Sunday 31 January 2016

What I learned from...Pep Confidential

I have the same resolution for every New Year: I want to read more. It's an ambition that comes from the ever-expanding pile of interesting books I have around the house and frustration at the fact that I fail to dedicate the time to them.

Studying for a history degree is a fantastic thing to do but it does somewhat throw you out of kilt when it comes to reading for pleasure. By the end you're more used to getting through reams of journal articles and leafing through the back end of the yellowing pages of lesser-opened library books than

It's a long while since I stuck on the daft gown and picked up my degree now though so that really is a poor excuse and, in an attempt to encourage me to engage in a greater level of reading, I've decided to share what I've learned from each of the books I finish in 2016 - with an aim to manage one a month if possible.


So, starting off 2016 is Pep Confidential by Marti Perarnau, a book I've kindly being leant and been shamefully slow to get on with.

This, on face value, is the story of Pep Guardiola's first season in charge of Bayern Munich in 2013/14.

I say 'on face value' because the book is about more than that in truth. It's a portrayal of the most sought-after manager in world football and a fascinating insight into the thinking of a man seemingly bound for English football in 2016.

For non football fans, it's a study in leadership styles and adapting from the working practices of one culture to another, as Pep arrives in Germany following a long association with Barcelona and takes on a side that won three major trophies in the previous year.

It's perhaps this latter point that is most interesting as the book unfolds. Most outsiders would think it was a tough task to follow Jupp Heynckes after he won the treble and Guardiola constantly pushes himself to challenge and adapt his team to play in new ways and formations to test their ability. That they do this and wrap up the title in record time is remarkable.

Guardiola comes across as hard working to the point of being obsessive, constantly studying opponents and dreaming up new ways for his side to dominate possession and win. His observations - told through Perarnau - are fascinating and sometimes surprising. He doesn't, for example, like the label of 'tiki-taka' that many used to describe his style at Barca, regularly describing it as 'sh*t'.

It's clear that wingers Robben and Ribery, for example, are a lot more susceptible to embracing the new playing style than many outsiders may think. Philipp Lahm, meanwhile, comes across as every bit as brilliant as you might expect.

It's strange really that you find yourself feeling quite sad as the book races towards its conclusion, knowing full well that Guardiola's Champions League campaign ends in ignominy with a thumping defeat at the hands of eventual winners Real Madrid. Still, in a way this game merely serves to strengthen Guardiola's resolve. He allowed himself to get sucked into going against his principles in that game and vowed never to do so again. It spurs him on to polish off the campaign with a cup final win against rivals Dortmund in which Guardiola is at his tactical best, shuffling an injury depleted squad in mesmerising ways to outfox Jurgen Klopp and take home the trophy.

What does the book tell us about the way Pep would manage in England? Mainly that he won't be afraid to change and innovate and that he won't try to turn his new side into a carbon copy of his old Barcelona team. Journalists and opposition managers alike will be left scratching their heads trying to figure out what he's up to next - with full backs, midfielders and defenders all redefined in formations that can change several times within a game. It could be fascinating for geeks like me.

Turning back to the book, it's also worth pointing out the role Perarnau plays here. Given unprecedented access into the work of a modern football manager he doesn't disappoint, His journalistic skills shine out with short sharp, page turning chapters and in the way he lets the events talk for themselves, never making the story about him. Having had to wait until the end of his year-long project to share his observations, the temptation must've been there to blow his own trumpet a little but that never occurs. He's our eyes and ears in the Guardiola camp and he does a superb job of it.

Tactics, management techniques and the inner workings of top level football clubs are all explored here. If any of those interest you, you won't be let down by searching out a copy of Pep Confidential.

Friday 29 January 2016

England cricket team: Fun and flawed

It's a shame really that, once again, the England cricket team have ended a series in a limp defeat in a dead rubber. Just as with the last Ashes test at the Oval last summer, Alistair Cook's men put up a lacklustre show in Centurion and took a little of the shine off what was a superb series win against the number one ranked test team in their own back yard.

In some respects you could make two very different cases for the state of the nation's cricket team. On the one hand there are question marks over the technique of Alex Hales - the umpteenth opener to be tried - over the suitability of Nick Compton at 3, James Taylor at 5, the wicket keeping ability of Jonny Bairstow and his rival Jos Buttler and the fitness of bowlers Steven Finn, Mark Wood and, to a lesser extent Jimmy Anderson.

Then there's the infamous batting collapses. The website Holding Willey reckons there were an incredible 11 in 15 tests from April 2015 in the West Indies.

Yet, on the other hand, there are great positives. Cook, the captain, is England's record run scorer of all time, Joe Root is constantly vying with Kane Williamson and Steven Smith for the crown of the world's best batsman, Stuart Broad IS the world's best ranked bowler and Jimmy Anderson is England record wicket taker, with the 7th most victims in test history for any team. Ben Stokes, Bairstow and Moeen Ali also epitomise an exciting attack lower order and embody the new style of Trevor Bayliss, Paul Farbrace and Andrew Strauss.

Then there's the individual moments of brilliance in the past year alone. Broad's Ashes 8-15 at Trent Bridge was one of the best spells in test history and his 6-17 at Johannesburg wasn't far off either.

Joe Root hit two Ashes hundreds and Cook racked up an incredible 263 in the UAE at the end of 2015 in a marathon innings that was the third longest stay at the crease in test history. It was the complete opposite of Ben Stokes' scintillating double hundred in Cape Town, 198-ball 258 that must rank as one of the most exciting knocks ever from an English batsman.

The Ashes win and victory over South Africa were both against the odds and the 2-0 defeat against Pakistan hardly reflected the balance of an even battle in the UAE.

So, which is true? Are England a side riddled with selection issues, injury doubts and worrying dips in form? Or are they a side full of great individual talent that has played some breathtaking - and successful - cricket that we should all be proud of.

The answer is that both are true and that, in my view, is part of the attraction of this current line up. Yes they are flawed but you can rarely argue that they are dull. They're never too far from either a collapse or some match-winning brilliance, a trait that means it's captivating to watch (if a little nervy). It's precisely because a collapse or a Broad spell could be just around the corner that makes this unpredictable side an exciting prospect. Some of the negatives, too, come from the fact that the team strives to play attacking cricket, hardly something to be too critical of.

We should all be proud of what the side has achieved and the manner in which it has gone about its cricket. In truth this team has not had the praise it has deserved.

We also need to accept that when the going is good this side can be truly great but, when the going is bad, things can quickly go pear-shaped. Don't relax, don't get complacent and, importantly, don't take your eyes off them. They may be flawed but they're ruddy fun too.

Monday 4 January 2016

No hit Sherlock

I was left confused by Sherlock on New Year's Day. Not so much by the plot - although that was a stretch given January 1 booze levels - but by whether or not I enjoyed or endured it. (Spoilers below btw).


The BBC's lesser spotted flagship show returned to our screens with an episode that appeared to be an adventure that plunged this modern update back into the Conan Doyle era. Except it wasn't, not really.

I'll admit now that I am a fan of Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss' series. It's well cast - with Benedict Cumberbatch nailing the obnoxiously clever and mercurial sleuth - and smartly put together. I like the fact that we get it in short sharp bursts - partly out of necessity of the schedules of the actors/showrunner - and the fact that, in an era of repeats, remakes and revamps this is fresh, intellectual and challenging. But I still don't think the Abominable Bride hit the mark.

The problem with this episode is that mid way in it tried to pick up plot strands from a two-year-old series finale in order to set up another series that won't air for at least a year. Just typing that out sounds a little ridiculous and such a premise is surely doomed to fail? How can they possibly expect casual viewers to keep up or even care?

Is this even what the fans want? If coming up with a 'bridge' episode was intended to satisfy the die hards I feel it was misjudged. Fans were happy enough to lap up the return of Holmes and Watson and putting the duo back into the era of the original books was enough of a crowd pleaser to be going on with. A standalone adventure in this context would've been a real treat. It would've been fine to leave it open to the viewer to determine whether the whole thing was in a drug addled Sherlock's 'Mind Palace' in my view and the non-regulars would've been able to pick it up even with minimal prior knowledge.

The episode itself contained some nice ideas - and the murder committed by an already-dead woman was an intriguing mystery. I just felt it would've been nicer if this were given more prominence, if the show were more centred on 'abominable bride' at its heart, with the character stuff in the background, instead of the other way around. The resolution was, in the end, a little telegraphed and felt a little underwhelming given that we were clearly supposed to be concerned with 'something else'.

I think in the past I've read that the writers consider this to be a 'show about a detective' rather than a 'detective show' but who watching - diehard fan or not - doesn't at least want to see a little bit of skilled sleuthery (if that's even a word)? A little bit more of Sherlock 'being Sherlock' might've been nice.

Moriarty's apparent return at the end of the last series seemed a little bit of a shame to me. Lars Mikkelsen's portrayal of Charles Augustus Magnussen deserved praise as a creepy and memorable villain, yet his devilishness and the events of the episode were wilfully undermined by the final twist. It ensured the show was trending on social media I suppose, is that what these moments are for ultimately?

If the point of this was to introduce the idea that Moriarty might be dead but that a group could be using his name and legacy for their own gains. then it probably could've done this in a way that didn't alienate as many people. I don't want to moan about Sherlock, it retains the potential to be better than most shows when it gets things right - but I just wish it could've pieced together the constituent parts of the episode into a clearer and more enjoyable picture.

It's a long old wait unto the next slice of action from 221B Baker Street, we'll probably have forgotten this by then anyway, right?