Posts from 9th January 2006

Jan 06

Manchester United, Third Round FA Cup, Conference Side?

TMFDPost a comment • 438 views

Whodathunk they would draw?

I mean, a team the quality of Manchester United versus a team four divisions below them?

What price on a draw for Man U vs Combined Cambridge next year?

Budweiser E

Pumpkin PublogPost a comment • 241 views

Just noticed that the nice people at Budweiser have sent my bar a few free cases of Budweiser E: the new Energy Beer from Bud. I am assuming that the key point of said beer is that not all of the sugar turns to alcohol and therefore leaves you super-glucose charged. Up and ready to go play sport. Because everyone knows doing energetic activities is exactly what you should do after drinking.

Here is a review of this Red Bull Beer hybrid, and note that he does not like beer and it has a sweeter, more berry flavour (“if you like sweeter beers like pear beer”.

The good people and Anschlaus-Busch call it B-to-the-E, as in a mathematical equation. Said equation would be Beer to the power of the natural logarithm, which is in itself a grand idea. That said beer with caffeine, ginseng and guarana extract worries me a touch. Still, lets leave the last word to the marketing people

“We created a great new drink that’s outside the boundaries of the taste adults would expect from a traditional beer,” said Nathaniel Davis, brewmaster, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. “With B-to-the-E, we’ve come up with a beer that has a taste with a ‘wow’ factor at the finish.”

He must be hanging his head in shame.

Spirit of Esther

Do You SeePost a comment • 865 views

Anyone missing the unique contribution to human-animal relations made by That’s Life in its heyday should get themselves to the Ananova quirky section, where pets still do the “funniest things”.

Young Cross-Stitcher Of The Year Award has surprise winner – this possibly says more about the status of the noble craft of cross-stitching.

Chicken plays xylophone: the Germans approach their performing beasts with stereotypical rigour.

Sky Sports Russian Roulette

Do You SeePost a comment • 480 views

13 – Tzameti uses its cheap black and white stock and short running time to stark effect. That its premise is near ridiculous, its characters uni-dimensional and the ending somewhat unlikely is to misunderstand what is so great about it. Basically it is a film with one great idea, and that is presented perfectly. The fact that almost everything around that idea makes little sense is probably more due to the convention of film running times and narrative and should be almost instantly disregarded.

For all of its claims of being a thriller (and it is thrilling) 13 -Tzameti is a sports film. To the point that if you use sports film logic, the victor of the game (and indeed who he will play in the final) is never in doubt. But the “sport” in question is Russian Roulette. Which is where the black and white cheapness yet again helps. The film would be unbearable in colour, even with the cutaways to spare us the flying brain shots. But in black and white, the half an hour, and various rounds where our accidental participant plays for his life are nailbiting and absolutely vital cinema.

It is impossible to follow this sequence (which does not really excuse the rubbish ending) but for thirty minutes you not only get to watch a fantastic sporting event you could never really see, but you also believe it and empathise with the criminals putting it on.

you reify, i expose to the pitiless gaze of science

TMFDPost a comment • 181 views

ok here is david runciman on some fellow named mourinho in the lrb, arguin that the concept of management skeez is a bit of a myth — so far so good, it is “auteur theory” mystification of an inherently collective phenom — but in doin so apparently attemptin to reduce all sport to the play of statistical means

now despite my immense maffs brane i am as diffident abt statistics as i am abt foopball, but i don’t see how “statistical mean” is (as he’s usin it) any more of a “non-mythical” concept than the various things he claims he’s exposing

viz what does he mean by a team’s “statistical mean”, other than an after-the-fact summary of results to date — if a teams “gets better”, its “statistical mean” will rise, and in the process of “getting better”, the reversion to the mean that is a “bad luck streak” may not be a reversion to the old (worse) mean, but reversion to a new and improved mean

shorter mark s: you’re only as good as yr stats, except when you get better, so do they

anyway plz jump in actual real football experts and/or statisticians, cz i can’t work out what runciman is actually proving here