Showing posts with label hopeless optimism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hopeless optimism. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Monty: says the right things

In a recent interview, Monty Panesar has said that although Michael Vaughan is very important to the team, Andrew Flintoff will be just as good. The justification being:

"Michael Vaughan likes everyone to be captain out on the field"

So, it doesn’t really matter who is captain, as Vaughan has ingrained leadership onto the entire team. Apparently, the best test of a manager (in the business world) is someone whose loss isn’t noticed, as they have created a stand-alone, functioning outfit that doesn't require mirco-management or constant crisis control. Presumably, Vaughan has constructed a similar framework. Anyway, Monty goes on.

"He's got a lot of experience and led England to an Ashes win. He's very excited about going to the World Cup and it's great to have him.”

Vaughan is good.

"But if Andrew Flintoff replaces him then we are still in a very good position because he's a very good captain who leads from the front. Andrew is an inspiration on and off the field."

But Flintoff is also good.

A fine piece of PR: he said the right things and didn’t put his foot in it. And complied with the normal rules of remaining blindly positive, humble and open. I am wondering whether the spinning superstar might be taking over from Paul Collingwood’s media duties. If so, this paradigm shift would certainly make him into a multi-dimensional cricketer, who is well-adjusted to the information economy and human resourcing through a sustainable holistic synergy strategy.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Scotland: We will fly to the moon

Scotland’s coach, Peter Drinnen, thinks that his team has a good chance against Australia.

“We don’t fear anyone at this World Cup and we won’t be losing any sleep over playing the world champions.”

There is no point in drawing up detailed plans on defeating Ponting’s team; it is a waste of effort. Scotland will lose against the Ozzies. They need to be realistic, and attempt to fell a weaker team: like England.

Besides, the whole point of a “surprise victory” is that it is unexpected. A minnow cannot simply expect a win, that would take the fun out of it.

However, that Scotland fancy their chances against the Ozzies, after defeats by England and New Zealand, is indicative of Australia’s rapid fall from hegemony. And a sign of things to come, surely? It is also hilarious.

Anyway, this is all in keeping with my world cup predictions.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Collingwood: We will win the Noble Peace Price

Here are some remarks by Colly “Paul Collingwood” Coleslaw, regarding England’s chances at the World Cup:

“We hope we can take that kind of form and the momentum from the last four games into the World Cup – and we hope we’ll go a long way. We hope we’ve peaked at the right time.”

He went on to say: “Sod it. We’re unstoppable. I’ll have that trophy, next to my MBE medal, on m’mantelpiece before long, man.”

OK – I may have used some tricks from political journalism there, but I think we all know what he’s getting at. Because England have demonstrated that it is possible to win a match, they’re certain to win the World Cup.

This may be true, but I’m more interested in Colly’s constant use as England PR man. His prolific output is almost McGrathian. For instance, scoring a double hundred gave him a "great feeling"; England are good at “fighting back”; Shane Warne would be a handy addition to the back-room team, etc. Throughout the many crushing defeats he was always there to note that it wasn't all lost yet. Until it was. But he still didn't shut up.

However, he did produce one very illuminating comment to the Metro the other day, saying that Michael Vaughan had brought “calm” to the outfit. Suggesting that a previously positive team were in a state of panic. The spirit of the team was never mentioned publicly and, I suspect, privately either. If the England team had acknowledged these feelings of inadequacy, they may have moved on from them. Instead, the platitudinous wittering about “taking positives out of a loss” were counter-productive. We need to be honest and embrace our lameness. Collingwood builds “knowing his limitations” into his game – why can’t England do the same and start talking sense?

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

How to beat Australia

Well, it seems as though England have now won the opportunity to be thrashed again. As a pub-frequenting Englishman, I feel it is my patriotic duty to pass on my advice to the England administration, on how they may avoid this.

Now, much has been made of “matching the Ozzy intensity” and “being more determined to win” etc. etc. You know the sort of thing I mean – strong mental side of the game, and all that clap-trap. I decided to search “intensity” in Google images and, amongst the many pictures of cats, there was this:


This is an “intense” person. Would you describe this man as normal? Quite. But, if we keep asking for the England team to look intense, they will, eventually, all end up like this bloke.

“Intensity” is part of the Australian game. Ozzies have been brought up on a deep-seated need to win and do well at sport. Why? Because they are a messed up nation of weirdoes. Think about it: this is about a bunch of grown men poncing about on a bit of grass waving about bits of wood. Is it worth the effort? Getting worked up about bits of wood. Really?

“Yes” says the weirdo Australian “I could get worked up about global poverty, world peace and making lots of money. But I decided to invest ALL my mental efforts in dominating the attack of Lower Dingo’s first XI.”

This is the wrong way to look at sport. It treats it as if it was important. Consequently, the Ozzies don’t play within the spirit of the game. They play in a prattish way, pushing their weight around and trying to intimidate the opposition.

“Bugger skill” say Ozzy “I’ll bully ‘em. Then I’ll win. And that is all that matters.”

This can spill-out onto acts of violence, racism and simple prattishness.

No one can compete being bigger prats than the Ozzies, so, what is needed, therefore, is for the Englishmen to use our absolute advantage: No Fear of Failure. The Ozzies are TERRIFIED of losing, it actually affects their soul when they lose. We Englishmen are well-acquainted with our ol’ chum Failure. It frees us. It liberates us.

Once we realise we cannot win, we cannot lose. The melting away of mental anxieties is in itself a serious mental edge. What is needed is nonchalance. Ease. Charm. Thus, I propose, bringing back amateur cricket. Perhaps Flintoff can pursue his career as a politician. Strauss can return to the Manner, and “dabble in crickers on the side”. Maybe David Nevin can bowl us some of his fierce leg-cutters. It doesn’t matter if they don’t do too well, it’s the taking part that counts.

This will infuriate the hell out of the Australians. Creating a total collapse of confidence, over-reaction and mental disintegration, meanwhile, the indifferent Englishman will saunter in and politely win the game.

There are some cliches to support my argument: He who cares, loses. Fight fire with water. The past: it’s the way forward.