ITV Football

Like most boys, I was football-crazy as a youngster. I was enthusiastic and active, and enjoyed playing for my school as well as watching Premiership on ITV after the weekend premier league matches. As I grew up, I began to analyse the game more, and appreciate the finer details that go into creating a successful and fluid footballing philosophy. Beyond the mere skill of the players is the system that the team adopts, their attacking mentality, the defensive frailties, the maneuvers they practise in training. I began to realise the influence the coaching and backroom staff had on the game. Hell, I even received a detailed history of football tactics from a work colleague and found the evolution of the tactical side of the game fascinating.

As I enter adulthood, I have turned away from the focus on playing (despite still enjoying regular football) or watching (despite Match of the Day being one of the only staples in my TV diet) or even simulating (although Football Manager and FIFA will forever be in my heart) football. No, instead I have become increasingly interested in commentary..

I won’t get into the merits of various commentators and who is good and which broadcasting service provides the most complete experience. Instead, I will just bitch about ITV.

From the start, ITV Football was doomed. Any show that has Adrian Chiles presenting it will find legitimacy hard to come by. But, amazingly, he is at the bottom of then tree of infernal problems that ITV find themselves with when a football match is broadcast on their main channel.

The main problem with ITV football commentary is the ridiculously biased ‘analysis’ that is offered by their main pundits (the names of which I don’t even want to know, for it will fuel my disgust). What has caused me to even bother talking about this is the match that was on tonight, England vs San Marino. For those not adept with the beautiful game, San Marino are - officially - the worst international football team. Their manager has lost his last 50 games. They are, truly, awful. Everyone fully expected England to give them a good old fashioned imperial trouncing, and we so did so. 8-0 is an impressive score line, and does wonders for our own egos. That being said, and the relative lack of skill shown by the Sammarinese players being noted, they are all footballers playing on one of the biggest stages the game can present to the world. Both the players and their nation deserve respect from everyone, especially the impartial pundits and commentators that should be ambassadors for the game in as neutral a way as possible.

But no. The game started with snide comments here and there, and ended with such heavy sarcasm that I was surprised it was even allowed to be aired.

This is without even compounding the fact that their ‘analysis’ is not only inaccurate but not even true analysis in itself. When the likes of Jamie Redknapp offer such insightful comments such as “the ball just went into the net” then you can safely say that the network cares not for any worthwhile or meaningful approach to the footballing world.

I’ve not even gone into huge amounts of detail to the ridiculousness of the ITV pundits (who also happen to always big-up England or English-teams like they’re playing like 1970’s Ajax), but I shall move towards the end of this psuedo-rant by talking, hopefully briefly, about Adrian Chiles.

Seriously. What is he doing with himself? He offers nothing worthwhile as a presenter to normal terrestrial television, so which brainiac thought he would excel as a football presenter? Apparently he supports West Bromwich Albion, but I think that’s merely leftist propoganda. If he does, he can’t ever watch matches because he knows so little about the game that I am certain my sister - who detests the game - would be able to give him a lesson or two. Mundane and uninformative, I genuinely feel pain when ITV broadcast football matches.

If ITV continue to be the main broadcaster for terrestrial football, then hopefully that pain will turn into a deathly disease of some sort.

Generalisations and Stereotypes

Something that is far from lauded in modern media and society is the use of generalisations and stereotypes. A simple utterance of one can completely null and void an argument you may have, and all because of the stigma of “oh you’re making a sweeping generalisation there!” Well, yes, of course I am. The interesting thing about social groups is that they follow certain traits and maintain similar personalities. In making a stereotype or whatever, of course I am grouping everyone in that group into one mould. Chances are, it’s true. Hence it’s ‘general’! Just because you know one Jewish person that isn’t stingy with his money doesn’t mean it’s true for the vast majority of others!

This point brings me not-so-swiftly onto the point of generalisations and stereotypes that I’ve experienced in my day job. I work for a British-made company that has avoided paying over half a billion pounds worth of tax in the past five years, and due to my location - slap bang in the middle of middle-classed Surrey but near enough to Greater London to have significant diversity - the clientele to said establishment is varied. Simply through an inquisitive mind and an easily agitated attitude, it’s very easy to observe the key differences between customers you serve and, over time, you begin to paint a picture of their actions across their social group or class. Yes, it is a general statement. Yes, it isn’t always true. But experience - and logic - tells us that for the majority of the times, it is (otherwise it wouldn’t be a generalisation, would it... Key lesson learnt here!)

Just as a quick precursor, none of what I am about to say is designed to be derogatory. It is statement of observation. And to the educated mind, none of this is racist or sexist or ageist or anything else. It’s an analysis. So get over yourselves.

I’ll start with one of the most common groups you come across in retail, especially during the week. The elderly. Generally frail ladies who are softly-spoken and say ‘dear’ a lot. They mean well, and sometimes come out with the odd racist or xenophobic statement, but that is just a part of the time they grew up in. They seem to understand that you’re not always interested in what they have to say, and they’re exceptionally polite. This is the sort of person you’ll actually end up having a prolonged discussion with (generally about the most mundane things - “yes, tuesdays haven’t been this windy in a while” and “mhmm, Waitrose does seem to employ a lot of coloured people, I agree”) and they actually brighten up your day in some respects. Other members of ‘the elderly’ are the men - again, most commonly wearing old fashioned clothes (we’re talking caps, tweed, holding a walking stick of some variety) and, while less conversational, are polite enough too.

The thawn in the side of the elderly is the bitter, twisted old woman who has a son that hates her guts and a husband that’s dying of cancer. They are condescending and visibly detest interaction with you. Any slight slip up on your behalf - perhaps missing an item they’ve asked for or retrieving the wrong thing - results in the most sarcastic replies you’ll ever hear. These are the sort of people that make you think that the old age pension is a pain and that free TV licenses for retired people are a mickey-take. This demographic-within-a-demographic is relatively rare, but they pop up to ruin any sunny day.

The next ‘type’ of customer I’ll talk about is the atypically middle-class conservative. As my job almost demands, most of these customers are women. A nice description would be to say their affluence moulds their integrity, but the truth of the matter is they are snobby. They don’t actually do much to annoy you - they are mostly polite (perhaps over-polite) and quick with what they’re getting through, which is always a joy. But beneath the rubbery exterior of their converses is a fakeness that would perforate even the most patient of people. The condescension, too, is thinly disguised, and the obviousness with which they look down on you is degrading and enraging. Whatever the actual problem is, they exacerbate it by a hundred. A cold is a full on cancer-of-the-nose. Having the wrong eyeliner is akin to a global economic disaster. Perish the thought, but waiting in a queue is simply unacceptable. Serving too many of these customers can be seriously detrimental to your own mental health and well being.

Moving casually on to ethnic groups, I find most black women to be rude and obnoxious. This is not a racial dig, it is merely a statement of my experience. I have had many a nice woman who fits in to that racial group, but most of the time they really do test your self-control. They do not say ‘please’ or ‘thank you’, they click their fingers, and they try to insinuate you are being the rude one. Forcing your perceived manners on to someone is rude in itself, thanks! Just because it is a cultural norm in your country to suck your teeth, point and be blunt, does not mean it is here! Quintessential British demeanour is to be polite to even the most hateful of people. They just don’t understand it.

Although it would seem to contradict what I have literally just said, I would hasten a guess at those coming from areas of traditional poverty (Ireland, the North, Scotland, etc.) are almost a delight to work with. They are engaging and polite, genuinely interested and happy to talk - which makes a stark difference to the stony expressions on some faces.

I’ll say something relatively controversial here, and state that the most friendly people are (mostly) mothers of young children and middle-aged men. Teenagers are either quiet or complacent, which is fine but does not provide a different experience to general transactions. As a man-boy, I find talking to men above the age of 21 to be quite enjoyable. We can make generalist statements about women (mostly demeaning, I’ll admit), complain about the prices of womens products (when the man is generally buying for their partner or child) or talk about the football/rugby/any sport. Young mothers are used to be tested every second of the day by their unruly and wild children, and so can easily stand talking to a stranger. If anything, it provides an intellectual break for them. If you are in a particularly stupid frame of mind, a young mother is used to conversation at your level, too, and so you can at least talk about Peppa Pig or the Transformers and they’ll know what you’re on about.

As I said, this is all generalised but that is the point of it. I don’t mean to deliberately single out specific groups, it’s just what I’ve seen.

And of course, that being said, the rudest and nicest of customers generally break convention.

Sorry this went on for a while.

The Pope

If anyone is Catholic or finds slights against religion to be offensive, then you might want to stop reading here. Just getting that out there.

The first thing I will say is that my knowledge of the duties of the Pope, how he is elected, his actual responsibilities and the Catholic Church as a religious and international institution are pretty limited. But, of course, I still have an opinion.

Running through the basics for this new Pope, he does seem pretty special, even though I'm not really sure why. Apparently his papal name of 'Francis' is significant because it means he loves the poor, for example, and he's the first Jesuit Pope (whatever that really is). But, looking past those two little things, and the fact he's the first South American Pope and the first from outside Europe in over 1,200 years, it's easy to fixate on the following:

1. He's pretty old. I mean, Joseph Ratzinger resigned because of his age, and yet this new guy is only two years younger.

2. Changing doctrine. The idea of papal infallibility has always been ridiculed by opponents of the Church, and from the looks of the past few decades of papal dogma, we see that the leaders of the Church think the same thing, too. Infallibility doesn't really make sense, but without it nothing is really going to change - and nothing has. So all of those people that expect to see radical views on homosexuality, abortions and safe-sex - don't be surprised when, a few years down the line, nothing has changed.

3. Typical Catholic hypocrisy. He is self-described as (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "conservative on sexual matters but liberal on social justice". Excuse me? So I'm not allowed to have pre-marital sex, but it's okay for me to murder someone (or touch up little children - yes, first mention of paedophilia). That simply does not make sense, in my eyes.

My main issue with this new Pope, though, is actually nothing to do with him on a personal level.

It's actually to do with a few things.

Firstly, it is the idea of the Catholic Church as a whole. It's one of the seediest, most pornographic and inflammatory organisations I have ever heard of. Its history is laden with stories of abuse and corruption, and even now we hear comments of the Vatican's internal bureaucracy being crooked. Looking beyond the Catholic abuse scandals that have characterised the church's evil for the past decade or so, the Church experienced huge backlash during the late 70s for a series of financial improprieties that were overshadowed by the suicide of an Italian banker who was affiliated with the whole affair. So, you know, all in all the Church isn't exactly angelic.

Secondly, it is the absolutely fundamentally preposterous idea of the leaders of the Church being able to spout all forms of discriminatory comments about homosexuality, abortion, marriage, HIV/AIDs and safe-sex, and yet 'get away' with it. If I were to say half of what the Church comes out with, I would get in a lot of very serious trouble. And yet it was only recently that Catholic adoption agencies were closed down because they refused to allow homosexual couples to adopt. The double standards are infuriating, and yet it all comes down to 'religious opinion'. Where's the uniformity?

I'll admit, my views on Catholicism are plagued by recent history, but that recent history is exceptionally important. It's the culture surrounding the Church. Their way of life. The absolutely die-hard belief of their religious persuasions being fundamental to life, to modern society. And that's absurd. I cannot look at an institution of faith and supposed-morals seriously when they institutionalised sexual slavery and abuse for decades in a country so close to my own, and when they have such little understanding and sympathy for such a devastating epidemic as HIV/AIDs in Africa. The idea that it is all decided by God, or in Gods plan, or is somehow to do with 'tackling the moral problems' of the issue just enrages me. Anyone with a half a brain cell will realise that using condoms can help steam the spread of aids in Africa, and yet the Catholic Church specifically says it makes it worse? That's not just stupid, it's borderline retarded.

And with that, I end my commentary. The summary is that this Pope, although I am sure he means well, is old and no different to most of the College of Cardinals. They have pretty right wing views, talk a lot, but will end up burned out and make little difference to the wider world.

Oh, and he's Argentinian, so he probably thinks they should have the Falklands back. Idiot.

(Just a little note: it took all of my refrain and self-control to not put any obscenities or expletives in this, so I think I deserve, like, some kind of medal or something?)

A price that's worth paying?

I hate to sound like a douchebag, but from a young age my family made a pretty big emphasis on me being clever.

Which is why the epitome of my intelligence is compounded by the fact I'm taking a (unavoidable) gap year.

From an articulate use of a fine vernacular to a thorough understanding of modern British politics and sub-atomic particle physics, even I thought I was pretty brainy. But apparently this complacency can really bite back at you, and in quite a cruel and almost deviant nature. Anyone would realise this, of course. You can waltz through primary school without even engaging your brain. In fact, I think most children do, because the most important things there were pokemon cards and gameboys. When you enter secondary school, you think it's time to step up your game and really begin to try. And you do. For the first term of Year 7, and then you just enter the atypical entropic phase of teenagehood. Years 8 through 11 go by in a flash without even lifting a finger, and when it comes to actually taking what you conceive to be some of the most important examinations you'll ever take ("like, ever") you do little-to-no revision and just wait for the As and A*s to fall into place. And they did.

Progressing from GCSE to AS and A level was like charging head first into a wall. You try the same tricks and then don't understand why those As you're used to look suspiciously like an E.

There doesn't really need to be any further explanation. Compared to what I was used to getting and wanted to get, my results at the end of year 13 were pretty dire. I wasn't going to university, and I wasn't going to be leaving home. The two things I had longed for for over a year were not to become a reality for a further year. It added insult to injury that all of my friends were going with results that put them in the upper percentiles of the nations results. Then again, they deserved it. And I didn't.

The point of all of this? Well, earlier today - as a result of my thinly veiled attempts at righting the wrongs I did my academic self - I spent £60.60 on four exam retakes (all of which I have already taken before). This is in addition, may I add, to the nearing £90 I spent in January, of which only 2/5ths has paid off. Now, I'm not very good with money. I don't get that much per month, but what I do get I spend so fluently that it literally drains away. By the end of the month, I'm eating the moss growing in the cupboards at home and drinking 3 day old water. So to spend £60 on exam retakes is a pretty big kick in the teeth.

But that is the price I have to pay for my ineptitude, my laziness, and my desire to go where I want to go. If I want what I want I have to pay what I need to pay.

And yeah, this sort of lost its fluidity because I began watching the Big Bang Theory and played some FIFA. Sorry.

Serious Introduction

For me, the past two years have been characterised by a medley of disappointment, despair and lack of direction. Without going into strenuous details - because those details are exceptionally boring - the combination of those three characteristics has caused considerable discomfort and unhappiness. Without being all 'woe is me', it is difficult to take in some major life changes that are happening around you, while you yourself are restricted by things that are completely outside your control. Whilst most of my friends were off to university, I instead found myself considering which exams to retake, whether to go back to school, and even whether to bother applying for university at all.

Of course, that all misses out something which is exceptionally important and integral to anyones life. And that is that your life is what you make it.

A bit of context is required, and it would be silly for me to think that everything is always bad, and that things that have happened to me are worse than what have happened to others. All in all, I am actually pretty lucky - I have friends, I have a partner, I have a job, and I have quite good future prospects. But, of course, the thoughts and feelings of rationality are over-come with almost irresponsible self-deprecation and negativity. This is because people (in general) find it hard to look past the present and into the future. They only see the vague abyss that blights their life for that small, probably benign, part of their existence. Looking beyond that, though, then I do see positivity. Things that have happened recently really hit home the good things in life, which is sort of funny because they appear because of the bad. But anyway.

Ignoring most of what I have already written, I am a soon-to-be student of the world and its concepts, philosophies and theories. A plethora of interests that I maintain include football, modern politics, music, poetry, philosophy, society as a system, generalisations and extremely offensive humour. Apologies in advance for all of my opinions, but please remember that they are both my own and also correct.

This seems like a serious enough introduction to be getting on with!