LIVERPOOL - THE CASE FOR DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE
I'm going to do the impossible - defend Liverpool again (yes, including Ballotelli)!
Liverpool 0
Real Madrid 3 (should be many more)
So, what's my excuse this time? Well, for one, Liverpool should not be playing in this competition at all. Because last season's excellence was such an aberration, it is now a great curse in the sense that Liverpool will be facing Champions' League teams that Liverpool cannot hope to match. Our expectations of Liverpool's football have been too high because it is based on the free-scoring exploits of Suarez and Sturridge which now seem to be like some kind of romantic fantasy.
THE STRUGGLE
I struggle to describe the kind of football now being displayed by Liverpool.
What do you call the goalkeeper's lack of dominance in the 6-yard box? What do you make of the defenders' tendency to spend endless minutes making only square passes and back passes to the goalie? What is the term to use if footballers stand rooted to a spot on receiving a pass and puzzle over where to pass instead of moving the ball and running in some meaningful direction?
How do you comprehend the lack of cooperation among players such that when the ball is won, surrounding players do not quickly get into positions to provide options for a simple pass to be made. Inevitably, the Liverpool player holding possession of the ball has no choice, but to run into trouble and get dispossessed easily. How come simple skills like stopping a ball, making a simple pass, shielding the ball and shooting on target seem foreign to most of the players in red?
I have moved beyond the point of being disappointed with Liverpool.
In fact, I'm more disappointed in the players of Real Madrid. Aren't they supposed to be Galacticos? How come they are merely playing elementary soccer with short simple passes and highly-predictable attacking patterns? No fanciful flicks, no dummies, and no long dribbles. Not even a bicycle kick?
Yet, you have to give Real Madrid credit for playing simple, efficient football and winning easy to conserve energy for their upcoming domestic clash with Barca.
THE UNDERSTANDING
Ok, never mind Real Madrid; let's think about our beloved Liverpool: why do all Liverpool teams play in the same infuriating way in the Premier League era (from 20 Feb 1992) and not winning a single title for 22 years, despite different managers and players throughout the period? Why do great players from elsewhere become mediocre once they were transferred to Liverpool and once sold to other teams become great players again?
Yet, if such mediocrity have been prevalent for so long, why has Liverpool been always near the top of the table during the last 22 years? For that we have to give great credit to the tremendous effort of all the players and the managers involved despite their mediocre standard of football.
What's at fault is not the personnel. The real problem is a great irony. It seems that the past successes of the seventies and eighties had set the football culture of the club so strongly that their football philosophy today is the same one that they had 30 to 40 years ago.
THE CURE
In short, Liverpool are in trouble now because they have not moved with the times and are still playing 70's and 80's football! During those times in England, tactics, fitness and effort are king, but the modern game is much more technical.
So, to turn the corner, they need a full update and total revamp of their thinking about how to play the game. Let's hope such reinvention is in the works somewhere in the club.
Thursday 23 October 2014
Monday 20 October 2014
IN DEFENCE OF BALOTELLI AND LIVERPOOL
Much criticism of Liverpool has ensued since their away win at QPR last Sunday. Unfairly, the brunt of the negative comments was directed at Balotelli. Before we join the chorus of condemnation, let's look at Liverpool's performance more objectively.
My assessment of the form of Liverpool is that, at this moment, they lack energy, enthusiasm and passion in their play. Contrary to popular belief, their weakness is not just in defense - the whole team whether in defense, midfield or attack is rather lethargic and is unable to impose themselves in all their matches this season. The fact that they were still able to salvage all three points against QPR despite a rather mediocre performance and jump up to fifth place in the table actually is a point to their credit.
Late in the game against QPR, just when they seemed destined to settle for an undeserved draw at 1-1 and then at 2-2, they came back each time to pull ahead. That actually speak volumes about their strength of character and fighting spirit.
Goal No. 1 - QPR 0 Liverpool 1
Their first goal was the result of Sterling's sheer professionalism when he took his free kick quickly when everyone was still arguing over the foul on him and having their backs to the ball. The much-maligned Johnson was similarly aware of the situation, received the pass from Sterling and crossed towards the far post of the QPR goal. Richard Dunne stuck out a foot and misdirected it into his own net. Balotelli did contribute to this goal by lurking at the far post and arguably, we can say that Dunne must have felt compelled to intervene because of Balotelli's positioning and presence.
Goal No. 2 - QPR 1 Liverpool 1
Vargas was able to score with a free header because Enrique had lost concentration and left his post there.
Goal No. 3 - QPR 1 Liverpool 2
This was a beautiful individual effort by Coutinho with an angular grounder into the far post net after a Liverpool break.
Goal No. 4 - QPR 2 Liverpool 2
This was the match's softest goal when Vargas' low header from close range trickled past the legs of Joe Allen. Slow motion replay clearly showed Allen losing concentration at the crucial moment. Though his positioning was correct, he had one arm on the post and was looking down at the field! When he looked up, the ball had already rolled past the line through his legs! Mignolet was not to be faulted.
Goal No. 5 - QPR 2 Liverpool 3
Off a poor free kick by QPR at Liverpool's end, Liverpool broke with a through-pass to Sterling who crossed towards the far post only to strike Caulker's near striding foot into the QPR goal. Again, we must wonder whether Caulker might have felt obligated to intervene because Balotelli was at the far post ready to apply the finishing touch.
So, rather than a very poor performance, Balotelli had played crucial parts in their fight-back. In a game when Liverpool had few clear shots, Balotelli had one shot blocked by a QPR defender, one shot saved by the goalkeeper's legs and a near post flick that failed to come off. I know he was roundly criticized for missing the sitter when Lallana's shot rebounded off the keeper, but one must remember that his positioning was good enough in the first place to afford him the opportunity to miss.
So, yes, Liverpool was mediocre, but they had the heart to go on to win the match through sheer grit when all seemed lost. The lack of sparkle in Balotelli's play was no better and no worse than his team mates'. In fact, elementary individual defensive errors by Enrique and Allen had put their team in difficulties quite unnecessarily. In a certain way, Liverpool fully deserved to win and Balotelli needs to be given more leeway.
I bet they will give Real Madrid a good fight soon in their upcoming Champions' League match!
Much criticism of Liverpool has ensued since their away win at QPR last Sunday. Unfairly, the brunt of the negative comments was directed at Balotelli. Before we join the chorus of condemnation, let's look at Liverpool's performance more objectively.
My assessment of the form of Liverpool is that, at this moment, they lack energy, enthusiasm and passion in their play. Contrary to popular belief, their weakness is not just in defense - the whole team whether in defense, midfield or attack is rather lethargic and is unable to impose themselves in all their matches this season. The fact that they were still able to salvage all three points against QPR despite a rather mediocre performance and jump up to fifth place in the table actually is a point to their credit.
Late in the game against QPR, just when they seemed destined to settle for an undeserved draw at 1-1 and then at 2-2, they came back each time to pull ahead. That actually speak volumes about their strength of character and fighting spirit.
Goal No. 1 - QPR 0 Liverpool 1
Their first goal was the result of Sterling's sheer professionalism when he took his free kick quickly when everyone was still arguing over the foul on him and having their backs to the ball. The much-maligned Johnson was similarly aware of the situation, received the pass from Sterling and crossed towards the far post of the QPR goal. Richard Dunne stuck out a foot and misdirected it into his own net. Balotelli did contribute to this goal by lurking at the far post and arguably, we can say that Dunne must have felt compelled to intervene because of Balotelli's positioning and presence.
Goal No. 2 - QPR 1 Liverpool 1
Vargas was able to score with a free header because Enrique had lost concentration and left his post there.
Goal No. 3 - QPR 1 Liverpool 2
This was a beautiful individual effort by Coutinho with an angular grounder into the far post net after a Liverpool break.
Goal No. 4 - QPR 2 Liverpool 2
This was the match's softest goal when Vargas' low header from close range trickled past the legs of Joe Allen. Slow motion replay clearly showed Allen losing concentration at the crucial moment. Though his positioning was correct, he had one arm on the post and was looking down at the field! When he looked up, the ball had already rolled past the line through his legs! Mignolet was not to be faulted.
Goal No. 5 - QPR 2 Liverpool 3
Off a poor free kick by QPR at Liverpool's end, Liverpool broke with a through-pass to Sterling who crossed towards the far post only to strike Caulker's near striding foot into the QPR goal. Again, we must wonder whether Caulker might have felt obligated to intervene because Balotelli was at the far post ready to apply the finishing touch.
So, rather than a very poor performance, Balotelli had played crucial parts in their fight-back. In a game when Liverpool had few clear shots, Balotelli had one shot blocked by a QPR defender, one shot saved by the goalkeeper's legs and a near post flick that failed to come off. I know he was roundly criticized for missing the sitter when Lallana's shot rebounded off the keeper, but one must remember that his positioning was good enough in the first place to afford him the opportunity to miss.
So, yes, Liverpool was mediocre, but they had the heart to go on to win the match through sheer grit when all seemed lost. The lack of sparkle in Balotelli's play was no better and no worse than his team mates'. In fact, elementary individual defensive errors by Enrique and Allen had put their team in difficulties quite unnecessarily. In a certain way, Liverpool fully deserved to win and Balotelli needs to be given more leeway.
I bet they will give Real Madrid a good fight soon in their upcoming Champions' League match!
Wednesday 8 October 2014
MOVIE REVIEW
"THE BABADOOK"
Opened 25 September 2014
As I sat down at the start of this psychological horror movie, I couldn't help noticing that the theatre was half-empty. For a movie that had just started its run three days before, this was surprising given the rave reviews and the critical acclaim it had garnered from audiences elsewhere.
At the end of the show, the audience seemed to be taken aback by its rather unexpected and abrupt ending. I detected a whiff of disappointment in the air. Perhaps, our local audiences had been conditioned to expect horror movies to proceed in a certain way: some shocking moments, some realistic CGIs, some sudden sound effects, some blood and gore and climaxing in a prolonged adrenaline-filled final fight scene when the evil would be finally defeated. Strangely, none of these played any part in this movie.
The story centers around a widow, Amelia, and her six year- old misbehaving and hyperactive son, Samuel. The sexually-repressed Amelia leads a depressing life of constantly having recurring dreams of the car accident which took her husband's life, of working as a carer of dementia patients, of keeping her son out of trouble, of boringly channel-surfing late night TV reruns, of having an almost non-existent social life and worst of all, of being totally consumed by her inability to get over her husband's death.
Like most 6 year-olds, Samuel, believes in the existence of monsters. He spends much of his time making weapons to fight these imaginary monsters. Having dropped out of school, he has plenty of time to make his mother's life even more miserable by constantly asking for attention and making a nuisance of himself.
One fateful night, Samuel insists that his mother read him a frightening story about a monster called Babadook from a book he found lying mysteriously in his book shelf. From that moment on, his obsession with monsters has a new name.
The odd thing is, as time goes on, instead of reassuring his son, Amelia appears to increasingly believe in the Babadook herself and starts to hear voices and loud knocks on the door. She went back to read the book and discovered that it tells the story of impending tragic events of her own life; of being possessed by the Babadook, of her killing her dog, then her son and finally of slitting her own throat with the kitchen knife.
She is horrified but the more she dreads the events becoming true the more she hears and sees evidence of the Babadook. It culminated in her actually seeing the monster dressed in disguise in a dark cloak and a top hat with piercing eyes, razor teeth and black bristles for hands. When the monster finally leaps from the ceiling into her screaming mouth, Amelia knows that she is being possessed.
Amelia begins to speak in a deep voice and act violently, refusing to care about her son, hurling vulgarities at him, kicking down a door and chasing him with the knife. At the crucial moment when she is at the point of suffocating her son, she suddenly let go and vomits black goo. Has she finally got rid of the monster? No, as her gasping son says, "you can't get rid of the Babadook!".
And so the monster comes for one final confrontation with Amelia with Samuel safely tucked behind his mother's back. Instead of Samuel going against his possessed mother, it is now the love of the mother and son against the monster. When all seem lost in this battle of wills, in her desperation, Amelia repeatedly and loudly denies the Monster's reality. And ... it works!
The monster suddenly collapses into a whimpering pile of clothes. As his mother approaches it to lift the clothes, the boy protests "no, no, mummy, no". Remember, the book says: "and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"! But his mother lifted it anyway!
The truth is finally out. If we pay close attention to the scariest scene when the mother read out the lines in the pop-up children's book, we can see all the clues to the whole story:
"If it's in a word or if it's in a look"
"You can't get rid of the Babadook!".
(Interpretation: The monster is in your thoughts and imagination.)
"A rumbling sound,
Then 3 sharp knocks.
That's when you know he's around.
You'll see him if you look.
The Babadook, dook, dook!"
(Interpretation: He'll appear when you want him to.)
"This is what he wears on top.
He's funny, don't you think?
See him in your room at night,
And you won't sleep a wink."
(Interpretation: He's not quite what he appears, but you can't get him out of your mind.)
"A friend of you and me."
(Interpretation: The Babadook is a creature that arose from the relationship between mother and child.)
"Take heed of what you've read.
I'll soon take off my funny disguise,
... and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"
(Interpretation: This is a warning that the truth behind the Babadook is quite unpalatable.)
So, what's underneath the Babadook is actually Amelia herself. Amelia IS the monster.
Apparently, six years ago, her husband was killed in a road traffic accident while sending her to hospital to deliver Samuel. Since the accident, Amelia has associated Samuel's birth with her husband's death. Perhaps unjustifiably, she blames her son for taking away her beloved husband and harbors a secret wish to end her whole miserable existence by killing everyone. Yet, Amelia cannot face the fact that she is having such an unacceptable thought and feels compelled to create an external monster as a bogeyman to assume responsibility for her guilt. Being previously a writer of children's books, she is likely to have made the pop-up book herself detailing her plans.
The Babadook that Samuel knows is slightly different. To him, the monster represents the thing that prevents his mother from loving him. At his age, he doesn't quite understand his mother's behavior towards him, but he knows it is related to his father's death on his birthday. That's why Samuel's birthday was never celebrated.
In the last scene, the pair is shown digging for worms in the garden, putting them onto a plate and offering them to the monster now still hiding in the basement room. Mother and son seem to get along much better, but the monster never dies.
Director and writer Jennifer Kent has offered this final scene as the key to the whole story. Her powerful message is that there is a Babadook in each of us, in every household and in every relationship, representing an unspeakable horror that we are too cowardly to face. It is the presence of a Babadook that depresses us and makes us miserable. So, in order to to make peace with ourselves and find the road to happiness, it is essential to at least acknowledge, if not to confront, our monsters bravely.
That is the lesson that we should all learn. Thanks to this great movie!
"THE BABADOOK"
Opened 25 September 2014
As I sat down at the start of this psychological horror movie, I couldn't help noticing that the theatre was half-empty. For a movie that had just started its run three days before, this was surprising given the rave reviews and the critical acclaim it had garnered from audiences elsewhere.
At the end of the show, the audience seemed to be taken aback by its rather unexpected and abrupt ending. I detected a whiff of disappointment in the air. Perhaps, our local audiences had been conditioned to expect horror movies to proceed in a certain way: some shocking moments, some realistic CGIs, some sudden sound effects, some blood and gore and climaxing in a prolonged adrenaline-filled final fight scene when the evil would be finally defeated. Strangely, none of these played any part in this movie.
The story centers around a widow, Amelia, and her six year- old misbehaving and hyperactive son, Samuel. The sexually-repressed Amelia leads a depressing life of constantly having recurring dreams of the car accident which took her husband's life, of working as a carer of dementia patients, of keeping her son out of trouble, of boringly channel-surfing late night TV reruns, of having an almost non-existent social life and worst of all, of being totally consumed by her inability to get over her husband's death.
Like most 6 year-olds, Samuel, believes in the existence of monsters. He spends much of his time making weapons to fight these imaginary monsters. Having dropped out of school, he has plenty of time to make his mother's life even more miserable by constantly asking for attention and making a nuisance of himself.
One fateful night, Samuel insists that his mother read him a frightening story about a monster called Babadook from a book he found lying mysteriously in his book shelf. From that moment on, his obsession with monsters has a new name.
The odd thing is, as time goes on, instead of reassuring his son, Amelia appears to increasingly believe in the Babadook herself and starts to hear voices and loud knocks on the door. She went back to read the book and discovered that it tells the story of impending tragic events of her own life; of being possessed by the Babadook, of her killing her dog, then her son and finally of slitting her own throat with the kitchen knife.
She is horrified but the more she dreads the events becoming true the more she hears and sees evidence of the Babadook. It culminated in her actually seeing the monster dressed in disguise in a dark cloak and a top hat with piercing eyes, razor teeth and black bristles for hands. When the monster finally leaps from the ceiling into her screaming mouth, Amelia knows that she is being possessed.
Amelia begins to speak in a deep voice and act violently, refusing to care about her son, hurling vulgarities at him, kicking down a door and chasing him with the knife. At the crucial moment when she is at the point of suffocating her son, she suddenly let go and vomits black goo. Has she finally got rid of the monster? No, as her gasping son says, "you can't get rid of the Babadook!".
And so the monster comes for one final confrontation with Amelia with Samuel safely tucked behind his mother's back. Instead of Samuel going against his possessed mother, it is now the love of the mother and son against the monster. When all seem lost in this battle of wills, in her desperation, Amelia repeatedly and loudly denies the Monster's reality. And ... it works!
The monster suddenly collapses into a whimpering pile of clothes. As his mother approaches it to lift the clothes, the boy protests "no, no, mummy, no". Remember, the book says: "and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"! But his mother lifted it anyway!
The truth is finally out. If we pay close attention to the scariest scene when the mother read out the lines in the pop-up children's book, we can see all the clues to the whole story:
"If it's in a word or if it's in a look"
"You can't get rid of the Babadook!".
(Interpretation: The monster is in your thoughts and imagination.)
"A rumbling sound,
Then 3 sharp knocks.
That's when you know he's around.
You'll see him if you look.
The Babadook, dook, dook!"
(Interpretation: He'll appear when you want him to.)
"This is what he wears on top.
He's funny, don't you think?
See him in your room at night,
And you won't sleep a wink."
(Interpretation: He's not quite what he appears, but you can't get him out of your mind.)
"A friend of you and me."
(Interpretation: The Babadook is a creature that arose from the relationship between mother and child.)
"Take heed of what you've read.
I'll soon take off my funny disguise,
... and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"
(Interpretation: This is a warning that the truth behind the Babadook is quite unpalatable.)
So, what's underneath the Babadook is actually Amelia herself. Amelia IS the monster.
Apparently, six years ago, her husband was killed in a road traffic accident while sending her to hospital to deliver Samuel. Since the accident, Amelia has associated Samuel's birth with her husband's death. Perhaps unjustifiably, she blames her son for taking away her beloved husband and harbors a secret wish to end her whole miserable existence by killing everyone. Yet, Amelia cannot face the fact that she is having such an unacceptable thought and feels compelled to create an external monster as a bogeyman to assume responsibility for her guilt. Being previously a writer of children's books, she is likely to have made the pop-up book herself detailing her plans.
The Babadook that Samuel knows is slightly different. To him, the monster represents the thing that prevents his mother from loving him. At his age, he doesn't quite understand his mother's behavior towards him, but he knows it is related to his father's death on his birthday. That's why Samuel's birthday was never celebrated.
In the last scene, the pair is shown digging for worms in the garden, putting them onto a plate and offering them to the monster now still hiding in the basement room. Mother and son seem to get along much better, but the monster never dies.
Director and writer Jennifer Kent has offered this final scene as the key to the whole story. Her powerful message is that there is a Babadook in each of us, in every household and in every relationship, representing an unspeakable horror that we are too cowardly to face. It is the presence of a Babadook that depresses us and makes us miserable. So, in order to to make peace with ourselves and find the road to happiness, it is essential to at least acknowledge, if not to confront, our monsters bravely.
That is the lesson that we should all learn. Thanks to this great movie!
Monday 6 October 2014
Saturday 4 October 2014
HK PROTEST UNNECESSARY
A letter published in the Voices Pages of Today newspaper on 4 October 2014
It seems nobody wants to risk his democratic credentials by breathing a word against Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest. I, for one, have reservations about it.
First, ironically, occupying the city, disrupting life and business and inviting trouble does not seem too democratic. It also appears to do more harm than good to Hong Kong’s stature as a financial centre and tourist destination.
Foreigners who cheer the protest may not be so pure in their intentions too, as they may have their own agenda.
Second, the promise of political freedom is only for 50 years (from 1997). In 33 years’ time, Hong Kong will be under Beijing’s full control.
Understandably, China wants a say in the selection of the territory’s Chief Executive, to prevent any bad surprises or disruptions to a smooth transition.
Third, Hong Kong is already part of China. There is no escaping its fate as a legitimate Chinese city. Whatever democratic concessions that can be won now will at best be temporary.
Fourth, if one remembers the Tiananmen Square incident, a worry is that any further escalation in the protest may force China’s hand. Drastic action by the central government may result in violence and loss of life.
The protest is premature and unnecessary. Whether the vetting committee will be biased or not is still a question.
Between a committee to screen nominees for the Chief Executive election, with citizens voting directly, and the present situation of a 1,200-strong committee electing the Chief Executive, I think Hong Kong residents will be better off with direct elections in 2017.
A letter published in the Voices Pages of Today newspaper on 4 October 2014
It seems nobody wants to risk his democratic credentials by breathing a word against Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest. I, for one, have reservations about it.
First, ironically, occupying the city, disrupting life and business and inviting trouble does not seem too democratic. It also appears to do more harm than good to Hong Kong’s stature as a financial centre and tourist destination.
Foreigners who cheer the protest may not be so pure in their intentions too, as they may have their own agenda.
Second, the promise of political freedom is only for 50 years (from 1997). In 33 years’ time, Hong Kong will be under Beijing’s full control.
Understandably, China wants a say in the selection of the territory’s Chief Executive, to prevent any bad surprises or disruptions to a smooth transition.
Third, Hong Kong is already part of China. There is no escaping its fate as a legitimate Chinese city. Whatever democratic concessions that can be won now will at best be temporary.
Fourth, if one remembers the Tiananmen Square incident, a worry is that any further escalation in the protest may force China’s hand. Drastic action by the central government may result in violence and loss of life.
The protest is premature and unnecessary. Whether the vetting committee will be biased or not is still a question.
Between a committee to screen nominees for the Chief Executive election, with citizens voting directly, and the present situation of a 1,200-strong committee electing the Chief Executive, I think Hong Kong residents will be better off with direct elections in 2017.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)