't run universities, we don't run hospitals, we don't run medical practices or pharmacies...
- Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun, 25th Oct 2013
Leaving aside the end of the piece of chiasmus above, we're left with the clause "ask not what your country can do for you". If you play with this idea with what both Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott are getting at "that government is funding (things) that perhaps it shouldn't". This paints a very bleak picture indeed.
Ask not what your country can do for you because increasingly, it's policy is to do nothing. Don't expect that government is capable of doing anything anymore.
Don't expect for instance to speak to someone within an hour about your telephone service because the government sold that off in 1997. Also, don't expect to ever see the National Broadband Network up and running because that too will be dismantled and sold off before its finished.
Don't expect that electricity prices are likely to fall. Although the government likes to blame the Carbon Tax, in NSW and Victoria, the real reason for in some cases 300% increases in the price of electricity is simply the fact that the electricity companies have been sold off and that they are more free to let the price of electricity reach equilibrium more "efficiently" and by inference charge more for it if they can get away with it.
Don't expect that the health care system will work at all in 20 years. Mr Abbott has already signalled his intent to sell off Medibank Private; which is precisely the same sort of road map that the United States went down in 1971 and they now have 45 million people who have no medical insurance at all. It's only a short drive down the road from selling off Medibank Private to defunding Medicare entirely - watch as Britain destroys its NHS for the heads up.
Don't expect that the postal service is likely to work properly either. Again Mr Abbott has hinted at selling that off too and again if we look to the experience of the US and UK, the level of service has fallen off the cliff.
Don't expect the public will be able to make informed decisions about anything. Once the newspapers cease to become economically viable and end publication at about circa 2016 and after the ABC and SBS is sold off, their source of reliable and informative news will dry up. At the same time though they won't notice because the general public is becoming more stupid as education funding is backed off. HECS for instance is being considered for sale as well.
Also, be reminded that some of Australia's most profitable businesses which used to provide dividends to consolidated revenue were all sold off. Those foregone dividends from Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and Sydney Airports Corporation were worth collectively $2.9tn to date. Even if you don't allow for inflation, that's still more than 11 times more than the total of gross Australian federal debt.
I always thought that a "Commonwealth" was term for a political community founded for the common good. I just don't see that about Australia any more. Ask then "what you can do for your country"? Well how about a new question... why bother?
Even the business community in Australia has already concluded that not bothering about Australians is the way to go. According for Forbes Magazine of the 40 biggest companies in Australia by market capitalisation, only 3 aren't either financial institutions or mining companies and those three are 2 supermarkets and an airline.
So yes, "ask not what your country can do for you" because your country is less likely to do anything for you in future. Get used to the idea.
October 24, 2013
Horse 1558 - This Is Why The People Of The West Can't Have Nice Trains
The imaginatively named "Sydney Trains" (see Horse 1522 for more on this) for a very long time gave the Richmond Line K sets which date from 1981, C sets which date from 1986 and T sets (Tangaras) from 1988 onwards. After months and indeed years of watching M Sets (Millenium Trains) and H Sets (OSCARs) pass through Wynyard.
Of an afternoon, standing on platform 3 at Wynyard, I would see OSCARs on their way through to Epping and Hornsby but even when it was 39°C outside, un-air-conditioned K Sets would rattle their way out west, whilst the people inside would give off aromas as though they were being slow cooked in their own juices.
To be honest, I was beginning to assume that they would not give the west anything new because bogans can not be trusted.
However, as of this week, and which Sydney Trains have been trumpeting as the biggest timetable change in a generation (starting from October 20), I've actually started to see A Sets, yes Waratahs, on the Richmond line in the morning.
What is going on here? Have we entered some brave new world? I tell you, everything is going crazy!
Before all of this starts to sound a bit trainspottery or anoraky, I'd like to point out that I'm not one of those people who obsesses over spotting every single class of train or anything, I just happen to take notice of what sort of trains I get in the morning and afternoon commute; the reasons for this are entirely selfish.
If I'm standing on the platform in the mornings in the middle of winter, I rather like the idea of not travelling to work in the sorts of conditions that the Findus Group would like their products to be transported in; conversely in the middle of summer, it's not nice for commuters to be treated like Wicked Witches of the West and progressively start melting into the upholstery.
So as I'm standing on the platform, drawing what could be perceived as an illusory correlation caused by cognitive bias, of course I'm going to notice what sort of trains rattle through and where they're going. My reason for caring about the sorts of trains we get is entirely practical.
The thing is though, if day after day you see "nice" trains heading to Epping and Hornsby but "not nice" trains heading to Richmond, Penrith and Emu Plains, you start to wonder if there is anything in the thought that Sydney Trains just doesn't trust bogans with nice things.
The problem that Sydney Trains faces is that the North Shore and Western Lines are connected via Wynyard, Town Hall, Central and Redfern. They all pass through platform 16 & 18 at Central, 3 & 2 at Town Hall and 4 & 3 at Wynyard.
Unlike the Inner West and Southern Lines which connect bogans to more bogans, the Bankstown Line which runs around the City Circle and back onto itself connecting bogans to more bogans, the Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra line which runs forth and back and connects silvertails to more silvertails, the North Shore and Western Lines connect silvertails to bogans and that is simply horrible (for the silvertails).
The thought that people on the North Shore should share trains and especially K Sets with the people on the Western Line is downright disgusting. They don't mind that they share Tangaras, Millenium and OSCARs with the people on the Northern Line but the fact that they even see 30 year old K Sets is quite worrying for them.
At the other end, I'm quite confused that Sydney Trains would even stoop to putting A Set Waratahs on the Richmond Line. Admittedly they do turn it into an express service of sorts, stopping at Blacktown, Parramatta, Strathfield and then Redfern, which means that they get to deny all sorts of bogans from getting on them but they still stop from all stations up to and including Blacktown.
I think that it really offends the current NSW Minister for Transport Gladys Berejiklian, that the good and proper people of her constituency of Willoughby (which includes the North Shore Line stations of Artarmon) should have to share trains with people whose incomes are on average less than half of theirs.
The reason for this post was a comment that I overheard before stepping onto the train yesterday - it was comedy gold. I think it sums up accurately why I'm surprised that we're getting Waratahs:
"The people out west don't deserve good trains. They'll probably just rip up all the seats anyway."
Yeah, I can agree with that sentiment; I guess that Sydney Trains nominally believe in it too. If you treat people like scum, they'll behave like scum. It's just that Sydney Trains can't entangle the Western Line from the North Shore Line... yet. When they do, it'll be bye-bye Waratah.
Of an afternoon, standing on platform 3 at Wynyard, I would see OSCARs on their way through to Epping and Hornsby but even when it was 39°C outside, un-air-conditioned K Sets would rattle their way out west, whilst the people inside would give off aromas as though they were being slow cooked in their own juices.
To be honest, I was beginning to assume that they would not give the west anything new because bogans can not be trusted.
However, as of this week, and which Sydney Trains have been trumpeting as the biggest timetable change in a generation (starting from October 20), I've actually started to see A Sets, yes Waratahs, on the Richmond line in the morning.
What is going on here? Have we entered some brave new world? I tell you, everything is going crazy!
Before all of this starts to sound a bit trainspottery or anoraky, I'd like to point out that I'm not one of those people who obsesses over spotting every single class of train or anything, I just happen to take notice of what sort of trains I get in the morning and afternoon commute; the reasons for this are entirely selfish.
If I'm standing on the platform in the mornings in the middle of winter, I rather like the idea of not travelling to work in the sorts of conditions that the Findus Group would like their products to be transported in; conversely in the middle of summer, it's not nice for commuters to be treated like Wicked Witches of the West and progressively start melting into the upholstery.
So as I'm standing on the platform, drawing what could be perceived as an illusory correlation caused by cognitive bias, of course I'm going to notice what sort of trains rattle through and where they're going. My reason for caring about the sorts of trains we get is entirely practical.
The thing is though, if day after day you see "nice" trains heading to Epping and Hornsby but "not nice" trains heading to Richmond, Penrith and Emu Plains, you start to wonder if there is anything in the thought that Sydney Trains just doesn't trust bogans with nice things.
The problem that Sydney Trains faces is that the North Shore and Western Lines are connected via Wynyard, Town Hall, Central and Redfern. They all pass through platform 16 & 18 at Central, 3 & 2 at Town Hall and 4 & 3 at Wynyard.
Unlike the Inner West and Southern Lines which connect bogans to more bogans, the Bankstown Line which runs around the City Circle and back onto itself connecting bogans to more bogans, the Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra line which runs forth and back and connects silvertails to more silvertails, the North Shore and Western Lines connect silvertails to bogans and that is simply horrible (for the silvertails).
The thought that people on the North Shore should share trains and especially K Sets with the people on the Western Line is downright disgusting. They don't mind that they share Tangaras, Millenium and OSCARs with the people on the Northern Line but the fact that they even see 30 year old K Sets is quite worrying for them.
At the other end, I'm quite confused that Sydney Trains would even stoop to putting A Set Waratahs on the Richmond Line. Admittedly they do turn it into an express service of sorts, stopping at Blacktown, Parramatta, Strathfield and then Redfern, which means that they get to deny all sorts of bogans from getting on them but they still stop from all stations up to and including Blacktown.
I think that it really offends the current NSW Minister for Transport Gladys Berejiklian, that the good and proper people of her constituency of Willoughby (which includes the North Shore Line stations of Artarmon) should have to share trains with people whose incomes are on average less than half of theirs.
The reason for this post was a comment that I overheard before stepping onto the train yesterday - it was comedy gold. I think it sums up accurately why I'm surprised that we're getting Waratahs:
"The people out west don't deserve good trains. They'll probably just rip up all the seats anyway."
Yeah, I can agree with that sentiment; I guess that Sydney Trains nominally believe in it too. If you treat people like scum, they'll behave like scum. It's just that Sydney Trains can't entangle the Western Line from the North Shore Line... yet. When they do, it'll be bye-bye Waratah.
October 23, 2013
Horse 1557 - The 2013 Rugby League World Cup - What's The Point?
The Rugby League World Cup is held every five years; so I want you to cast your minds back to 2008. New Zealand beat Australian 34–20 in what was generally regarded as an upset. How about 5 years before that? Do you remember the 2003 Rugby League World Cup? Of course not - there wasn't any.
Rugby League at international level is a strange sort of thing. In between stop-starts of Tri-Nations and Four-Nations tournaments, the Rugby League World Cup is really a half-thought-out affair. The main reason for this is that the only three nations who stand any real chance at winning are Australia and New Zealand and maybe England. Of those three, in Australia the national side isn't the highest level of the game (State of Origin probably is) and New Zealand and England don't really care about Rugby League at international level - for them Rugby is far more important.
Compare this with the football World Cup. Admittedly since 1930 only 8 nations have ever won it. This still doesn't change the fact that for most of the world, people care about qualifying for the next one as far away in time as three years. If Iceland qualifies for the 2014 edition in Brazil, it will probably induce scenes of rejoicing on the streets of Reykjavík. If Brazil don't win the 2014 tournament, I'm willing to suggest that unfortunately, either some of the players or managers will be killed. Heck even in Australia, we've fired the national manager on the back of just two poor performances, even though he'd got the national side to qualify.
The point I'm making is that, does even the Australian Rugby League Commission really care about the Rugby League World Cup? Granted that the smaller nations do because it gives their players something to work towards but if the Rugby League World Cup did not occur for some reason, would they miss it? The experience of 2003 suggests otherwise to me.
Really from an economic perspective it makes little to no sense to have two codes competing for the same space. Arguably there is a lot of merit in simply abandoning the Rugby Leagues and Unions and amalgamating them into one. You'd still end up with only four teams who have a realistic chance of winning any world cup but they'd also include South Africa.
At a state level, the provincial sides are already represented and if the State of Origin is really that important, then it could held as an aside to the regular season.
As far as the supporters go, then they support clubs rather than the game itself. The most obvious evidence for this is South Sydney and St George fans who like to tell you of their "glory days" despite them playing what amounts to a different set of rules.
I also point to the success of South Sydney in clawing their way back into the competition and compare that to the total and utter alienation of North Sydney fans once they'd been kicked out. Where does their place today?
What about at national level?
If Sonny Bill Williams is anything to go by, I'm sure that his two Bledisloe Cup wins and the 2011 Rugby World Cup win with the All Blacks, would easily hold far more prestige than the 2013 NRL Premiership with the Roosters or even the 2013 Rugby League World Cup would.
Likewise, if Israel Folau thought that playing for Queensland in Rugby League was such an honour, why is he now playing for the New South Wales Waratahs in Rugby? Obviously if playing for the state was the be all and end all, then shouldn't he be playing for the Queensland Reds? Also and more importantly, I want to know from his perspective which is more valuable, a Kangaroo or Wallaby jersey? I suspect that the relative worth of the jersey should by inference tell us the relative worth of the respective world cup.
Therein lies the reason why I just don't understand why the Rugby League World Cup needs to be held at all. If it's not the highest level of the game, then it is by definition, not the best that the game has to offer. If the Rugby World Cup is the highest level of the game, then that suggests to me that there is a lot of scope to dovetail the two codes and end the 118 year split. If the players themselves aren't bothered and the fans either don't bother or wouldn't terribly be bothered, then why bother at all?
What is the point of the Rugby League World Cup? I'm afraid, I just don't see it.
Rugby League at international level is a strange sort of thing. In between stop-starts of Tri-Nations and Four-Nations tournaments, the Rugby League World Cup is really a half-thought-out affair. The main reason for this is that the only three nations who stand any real chance at winning are Australia and New Zealand and maybe England. Of those three, in Australia the national side isn't the highest level of the game (State of Origin probably is) and New Zealand and England don't really care about Rugby League at international level - for them Rugby is far more important.
Compare this with the football World Cup. Admittedly since 1930 only 8 nations have ever won it. This still doesn't change the fact that for most of the world, people care about qualifying for the next one as far away in time as three years. If Iceland qualifies for the 2014 edition in Brazil, it will probably induce scenes of rejoicing on the streets of Reykjavík. If Brazil don't win the 2014 tournament, I'm willing to suggest that unfortunately, either some of the players or managers will be killed. Heck even in Australia, we've fired the national manager on the back of just two poor performances, even though he'd got the national side to qualify.
The point I'm making is that, does even the Australian Rugby League Commission really care about the Rugby League World Cup? Granted that the smaller nations do because it gives their players something to work towards but if the Rugby League World Cup did not occur for some reason, would they miss it? The experience of 2003 suggests otherwise to me.
Really from an economic perspective it makes little to no sense to have two codes competing for the same space. Arguably there is a lot of merit in simply abandoning the Rugby Leagues and Unions and amalgamating them into one. You'd still end up with only four teams who have a realistic chance of winning any world cup but they'd also include South Africa.
At a state level, the provincial sides are already represented and if the State of Origin is really that important, then it could held as an aside to the regular season.
As far as the supporters go, then they support clubs rather than the game itself. The most obvious evidence for this is South Sydney and St George fans who like to tell you of their "glory days" despite them playing what amounts to a different set of rules.
I also point to the success of South Sydney in clawing their way back into the competition and compare that to the total and utter alienation of North Sydney fans once they'd been kicked out. Where does their place today?
What about at national level?
If Sonny Bill Williams is anything to go by, I'm sure that his two Bledisloe Cup wins and the 2011 Rugby World Cup win with the All Blacks, would easily hold far more prestige than the 2013 NRL Premiership with the Roosters or even the 2013 Rugby League World Cup would.
Likewise, if Israel Folau thought that playing for Queensland in Rugby League was such an honour, why is he now playing for the New South Wales Waratahs in Rugby? Obviously if playing for the state was the be all and end all, then shouldn't he be playing for the Queensland Reds? Also and more importantly, I want to know from his perspective which is more valuable, a Kangaroo or Wallaby jersey? I suspect that the relative worth of the jersey should by inference tell us the relative worth of the respective world cup.
Therein lies the reason why I just don't understand why the Rugby League World Cup needs to be held at all. If it's not the highest level of the game, then it is by definition, not the best that the game has to offer. If the Rugby World Cup is the highest level of the game, then that suggests to me that there is a lot of scope to dovetail the two codes and end the 118 year split. If the players themselves aren't bothered and the fans either don't bother or wouldn't terribly be bothered, then why bother at all?
What is the point of the Rugby League World Cup? I'm afraid, I just don't see it.
October 19, 2013
Horse 1556 - Hidden Orange Christmas Pudding vs Hidden "Australia Tax" Pricetags
For some time now, consumers have been aware of a so-called "Australia Tax" on certain products. Partly because Australia is roughly three miles away from Mordor and a million miles from everywhere else, retailers know very well that we can't just pop over to the next country and but the same product as easily as you could in say Europe. Consequently we pay more for Shoes, Clothing, Computer Software, Motor Cars etc for no discernable reason... EXCEPT NOW!
http://shop.coles.com.au/online/national/heston-christmas-pudding-hidden-orange-9731231p
Heston - Christmas Pudding Hidden Orange
Recipe created by Heston Blumenthal - 1.2kg
$18.00
- from Coles
http://www.waitrose.com/shop/ProductView-10317-10001-99398#.UmGxkPnI1CM
Heston from Waitrose hidden orange Christmas pudding 1.2kg
£14.00
- from Waitrose
One of the consequences of only having two major supermarket chains, apart from them having a market duopoly and short-changing farmers and annoying Bob Katter, is that they haven't separated and diversified along the lines of class. Britain has a well-defined class system and so supermarkets like Lidl and Tesco cater for the lower and middle classes whereas supermarket chains like Sainsbury's and Waitrose aim at a higher end of the market.
It's hardly surprising then that Waitrose should want three-Michelin-starred chef Heston Blumenthal to produce a Christmas Pudding for them. They know that their consumer base are more likely to be trendy and foodie than someone shopping at Tesco who thinks that Chicken Nugget Parmis are "a bit posh innit".
I suppose then, I have absolutely no problem with Coles selling a slightly posh product from a three-Michelin-starred chef because it makes commercial sense for them to want to differentiate themselves from their major competitor.
What I don't understand though is how they can ship a product around the world and sell it for 23% cheaper than they can in the country that made it.
Mr Blumenthal's Hidden Orange Christmas Pudding sells for £14 in the UK which works out to be $23.39; yet Coles can sell it for $18 which is $5.39 less expensive.
My problem isn't therefore with Coles. Clearly they've worked out their price points and have worked out how much they can sell a product for. My problem is with the retailers of Shoes, Clothing, Computer Software, Motor Cars etc who have now had the "Australia Tax" shown up for what it is. This is especially irksome for products like Computer Software where Australians pay a higher rate for the same program even though the actual product is downloaded and is "shipped" more or less instantly.
Mr Blumenthal can hide an orange in a Christmas Pudding; I don't see why retailers should be able to hide an "Australia Tax" in a pricetag.
http://shop.coles.com.au/online/national/heston-christmas-pudding-hidden-orange-9731231p
Recipe created by Heston Blumenthal - 1.2kg
$18.00
- from Coles
http://www.waitrose.com/shop/ProductView-10317-10001-99398#.UmGxkPnI1CM
£14.00
- from Waitrose
One of the consequences of only having two major supermarket chains, apart from them having a market duopoly and short-changing farmers and annoying Bob Katter, is that they haven't separated and diversified along the lines of class. Britain has a well-defined class system and so supermarkets like Lidl and Tesco cater for the lower and middle classes whereas supermarket chains like Sainsbury's and Waitrose aim at a higher end of the market.
It's hardly surprising then that Waitrose should want three-Michelin-starred chef Heston Blumenthal to produce a Christmas Pudding for them. They know that their consumer base are more likely to be trendy and foodie than someone shopping at Tesco who thinks that Chicken Nugget Parmis are "a bit posh innit".
I suppose then, I have absolutely no problem with Coles selling a slightly posh product from a three-Michelin-starred chef because it makes commercial sense for them to want to differentiate themselves from their major competitor.
What I don't understand though is how they can ship a product around the world and sell it for 23% cheaper than they can in the country that made it.
Mr Blumenthal's Hidden Orange Christmas Pudding sells for £14 in the UK which works out to be $23.39; yet Coles can sell it for $18 which is $5.39 less expensive.
My problem isn't therefore with Coles. Clearly they've worked out their price points and have worked out how much they can sell a product for. My problem is with the retailers of Shoes, Clothing, Computer Software, Motor Cars etc who have now had the "Australia Tax" shown up for what it is. This is especially irksome for products like Computer Software where Australians pay a higher rate for the same program even though the actual product is downloaded and is "shipped" more or less instantly.
Mr Blumenthal can hide an orange in a Christmas Pudding; I don't see why retailers should be able to hide an "Australia Tax" in a pricetag.
October 18, 2013
Horse 1555 - Victory Is Fleeting
The seeds of death are sown at conception.
Adelaide United 2 - Melbourne Victory 2
Cirio 22' (pen)
Neumann 25'
Guilherme 79'
Troisi 93'
When you buy a murder mystery novel, you're pretty well assured of two things before you begin: a) that there will be a murder and b) that someone will solve the case. Sometimes this isn't the case but most of the time you can be reasonably sure that that's what will happen.
When you watch a football match where two sides begin with identical formations, you can be reasonably assured that the two sides will tend to cancel each other out. What we saw tonight at Hindmarsh Stadium also ran pretty well true to type but didn't start out that way.
Adelaide appeared to start the match with a 3-5-2 whereas Melbourne Victory began with a pretty orthodox 4-4-2. Initially this meant that Adelaide were able to play far higher up the park than Melbourne did and for a great deal of the match, were constantly able to trap the Victory offside. I expect that up until about the 70th minute mark, the number of offsides will appears something in the order of 10:1 in favour of Adelaide.
Largely because Adelaide had a wee bit of an overlap, they were able to play a higher line than Melbourne and whilst Cirio's opener did come from a penalty, it was Jeronimo Neumann's strike in the 25th minute which proved the effectiveness of playing more positive football.
The problem with playing so far up the park is that in those times that coming back to defend is a requirement, it opens up the space at the back and Adelaide got progressively leakier as the second half wore on.
Reverting to a 4-4-2 at about the hour mark, Adelaide soon found that Geria, Milligan and Troisi were able to slice deep into the corners. In fact there were passages of play late into the second half where it was only the work of Adelaide's keeper Eugene Galekovic and their central defender Tarek Elrich which stopped the ship from sinking. Galekovic in particular was constantly having to bail out the mistakes and leaks that his back four were letting through.
Sometimes two sides will cancel each other out. Adelaide will be ruing the fact that they squandered a two goal cushion and Melbourne will be livid that they didn't kill off a side who towards the end appeared to be dead on their feet. Melbourne spent the bast part of 9 minutes camped in and around the 18 yard box but could find no openings.
With Archie Thomspon looking dangerous (and at one point hitting the crossbar from a shot within 10 yards), Melbourne finally found an opening with a cutback and the strike of Guilherme, 11 minutes from time off a corner.
But it was James Troisi's burner across the deck which finally gave Melbourne the equaliser. I'm pretty sure that poor old Galekovic would have had no time at all to sight the shot after it had passed under and in between at least 5 sets of legs.
Adelaide scrambled at the death to win a string of corners but time had simply escaped. 2-2 was all that was left in the match and both sides will come out of this, pretty disappointed at taking home only a single point each.
Adelaide United 2 - Melbourne Victory 2
Cirio 22' (pen)
Neumann 25'
Guilherme 79'
Troisi 93'
When you buy a murder mystery novel, you're pretty well assured of two things before you begin: a) that there will be a murder and b) that someone will solve the case. Sometimes this isn't the case but most of the time you can be reasonably sure that that's what will happen.
When you watch a football match where two sides begin with identical formations, you can be reasonably assured that the two sides will tend to cancel each other out. What we saw tonight at Hindmarsh Stadium also ran pretty well true to type but didn't start out that way.
Adelaide appeared to start the match with a 3-5-2 whereas Melbourne Victory began with a pretty orthodox 4-4-2. Initially this meant that Adelaide were able to play far higher up the park than Melbourne did and for a great deal of the match, were constantly able to trap the Victory offside. I expect that up until about the 70th minute mark, the number of offsides will appears something in the order of 10:1 in favour of Adelaide.
Largely because Adelaide had a wee bit of an overlap, they were able to play a higher line than Melbourne and whilst Cirio's opener did come from a penalty, it was Jeronimo Neumann's strike in the 25th minute which proved the effectiveness of playing more positive football.
The problem with playing so far up the park is that in those times that coming back to defend is a requirement, it opens up the space at the back and Adelaide got progressively leakier as the second half wore on.
Reverting to a 4-4-2 at about the hour mark, Adelaide soon found that Geria, Milligan and Troisi were able to slice deep into the corners. In fact there were passages of play late into the second half where it was only the work of Adelaide's keeper Eugene Galekovic and their central defender Tarek Elrich which stopped the ship from sinking. Galekovic in particular was constantly having to bail out the mistakes and leaks that his back four were letting through.
Sometimes two sides will cancel each other out. Adelaide will be ruing the fact that they squandered a two goal cushion and Melbourne will be livid that they didn't kill off a side who towards the end appeared to be dead on their feet. Melbourne spent the bast part of 9 minutes camped in and around the 18 yard box but could find no openings.
With Archie Thomspon looking dangerous (and at one point hitting the crossbar from a shot within 10 yards), Melbourne finally found an opening with a cutback and the strike of Guilherme, 11 minutes from time off a corner.
But it was James Troisi's burner across the deck which finally gave Melbourne the equaliser. I'm pretty sure that poor old Galekovic would have had no time at all to sight the shot after it had passed under and in between at least 5 sets of legs.
Adelaide scrambled at the death to win a string of corners but time had simply escaped. 2-2 was all that was left in the match and both sides will come out of this, pretty disappointed at taking home only a single point each.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)