Posts by Mike Hollywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@ vangam - given the quality of some of the football thus far, some would argue that 5 mins highlights per match is positively generous. But yeah, point taken. Still, at least Mark Sainsbury isn't commentating!
-
@ George Darroch, I think your tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but to be fair, I've attended many games of football in Scotland and not once have I had a Bag Pipe experience. Lots of passion, singing, one or two riots, and the odd sectarian chant by a few windbags, but never the Pipes. Personally I'd love to see Scotland back playing at a WC Finals and the only way I see that happening is for them to qualify as hosts. Susan Boyle theme song anyone?
-
@LegBreak - I suspect that someone "up high" will tell Fallon to stop using his elbows like that ... his name is Cannavaro and it'll occur in the next match in a candy-from-a-baby type fashion.
-
Woohoo, go Tackhead. Sharp as a needle, Mr Darlington. Interesting to read the positive feedback on Simon Elliott, he was kinda the glue in the end, but for long periods of the first half I was cursing his inability to get the weight right on some of his passing (although I suspect my language at the time was less generous). Let's just say I would have replaced Elliott with McGlinchey at HT. But then, that's why Herbert is in SA and I'm here contributing to a blog. Standouts for me were Nelsen, Reid, and Smeltz. Impressed with Smeltz's hunger for work, tracking back etc. And oh, that cross. Bertos also got through a power of it. And yep, Reid clearly has a big future in the game.
-
I fear Thompson, in his excitement, has lost a wee bit of perspective. A fantastic result for NZ football, but the guy has no sense of history if he’s serious about his “greatest moment ever?” question. You can’t discard 100-plus years of sporting achievement (covering a variety of codes) quite so nonchalantly and still expect to be taken seriously as a credible journo/blogger. Let’s just celebrate it for what it is, a superb feat, our first ever World Cup point, and accept that only time will provide us with a genuine perspective on where it sits in the wider scheme of things.
-
The key for NZ tonight will be to keep our shape for the full 90 minutes. Not 89 minutes, but the full whack. Realistically to get any sort of result the team will have to perform beyond the sum of its parts and hope that Slovakia don’t come out firing. If we lose an early goal, the danger is we compromise our shape by throwing players forward in search of an equaliser, which may well leave us even more exposed at the back. I think Herbert has done the right thing selecting Vicelich in the holding role because he is a solid experienced pro and cool heads will be required tonight. And the Vicelich option also means minimal disruption to the Brown-less “first-choice” eleven. That said, one problem I think we may have now is a lack of genuine pace in and around the opposition “hole” (oooer missus) – that gap between midfield and attack – so Reid, Nelsen, and Smith will have to be ever diligent should Elliott and Vicelich struggle to plug that gap. Both Bertos and Lochhead have relatively good pace as wing-backs and their workrate will be crucial. Herbert’s teams (incl Phoenix) have a resilience about them but maintaining shape is the key at this level. The tournament format and the WC Finals are notorious for upsets so should we get the basics right you just never know. Go the AWs.
-
I fear that'll only last until I cheer loudly when England get knocked out! Seriously though, there's a lot to love about West Ham and even peripheral things like the "type" of supporter the club attracts (Ray Winstone, Adrian Sherwood anyone ... er, anyone?) have strengthened my resolve to stick with them through the barren years ... these are important things in my somewhat precious and closed wee world. Besides, I've always got Celtic to sate the desire for rather cheaply acquired silverware. Leroy's boots are made of gold.
-
Peter, not wanting to hijack your so-far excellent WC thread, but I have this theory as to why West Ham is the fave "second" team of so many in NZ (I support Celtic, but reserve a bothersome soft spot for the Irons as the only English club I have time for) ... back in the late 70s, early 80s when LWT's Big Match was the only coverage we got, Brian Moore was always so much more animated when commentating on West Ham games, and the quagmire that was Upton Park had an uncanny knack of always producing exciting end-to-end games. That's how I recall it. Then of course, there was Trevor Brooking, Alan Devonshire, and being allowed to stay up late for the first time to watch the '75 Cup win. Great times. Jumpers for goalposts etc blah
-
Love it. Great stuff PA. Intrigued about Peter's comment regarding the "huge chasm of nothingness" between the end of the World Cup and the start of the Premier League. I'd have thought - presuming he's a West Ham fan as Haydn suggests - there is no such thing. Always something sensational going on at the Boleyn, in more ways than one. It's like a football club for those who like continual upheaval in their lives. As for being "bereft of all hope", won't that come much later in the season? ...
Argentina and Messi to steal the show in SA for me.
-
Just a word on the Celtic and Rangers ‘Old Firm’ rivalry you mention in your excellent piece David. It has some relevance to the tribalism connection you’ve made. As a longtime observer and onetime resident of Glasgow I feel compelled to point out that the religious aspect of the rivalry is becoming less and less significant with each passing generation of supporter. That is not to say it doesn’t still exist or that it is any less intense (people still get murdered on account of colours worn) but it has clearly moved away from religion and has rather more to do with politics these days. Or more specifically, the political situation in Ireland. Where once it was a Catholic (Celtic) v Protestant (Rangers) thing, it has over the past couple of decades manifested itself into a Republican (Celtic) v Unionist/Loyalist (Rangers) issue.
Where your stereotypical Rangers supporter – and I use the word ‘stereotypical’ with some caution because I’m generalising here – is very pro-monarchy and pro-Northern Ireland being part of “Britain”, your ‘stereotypical’ Celtic supporter is more likely to preach Republican principles and have a certain amount of sympathy for that cause in an Irish context. I do realise the root of that particular political debate is very much linked to religion in the first place, but the emphasis has certainly shifted in recent generations. It is no longer as cut and dried as it used to be, and indeed nowadays it is not unusual for members of the same family to support opposite sides of the Old Firm divide.
While Celtic have always employed staff inclusively (a Protestant manager led Celtic to its greatest ever triumph and many of its best players have been er, non-Catholic), Rangers had what amounted to a sectarian employment policy right up until the mid-to-late 1980s – something which obviously contributed to prolonging this nonsense into the modern day.
Then there’s that whole football ethos thing – with Celtic (traditionally) being the more cavalier/entertaining team, and Rangers being the more staid and conservative win-at-all-costs club. The fact that these two clubs have dominated Scottish football for so long also contributes to the intensity of it all - if “we” don’t win it, “they” will … so there is also a fair amount of natural and genuine sporting rivalry at play there as well.
There’s also a class/establishment/underdog thing happening. That’s a little more complex and probably a whole article in itself … but given that I’m way off topic already, I won’t go there.
Apols for ranting on ... just my second PA post n'all! Religion/politics/tribalism ... suffice to say, a potent brew.