An ode to Joe Root and a sensational cricket match

I don't like the BBC Sports Personality of the Year. It's all a little too 'backslappy' for my liking and is a largely pointless parade. Last year's did highlight, however, the way in which cricket needs to guard against falling from the public eye. In a year when the test team won the Ashes against all the odds, Stuart Broad took 8-15 in one of the greatest spells of test match bowling of all time and Joe Root vied for the crown of number one test batsman in the world, there was little or no attention for cricketThat in a summer without an Olympics or football tournament for competition too.

It's a separate post/debate to talk about how to address the exposure and recognition of cricket but one of the ways really ought to be to highlight its success stories, such as that in the World T20 in India today against South Africa.

(Yes, that's England playing in a world cup that most people probably don't know about.)

Not only did England chase down an eye-watering 230 runs to overcome South Africa - a side that had beaten them twice on home soil recently - but the nation's best player came to the fore for a starring role.

In other sports we build up star players - Rooney, for example - and then knock them down when they fail to deliver on the high hopes we've pinned upon them. While Joe Root certainly has a big reputation within the game, there seems to be very little recognition of his talent among the wider public.

Today's performance saw a genuinely world class English sportsman deliver a world class performance at a world cup. That alone is worth shouting about.

Root was far from alone - Jason Roy in particular deserves praise - but he was, and so often is, the focal point of the sensational innings. He smashed the balls to all parts with a brilliant collection of conventional cricket strokes and innovative shots, plundering 83 runs off 44 balls.

For one of his six sixes he played an outrageous 'reverse scoop' over third man that is the most jaw dropping thing I've seen an England player do since Kevin Pietersen reverse slogged Murali for six. I had to watch Root's shot three or four more times just to comprehend what I'd just seen.

Unbelievable England, amazing @root66 #getinthere pic.twitter.com/Ha2g9GmHgL

— England Cricket (@englandcricket) March 18, 2016

While we shouldn't put too much pressure on his shoulders, it's about time cricket fans extolled the virtues of Root. He's got a cheeky personality that helps to endear him beyond his mere talent. But, make no mistake, Root is a genuine star who is easily among the best three/four British sportsmen around. At just 25 he's already amassed 3,400 tests runs and nine hundreds as well as 2,500 ODI runs and eight hundreds.

I don't care if Root wins Sports Personality of the Year in 2016 but I do hope that he gets the recognition he deserves for performances such as this. Talented performers such as him are rare, we're lucky to be able to say we're seeing him and shouldn't take him for granted.

So, on a day in which England have pulled off the second biggest run chase in T20 International history, let's give some praise for the England cricket team and Joe Root, the world class matchwinner.

When did Four Four Two get so good?

My book reading quest has been held up a little in February - although I'm well into my next tome - but that's largely thanks to having my head turned by a couple of magazines. Still Four Four Two magazine has proved a particularly high quality diversion and well worth a few words of praise.

In the dim and distant past I used to read Four Four Two magazine semi-regularly. It was the natural graduation from Match magazine (and occasionally Shoot) in my childhood.  Fairly or not I felt I'd drifted apart from what it had to offer. I say 'fairly or not' because there was probably a part of me that lost interest in top flight football as a grumpy supporter of a club - Nottingham Forest - that has long since plied its trade away from the Premier League.

In recent months my eye has been drawn back to it, however. I've leafed through a colleague's copy and had a joint go at some of the quiz questions and, this month, actually picked up an issue for a proper read. 

A mere flick through was enough to prompt pleasant surprise. Hitesh Ratna and the team have delivered a cracking read of great variety and quality - a magazine that, to me, seemed to have really stepped it up since my last purchase several years ago.

First things first: that cover. To put Pep Guardiola on the front just before he was announced as joining Manchester City was a stroke of luck, true, but the luck was earned. Why? Well the material is skilfully handled in such a way that it didn't matter if Pep's decision was revealed after the print deadline. Indeed it wouldn't have mattered where he said he was going to. The article could easily have been about the potential destinations for the football's most in-demand manager - which would have disastrously dated the moment it hit the shelves - but instead focuses on his character and managerial style.

Having just read Pep Confidential I probably didn't learn as much as I would have done in the piece itself but this was a smart, well laid out analysis of the Premier League's newest arrival and made for a worthy 'splash'.

There certainly seems a much more international focus to the magazine now, with Pep joined by an article behind the scenes at Thomas Tuchel's impressive Dortmund set up - probably the highlight of the magazine - and the MLS draft. The varied fare also includes the National League, a piece on football hard men and - in a welcome continuation of a tradition - a one on one with Eidur Gudjohnsen.

The beauty is in the balance of insight and entertainment, treading the line between mainstream coverage offered by the tabloids and major websites and the 'hipster' publications such as the Blizzard that cater for more cerebral matters. It's a balance that suits me fine and feels much more in touch with my tastes than ever before.

Hats off too for the excellent use of photos and images, making for a package that looks and reads like a class act.

It's heartening to see print publications like this continuing to thrive. It appears as though niche and special interest products are much better suited to surviving the tough competition offered by digital. If Four Four Two can deliver this level of quality I'd certainly return for more...

The EU debate: Just get on with it

The Prime Minister's renegotiation of the UK's terms of membership in the EU is a waste of time. I say that not as an assessment of the 'deal', such as it is, but more because the reaction to it this week shows that, when it comes to this issue, people on both sides have stopped listening.

No matter what continental rabbit David Cameron pulled from his beret, the anti-mob were licking their lips at the chance to denounce it. Donald Tusk could have emerged from the talks with 'Britain is best' tattooed on his face humming God Save The Queen and agreeing to rename the EU as 'Britain's not-so-good neighbour' and the angriest of the doubters would have written it off.

Not that those at the head of the pro lobby have behaved much better. Many can't allow themselves to be aligned with the Prime Minister, their sworn enemy on other matters. They have to denounce the deal, lambast the PM, revel in his failure and then, ultimately, support his stance. Politics eh?

To be fair, maybe we're all right to be cynical. The PM is a slippery PR man who has achieved very little on this or practically anything else. Some people have stopped listening because they know not to believe a carefully choreographed word that spills from his mouth. He said, on the one hand, that he'd opt in to the EU on the terms he'd secured in the talks, but also stated that the detail was still to be decided, hinted that he wanted to earn more concessions and said he'd still rule nothing out. Lackey David Lidington then tried and failed to make sense of it all on Newsnight. It makes you dizzy trying to keep up with such a vacuous position.

This goes back to the problem above though. We all know that Cameron wants to campaign to stay in. We also know, pretty much, where most senior figures truly wish to sit in the EU debate. Yet, for some bizarre reason we're dancing around the houses pretending to wait for the detail of the deal.

One constant and clichéd point made in almost any edition of BBC's Question Tine is 'we need a proper debate on the EU'. The same is said on immigration. The problem is that this is said almost every week and almost always IN a debate on the two topics.

Yet the reason why it feels like we aren't getting a 'full and proper' debate is because it ends up getting lost amid a load of faffing about on if we should have a referendum, when we should have it and what the terms of the largely immaterial negotiation should be.

We all know the question - in or out. We all know that the supporters on both sides and for both campaigns have decided their positions, let's just get on with the crux of the matter.

PS - what exactly was the Mail on about this week? The splash on Thursday evoked a pre Second World War debate yet its article admitted the two times weren't comparable. It also admitted that by 'England' it meant the UK. Clear as mud. Given the Mail's position as an anti-EU paper surely the whole comment piece was really a job advert for the leader of the out campaign? It said it wanted a debate - that again - but really wants a champion for its cause. Settle back, there's surely plenty more of this overblown coverage coming ahead of the referendum this year. I don't know about you but I can't wait...

Thursday's Daily Mail front page:
Who WILL speak for England?#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #euref pic.twitter.com/BaBim27N85

— Nick Sutton (@suttonnick) February 3, 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.

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.

He might have his hands on the trophy but Cooky says team must go to the next level #SAvsENG https://t.co/OTT8fprlhU pic.twitter.com/OTMS3jiXXd

— England Cricket (@englandcricket) January 26, 2016

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.

Stuart Broad: people have been walking past me doing that face | @James_Riach http://t.co/9bjli0Emcr (Photo: Rex) pic.twitter.com/jexFNvfkGu

— Guardian sport (@guardian_sport) August 17, 2015

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.

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).

"Dr John Watson, meet Mr Sherlock Holmes." Here's the #Sherlock special https://t.co/jyPjk5qB9j pic.twitter.com/80B2jJlxcj

— BBC iPlayer (@BBCiPlayer) January 2, 2016

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?

13 tweets that perfectly sum up the reaction to last night's #Sherlock special https://t.co/cp1DIoy1Ex pic.twitter.com/9Y9hRXJiz1

— Radio Times (@RadioTimes) January 2, 2016

10 things almost as overrated and underwhelming as New Year's Eve

Going out for New Year’s Eve is overrated isn’t it? A surprising number of people seem to know this deep down and yet so many of us feel the need to drag ourselves out, pay over the odds to get in somewhere distinctly underwhelming that’ll be free on any other day.

Staying in, maybe with a few friends, is what a lot of us would rather do, so why embrace something so utterly pointless and underwhelming as watching our clocks all night in an overpriced and overhyped environment with people too drunk to know what year it is anyway?

With 2016 about to begin, here’s ten other things that I think are almost as naff as New Year’s Eve…

1. Halloween. I’ve always felt it was a bit naff but it’s even worse than ever now. Most people’s outfits aren’t remotely ‘spooky’ and it’s largely just an excuse for adults with more money than sense to pretend they’re kids again.

2. Black Friday. How many people here celebrate Thanksgiving? No? In which case, why get caught up in the day after, which is traditionally where electrical retailers woo in not-at-work shoppers to spend on bargains.

 3. The X Factor. Has anyone even heard the winner’s song? Time for a break Simon.

4. The Apprentice. Since Old Sugar isn’t even looking for an apprentice any more isn’t it about time this was brought to an end? People who show a flair for selling spuds in round one get to the final ahead of those who might actually have an entrepreneurial idea that is worth investing in. Pointless.

5. Formula One. Rich kids squabbling over which has the fastest car? Not for me.

6. Adele’s new song. Yep, there you go, I’ve said it. I like Adele, she’s a great character and I’m pleased with the success she’s had. But that song? Yawn. I wouldn’t fancy paying over the odds to see a concert full of that fare.

7. Sports Personality of the Year. I love the BBC – and we should all fight to keep it – but this is Auntie at her worst. A silly backslapping charade.

8. The Honours System. Another year, another round of uproar at ill-deserved gongs handed out to vaguely famous people for ‘doing their job’ or mates of whoever is in power. The worst thing is that this discredits the worthy efforts of the folk who get the ‘lesser’ awards for community work that really does deserve an honour.

9. Superhero films. Haven’t we reached fatigue with these superhero franchises? How many more Batman tales are there to tell? How about some new characters and storylines? Just a thought.

10. US TV dramas. Don’t get me wrong. There are some cracking shows from the US but too many people start with the assumption that because it’s from America and on Netflix it’s instantly better than a British programme. If Sherlock or Luther were American they’d probably be hyped beyond recognition, and spun out over a too-many-episode series to boot. The Americans are good at big budget, but we are good at tight, well-written drama too. It’s time for some love for our shows too.

Ok, that’s enough grumpiness for now. I’m sure that’s upset plenty of people! The point is that plenty of things are, when you strip away the hype, just a little bit naff aren’t they?

 It’d be nice if we approached life by forming our own opinions, rather than liking things because we’re told to and they’re popular. I appreciate that other people do like the ten above but it’s fine not to go with the flow. It’d be boring if we all agreed and it is boring when people like things because it’s the done thing.

I know that some people think the things I like – football, cricket, politics, history – are naff but I’m fine with people not agreeing with me.

So, Happy New Year, and here’s the end of bandwagons. Cheers.