Gosh, that's a lot of big names out of the tournament already, eh?
Since I last posted, Spain became the first team to be knocked out, followed by England today. In the "expected exits" category, Cameroon, Australia and Honduras have also been eliminated, while Groups F, G and H have yet to play their second games. They'll be crucial deciders for each of Bosnia-Hercegovina, Portugal and Algeria, but if any of these teams squeaks through to the next round, my money will be on Portugal (despite my prediction that they'll lose to the US, I can't deny they have the quality to make it out of the group).
But let's get back to those big name exits for a moment, shall we?
Spain's ignominious defeat marks the second consecutive time that the reigning champion crashes out at the group stage, and the third time it's happened since the turn of the century. In 2002 France crashed and burned without scoring a single goal; they only managed a point because of a 0-0 draw with Uruguay. Meanwhile, Italy in 2010 was so bad that it couldn't even defeat New Zealand, a team of part-time players who'd taken vacations from their jobs in banks and schools to participate.
Which is actually kind of heart-warming, seen from the distance of four years and through the lens of other champions' misfortunes. But I'm not here to rail against the influence of money on the sport (maybe some other time). My concern is more around what exactly is happening in the biggest national teams that they can be so good one year (or in Spain's case, for about six years straight), and then collapse so spectacularly.
After all, Italy's implosion in 2010 could be traced to their lackluster Euro 2008, and the subsequent rehiring of Marcello Lippi (France's collapse in 2002 is harder to explain, however, given that they won Euro 2000). Sure, Spain found itself dismantled by Brazil at the Confederations Cup last year, but that doesn't mean anything - they also lost to the US in the semi-final of the 2009 Confed Cup, and still went on to win the following year's World Cup.
And in some ways, I suppose I come back to that quote from last week, about national team coaches picking players for their reputation, rather than how well they play as a team. It's simplistic to say this is the same Spain team that won the last three consecutive tournaments - ignoring the mystifying omissions (like Llorente), and the retirement of the entire defense, Iker Casillas in particular was a shadow of his former self. Which we perhaps should have expected, since he doesn't appear to have played much for Real Madrid this season.
Spain does have one more chance to avoid the wooden spoon, both in its group and in the tournament as a whole. It still faces Australia who, while playing with a lot of heart and passion, are probably still not good enough to beat an already-beaten Spain. But I think it would be a shame if Spain did beat them - Australia came into the tournament with little expectation of progressing, and yet they didn't roll over for either Chile or the Netherlands. Indeed, they almost equalized against Chile and briefly led against the Dutch. If a lot of teams are effectively there to make up the numbers (*cough* Iran and Nigeria *cough*), Australia at least had the decency to make it look difficult.
As for England...
Well, it's hard to be too critical. Sure, they looked woeful against Uruguay, but they were more dynamic against Italy, who managed to lose against Costa Rica - the team that pretty much everyone (including me) had written off before the tournament started. Their case is probably similar to that of Spain (and Australia): too many players who've been in the national team set up for too long.
Steven Gerrard has come in for a lot of criticism, as has Wayne Rooney (but that's nothing new). Although it's fair to say that the newer players haven't been great either, especially at the back. And that's the real problem - in contrast to club coaches, a national team coach selects the players he has, not the ones he wants to buy. There have been no credible replacements for Gerrard in England's midfield, and so Roy Hodgson had little choice but to bring him along - much as Fabio Capello did and Sven-Göran Eriksson before him.
There was one positive for Rooney in the Uruguay game, though, in the form of his first World Cup goal. While it must be great for him to finally have that particular monkey off his back, I have to confess to a certain amount of disappointment that he's broken his scoreless streak at the tournament. Before yesterday, Rooney stood as a sort of monument to disappointment - the man who had never scored a goal at the tournament, despite being widely hailed as one of the best in the world. Now, with his solitary goal, he's just another underachiever - if he'd gone his entire career never scoring at the World Cup, he could have held a record (albeit not a very satisfying one). Now he's denied himself even that scant recognition. It seems kind of a shame.
By contrast, I'm hoping German poacher extraordinaire Miroslav Klose gets a run-out at some point this tournament, so that he can equal or even surpass Brazil's Ronaldo in the all-time scoring tables. Klose's the anti-Rooney in some ways - despite an undistinguished club career, he's now Germany's all-time top scorer. Sure, he's played around twice as many games as Gerd Müller, the previous record holder. But it's refreshing to see someone play better for his country than his club, and this makes him stand in sharp contrast to the likes of Rooney and Messi (who has only scored two goals at World Cups, let's remember).
Somebody has to score the goals for teams to win, after all. If the big-name players can't or won't do that, then it might as well be the ones who, for whatever reason, actually can get themselves into scoring positions.
Friday, 20 June 2014
Monday, 16 June 2014
World Cup 2014: End of a Trend
The problem with traveling during the World Cup is that everything moves so quickly - you get on the plane for ten hours, and when you get off again the footballing world has been turned on its head.
Or not. But it is true that I'm now three days behind, and haven't had the chance to regale you with my thoughts on England v Italy, or any of the other matches that have taken place since then.
That said, part of the flight was spent productively, listening to the Guardian's Football Daily podcast, hosted by James Richardson and chums. I may have mentioned it before (it's usually weekly, but goes daily for the big tournaments), but it's a great collection of footballing insight and terrible puns. The timing of the matches means that they have to stay up really late to record it, and some games go missing (like Ivory Coast v Japan). However, I was happy that at least I caught the one where they talked about England v Italy, and that amazing Netherlands v Spain match.
In any case, while listening to the episode about yesterday's matches, one of the gang made an interesting observation, namely that we hadn't had any draws so far. I had, in fact, noticed this too, so I was intrigued when they said it was probably the longest stretch since 1990 that a World Cup has gone without a draw.
Unfortunately, all good things come to an end, and so it proved today when Iran met Nigeria.
Bliss, followed by ennui
The day started rather promisingly. Germany, whom several of James Richardson's cohorts had written off, due to injury problems and the lack of strikers, decided to roll over a strangely quiescent Portugal. Although Portugal did manage to get Pepe sent off, for hitting and then (lightly) head-butting Thomas Müller, so they weren't that quiescent, I suppose.
I don't have a burning hatred of the Portuguese team, so the result didn't give me the warm glow of satisfaction I got when seeing Spain get humbled. It may be because Portugal never wins anything. But it was satisfying to see such a complete demolition of one team by another (and seeing Cristiano Ronaldo, whom I do loathe, made unhappy also helped).
I'll admit I didn't have amazingly high hopes for Iran v Nigeria, but it didn't take me long to realize that neither team actually knew what it was doing. Both were so cagey that they couldn't seem to get more than one man forward at a time, although that made no difference, because they also couldn't string together two passes to save their lives.
Now, I've become concerned lately with the question of all the teams that come to the World Cup but don't win anything. Realistically, in any given World Cup there are maybe four or five teams that can win it, and they always come from Europe or South America. It's great that teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania now participate regularly, but it's hard to come up with any scenario that involves one of them winning. Iran v Nigeria was a masterclass in why that should be.
On the other hand, Ivory Coast v Japan was more lively, and featured goals - I just didn't get to see it because it was on so late. My understanding, though, is that as soon as Didier Drogba came on for the Ivory Coast, Japan fell apart, which hints at a vast gulf between the respective footballing philosophies of both continents. It would just have been nice if the teams that played today had shown any kind of philosophy, or interest in tactics. Hell, it would even have been interesting if they'd had the balls to at least kick each other a few times.
USA! USA! USA!
Luckily, we were straight back to winning ways with USA v Ghana, although that game was also not without its problems. The US did well to score early - I missed the goal, so I don't know how they built up to it, but there can't have been much build-up because it came in the first 30 seconds or so of the match. But that just meant Ghana were chasing the entire time, and an equalizer was inevitable.
Ghana had 62% of the possession, and took 21 shots compared with the US's 8. At one point, Univision showed the difference in passes completed, which was also illuminating: Ghana had managed around 280, while the US was at 180. Seeing that stat, and the fact that Team USA couldn't string together multiple passes, made me wonder what exactly Jürgen Klinsmann is doing as their coach - surely he and the players understand that the passing game is king? This is why Spain has won three tournaments in a row, and England hasn't won anything since 1966.
It was clear, watching both the US and Ghana, that neither team was particularly good tactically. If the US was let down by poor passing and ball control, Ghana suffered from an inability to finish - according to the BBC, despite their enormous number of shots they managed fewer on goal than the US did. Given how rampant Germany was earlier this morning, I find myself a little worried for both the US and Ghana about how they'll cope - I don't think I'd like to see either of them ship more than two or three goals.
On the other hand, they should be fine against Portugal...
Great Expectations
Speaking of which, I said above that Portugal was quiescent, and none more so than Cristiano Ronaldo. This is just continuing proof of the fact that he and the other big names of the moment still have yet to make much impact in key tournaments. Lionel Messi is one example, given that his first World Cup goal came 8 years ago, and his second was yesterday. I don't want to take anything away from the achievement, of course (even if one of the guys from the Guardian suggested, perhaps with a touch too much glee, that it might be taken away from him and listed as an own goal), but given the expectations that always surround Messi, based on his performances for Barcelona, you'd think he could create magical goals out of nothing a bit more often, no?
Wayne Rooney, of course, is even worse - in three World Cups he's scored not a single goal. Part of that may be the bizarre insistence of three separate England managers on playing him out of position; but it's likely also related to the lack of players in key positions. One thing that no one seems to remember is that, back in 2008, before England had failed to qualify for the Euros, then-manager Steve McLaren paired Rooney up front with Emile Heskey, and the team all of a sudden looked fluid and dangerous again.
I'm not such a fool as to suggest that Heskey was an amazing player, but it is true that since 1998 England's game hasn't been that exciting. Someone else on the Football Daily podcast said something about managers choosing the best individual players rather than those who fit together best as a team, and attributed the generally low quality of World Cup football to that tendency. It sounds like a good explanation as well for why the likes of Ronaldo, Messi and Rooney have failed to live up to their own reputations (to say nothing of people like Cameroon's Samuel Eto'o, who probably fails because his entire team doesn't like him and refuses to pass to him).
Or not. But it is true that I'm now three days behind, and haven't had the chance to regale you with my thoughts on England v Italy, or any of the other matches that have taken place since then.
That said, part of the flight was spent productively, listening to the Guardian's Football Daily podcast, hosted by James Richardson and chums. I may have mentioned it before (it's usually weekly, but goes daily for the big tournaments), but it's a great collection of footballing insight and terrible puns. The timing of the matches means that they have to stay up really late to record it, and some games go missing (like Ivory Coast v Japan). However, I was happy that at least I caught the one where they talked about England v Italy, and that amazing Netherlands v Spain match.
In any case, while listening to the episode about yesterday's matches, one of the gang made an interesting observation, namely that we hadn't had any draws so far. I had, in fact, noticed this too, so I was intrigued when they said it was probably the longest stretch since 1990 that a World Cup has gone without a draw.
Unfortunately, all good things come to an end, and so it proved today when Iran met Nigeria.
Bliss, followed by ennui
The day started rather promisingly. Germany, whom several of James Richardson's cohorts had written off, due to injury problems and the lack of strikers, decided to roll over a strangely quiescent Portugal. Although Portugal did manage to get Pepe sent off, for hitting and then (lightly) head-butting Thomas Müller, so they weren't that quiescent, I suppose.
I don't have a burning hatred of the Portuguese team, so the result didn't give me the warm glow of satisfaction I got when seeing Spain get humbled. It may be because Portugal never wins anything. But it was satisfying to see such a complete demolition of one team by another (and seeing Cristiano Ronaldo, whom I do loathe, made unhappy also helped).
I'll admit I didn't have amazingly high hopes for Iran v Nigeria, but it didn't take me long to realize that neither team actually knew what it was doing. Both were so cagey that they couldn't seem to get more than one man forward at a time, although that made no difference, because they also couldn't string together two passes to save their lives.
Now, I've become concerned lately with the question of all the teams that come to the World Cup but don't win anything. Realistically, in any given World Cup there are maybe four or five teams that can win it, and they always come from Europe or South America. It's great that teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania now participate regularly, but it's hard to come up with any scenario that involves one of them winning. Iran v Nigeria was a masterclass in why that should be.
On the other hand, Ivory Coast v Japan was more lively, and featured goals - I just didn't get to see it because it was on so late. My understanding, though, is that as soon as Didier Drogba came on for the Ivory Coast, Japan fell apart, which hints at a vast gulf between the respective footballing philosophies of both continents. It would just have been nice if the teams that played today had shown any kind of philosophy, or interest in tactics. Hell, it would even have been interesting if they'd had the balls to at least kick each other a few times.
USA! USA! USA!
Luckily, we were straight back to winning ways with USA v Ghana, although that game was also not without its problems. The US did well to score early - I missed the goal, so I don't know how they built up to it, but there can't have been much build-up because it came in the first 30 seconds or so of the match. But that just meant Ghana were chasing the entire time, and an equalizer was inevitable.
Ghana had 62% of the possession, and took 21 shots compared with the US's 8. At one point, Univision showed the difference in passes completed, which was also illuminating: Ghana had managed around 280, while the US was at 180. Seeing that stat, and the fact that Team USA couldn't string together multiple passes, made me wonder what exactly Jürgen Klinsmann is doing as their coach - surely he and the players understand that the passing game is king? This is why Spain has won three tournaments in a row, and England hasn't won anything since 1966.
It was clear, watching both the US and Ghana, that neither team was particularly good tactically. If the US was let down by poor passing and ball control, Ghana suffered from an inability to finish - according to the BBC, despite their enormous number of shots they managed fewer on goal than the US did. Given how rampant Germany was earlier this morning, I find myself a little worried for both the US and Ghana about how they'll cope - I don't think I'd like to see either of them ship more than two or three goals.
On the other hand, they should be fine against Portugal...
Great Expectations
Speaking of which, I said above that Portugal was quiescent, and none more so than Cristiano Ronaldo. This is just continuing proof of the fact that he and the other big names of the moment still have yet to make much impact in key tournaments. Lionel Messi is one example, given that his first World Cup goal came 8 years ago, and his second was yesterday. I don't want to take anything away from the achievement, of course (even if one of the guys from the Guardian suggested, perhaps with a touch too much glee, that it might be taken away from him and listed as an own goal), but given the expectations that always surround Messi, based on his performances for Barcelona, you'd think he could create magical goals out of nothing a bit more often, no?
Wayne Rooney, of course, is even worse - in three World Cups he's scored not a single goal. Part of that may be the bizarre insistence of three separate England managers on playing him out of position; but it's likely also related to the lack of players in key positions. One thing that no one seems to remember is that, back in 2008, before England had failed to qualify for the Euros, then-manager Steve McLaren paired Rooney up front with Emile Heskey, and the team all of a sudden looked fluid and dangerous again.
I'm not such a fool as to suggest that Heskey was an amazing player, but it is true that since 1998 England's game hasn't been that exciting. Someone else on the Football Daily podcast said something about managers choosing the best individual players rather than those who fit together best as a team, and attributed the generally low quality of World Cup football to that tendency. It sounds like a good explanation as well for why the likes of Ronaldo, Messi and Rooney have failed to live up to their own reputations (to say nothing of people like Cameroon's Samuel Eto'o, who probably fails because his entire team doesn't like him and refuses to pass to him).
Saturday, 14 June 2014
World Cup 2014: We Have Liftoff
Well, I've been off for a while, haven't I? The vagaries of travel and of unreliable internet kept me from holding forth on a variety of subjects the last couple of weekends, but now I'm back, and celebrating my return with some thoughts on the World Cup in Brazil!
We've had two matchdays so far, which comes out to four matches. All four ended in wins, which is perhaps not that surprising for this early stage of the tournament, and only one big upset, during the Netherlands' 5-1 thrashing of Spain.
We have goal-line technology, now we need football-boot technology
We've also already picked up our big refereeing controversy of the tournament - if the South Africa tournament was characterized by ghost goals, this one already seems to have more than its fair share of goals disallowed for offside. In fact, not a single match has passed so far without it - in some cases fairly, and in other cases less so. The question, beyond what can be done about it, is: does this herald a new attacking mentality in the global game?
It's kind of become a truism among football's eminences grises that the quality of World Cup football isn't what it used to be. And it's true that we've frequently had games that were dour to the point of Scottishness. Although one of the main purveyors of this talk is Scottish himself, Sir Alex Ferguson - and he's never been above making statements like that to promote his own interests (namely, not letting his best players leave for international duty).
But for this tournament so far, it looks like the teams are really going for it, which is positive. Even Australia, which yielded to the inevitable last night and lost 3-1 against Chile, kept on playing up until the 90th minute, and looked like equalizing at several points (they had a goal disallowed too, albeit justly). This trend will probably end when we get the mid-tier European teams playing, like Switzerland (who have some terrible, terrible games in their past).
So I'm hoping that we keep seeing offsides, with concomitant disallowed goals, for the rest of the tournament. As a friend in college always said, it means the teams are getting forward and going for goal.
Group A: First blood goes to the New World
Everybody talks about the Group of Death, and it's defined differently depending on who you ask. But the one thing that's not in doubt is that Brazil will get out of its group - after a number of tournaments held in countries that weren't particularly strong (Japan in 2002, South Africa in 2010), it's nice to see another tournament where the host is expected to do well. And they got off to a good start with their 3-1 win against Croatia.
A couple of people I chatted to suggested that Croatia could have gone on to win, but that's just fanciful. Croatia never seriously looked like scoring, and the only reason they did was because of an own goal. My thought, and I'm ready to be proved wrong, is that Croatia's still reliant on too many players who've been around forever - Pletikosa and Olic, for instance.
Mexico seems to have broken with its past a little more (ie, Cuauhtemoc Blanco has finally retired from international football), but they looked to have the same problem with finishing. Although in their 1-0 win against Cameroon, they suffered two disallowed goals, so the scoreline could have been much higher.
Given that Brazil is clearly the strongest team in the group, the question now is who will come second, and follow them into the next round. Mexico is best-placed to do so currently, but still needs to get at least a point against Croatia to advance. However, Croatia's already finished the hard task of playing the hosts, so they're probably banking on gaining their points from Mexico and Cameroon anyway.
And Cameroon? My initial guess had been that they'd come second in the group, possibly for emotional rather than footballing reasons, but that looks unlikely now. Their next match is against Croatia, who desperately need points to progress, but even if Cameroon wins they'll face Brazil next, and their only hope then will be a draw against hosts who are already through and looking to rest key players. But it's Brazil's first World Cup at home since 1950, and they'll be looking to dominate.
Group B: Rematch
Now this was a real Group of Death. World and European champions Spain, 2010 finalists the Netherlands, and wild card Chile looked like the ones with the best chances of going through, and poor, creaky Australia looked like it was there to make up the numbers. Now that each team has played its first match, the group still looks that way, although I don't think anyone was expecting the Dutch to beat Spain so handily.
It's a cliche that you never know which Dutch team will show up on the day. Even in 2010, they got to the final in stylish fashion, only to change their approach at the last minute and act like they were up for a gold medal in taekwondo rather than football.
So it was a bit surprising to see them so rampant against Spain last night. Interestingly, at half-time it was pretty even, with both teams on the scoresheet. But then Spain inexplicably collapsed and let in 4 in the second half, suggesting that they aren't quite as invincible as in previous tournaments.
Australia, meanwhile, went down fairly predictably against Chile, although as I said, they didn't exactly roll over. After pulling one goal back, through a great header by Tim Cahill, they looked like equalizing until about the very end. Unfortunately, this may be the high point for them, as they now have to play an apparently in-form Netherlands next, followed by a Spanish team that will be both desperate to progress and good enough to do so. They'll be unlucky not to snatch the wooden spoon, to be honest.
In fact, I still think Spain and the Netherlands will be the ones to go through to the next round, as Spain will have taken last night's result as a big wake-up call, and I don't believe Chile has the ability to counteract Spain's normal tactics. The question, though, will be how far they go beyond the group stage. I initially guessed Spain would win the group, which would allow them to avoid Brazil until the final - but now it looks like they'll come second, and will face the hosts immediately.
In that case, it could be a short tournament for Spain, as Brazil famously thrashed them in the Confederations Cup last year. But given that Spain won in 2010 after losing their opening game (albeit not so spectacularly), it would be premature to rule them out even so. And if they do beat Brazil in the next round, it'll be hard to see who can beat them after that.
We've had two matchdays so far, which comes out to four matches. All four ended in wins, which is perhaps not that surprising for this early stage of the tournament, and only one big upset, during the Netherlands' 5-1 thrashing of Spain.
We have goal-line technology, now we need football-boot technology
We've also already picked up our big refereeing controversy of the tournament - if the South Africa tournament was characterized by ghost goals, this one already seems to have more than its fair share of goals disallowed for offside. In fact, not a single match has passed so far without it - in some cases fairly, and in other cases less so. The question, beyond what can be done about it, is: does this herald a new attacking mentality in the global game?
It's kind of become a truism among football's eminences grises that the quality of World Cup football isn't what it used to be. And it's true that we've frequently had games that were dour to the point of Scottishness. Although one of the main purveyors of this talk is Scottish himself, Sir Alex Ferguson - and he's never been above making statements like that to promote his own interests (namely, not letting his best players leave for international duty).
But for this tournament so far, it looks like the teams are really going for it, which is positive. Even Australia, which yielded to the inevitable last night and lost 3-1 against Chile, kept on playing up until the 90th minute, and looked like equalizing at several points (they had a goal disallowed too, albeit justly). This trend will probably end when we get the mid-tier European teams playing, like Switzerland (who have some terrible, terrible games in their past).
So I'm hoping that we keep seeing offsides, with concomitant disallowed goals, for the rest of the tournament. As a friend in college always said, it means the teams are getting forward and going for goal.
Group A: First blood goes to the New World
Everybody talks about the Group of Death, and it's defined differently depending on who you ask. But the one thing that's not in doubt is that Brazil will get out of its group - after a number of tournaments held in countries that weren't particularly strong (Japan in 2002, South Africa in 2010), it's nice to see another tournament where the host is expected to do well. And they got off to a good start with their 3-1 win against Croatia.
A couple of people I chatted to suggested that Croatia could have gone on to win, but that's just fanciful. Croatia never seriously looked like scoring, and the only reason they did was because of an own goal. My thought, and I'm ready to be proved wrong, is that Croatia's still reliant on too many players who've been around forever - Pletikosa and Olic, for instance.
Mexico seems to have broken with its past a little more (ie, Cuauhtemoc Blanco has finally retired from international football), but they looked to have the same problem with finishing. Although in their 1-0 win against Cameroon, they suffered two disallowed goals, so the scoreline could have been much higher.
Given that Brazil is clearly the strongest team in the group, the question now is who will come second, and follow them into the next round. Mexico is best-placed to do so currently, but still needs to get at least a point against Croatia to advance. However, Croatia's already finished the hard task of playing the hosts, so they're probably banking on gaining their points from Mexico and Cameroon anyway.
And Cameroon? My initial guess had been that they'd come second in the group, possibly for emotional rather than footballing reasons, but that looks unlikely now. Their next match is against Croatia, who desperately need points to progress, but even if Cameroon wins they'll face Brazil next, and their only hope then will be a draw against hosts who are already through and looking to rest key players. But it's Brazil's first World Cup at home since 1950, and they'll be looking to dominate.
Group B: Rematch
Now this was a real Group of Death. World and European champions Spain, 2010 finalists the Netherlands, and wild card Chile looked like the ones with the best chances of going through, and poor, creaky Australia looked like it was there to make up the numbers. Now that each team has played its first match, the group still looks that way, although I don't think anyone was expecting the Dutch to beat Spain so handily.
It's a cliche that you never know which Dutch team will show up on the day. Even in 2010, they got to the final in stylish fashion, only to change their approach at the last minute and act like they were up for a gold medal in taekwondo rather than football.
So it was a bit surprising to see them so rampant against Spain last night. Interestingly, at half-time it was pretty even, with both teams on the scoresheet. But then Spain inexplicably collapsed and let in 4 in the second half, suggesting that they aren't quite as invincible as in previous tournaments.
Australia, meanwhile, went down fairly predictably against Chile, although as I said, they didn't exactly roll over. After pulling one goal back, through a great header by Tim Cahill, they looked like equalizing until about the very end. Unfortunately, this may be the high point for them, as they now have to play an apparently in-form Netherlands next, followed by a Spanish team that will be both desperate to progress and good enough to do so. They'll be unlucky not to snatch the wooden spoon, to be honest.
In fact, I still think Spain and the Netherlands will be the ones to go through to the next round, as Spain will have taken last night's result as a big wake-up call, and I don't believe Chile has the ability to counteract Spain's normal tactics. The question, though, will be how far they go beyond the group stage. I initially guessed Spain would win the group, which would allow them to avoid Brazil until the final - but now it looks like they'll come second, and will face the hosts immediately.
In that case, it could be a short tournament for Spain, as Brazil famously thrashed them in the Confederations Cup last year. But given that Spain won in 2010 after losing their opening game (albeit not so spectacularly), it would be premature to rule them out even so. And if they do beat Brazil in the next round, it'll be hard to see who can beat them after that.
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Champions League 2014: A Cruel Old Game
So the Champions League season of 2013-14 has now ended, marking the end of the wider football season throughout Europe. Real Madrid beat local rivals Atletico Madrid 4-1, although even knowing that the game went to extra time obscures just how heart-breaking that scoreline must be to Atletico fans.
I'll admit I didn't catch all of it. I was at an SF convention in Santa Clara (Baycon 2014, to be precise), so I arrived at the hotel shortly after kick-off and had to go to a writing workshop before the end of the match, although I did hang around long enough to see Real equalize.
Long story short, then, is this: Atletico scored relatively early on, hung on until about the 94th minute (the ref tacked on an extra 5 minutes), and then Sergio Ramos equalized, sending the game into overtime. I was pretty surprised to see the final score after my workshop ended - I wouldn't have expected Real's players to have that much left in them.
So, in keeping with previous blogs about the Champions League final, are there any lessons to be drawn from this year's big match?
Well, to start, my prediction from last year of an era of German dominance seems not to have come true. I'd suggested that because Bayern Munich had made it to two consecutive finals (and another in 2010), the German league was in the ascendant, replacing the English Premier League, which had pretty much dominated the final every year since 2005. It's hard to draw conclusions from a single match, but given how Bayern rolled over when confronted by Real Madrid in the semi-finals, I'm finding it hard to continue arguing that Germany has caught up to the English or Spanish leagues in terms of quality (with heavy heart, I'm forced to admit that the Italian league has clearly been overtaken by the Germans).
Let's not forget that Bayern's win against Borussia Dortmund last year, while emphatic enough, was still only against a local competitor - its two previous attempts at the Champions League final, against Inter in 2010 and Chelsea in 2012, ended in defeat. So, like I was arguing about English dominance two years ago, German dominance in the Champions League final comes with something of an asterisk.
On the other hand, there were two teams from Spain in this year's final, and three in the semi-finals (Atletico saw off Barcelona, much as they did in the league; Barcelona failed to catch a single break this year, as they also lost to Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey). Moreover, Sevilla also won the Europa League, making it a very good year for Spanish football.
I don't know if this means we're in for a period of Spanish dominance, though. Atletico had an amazing year, but - without being as knowledgeable about Spanish football as the great Sid Lowe - I suspect they slipped into the breach caused by a Barcelona team that appears to be on the wane. Barcelona and Real Madrid are two clubs with extraordinarily deep pockets, which Atletico may not be able to match - they may find themselves consolidating much slower than their rivals.
I don't want to take anything away from Atletico's achievement, of course. The Spanish league was much closer this year than it's been in years, and Atletico did well to hold their nerve in the final few games and see off their rivals, particularly in the last couple of weeks of the campaign (in marked contrast to Liverpool, who could have won their first league title in years if it hadn't been for... Crystal Palace). If they lost in the Champions League final to Real, well... a tournament final isn't like a league match. You have to be able to keep running for those extra 30 minutes, and clearly Real Madrid has more stamina for that kind of thing.
So the lesson learned is that Real Madrid is still one of the giants of European football, but we knew that already. Bayern Munich may have run away with the league title in Germany, but they'll have to strengthen considerably to challenge Real next year. Barcelona is also going to continue to compete, although under their new coach they'll likely be in a rebuilding phase next season. It won't be as dramatic a rebuilding phase as Manchester United's, so Barcelona will surely continue to figure in the knockout rounds of the tournament.
As for the English clubs, I can't really see them storming the tournament next season - Manchester City's record isn't great, neither is Arsenal's, and Liverpool hasn't played in the Champions League since the 2009-10 season (and hasn't appeared in Europe at all since 2012-13). Chelsea is likely to be the best hope for England in the Champions League, but who knows what'll happen there? Jose Mourinho could be lured away, or Roman Abramovich could throw all his toys out of the pram and sack him, or any number of things.
In any case, we'll have some more clarity once the World Cup is over, and the clubs have settled in with new managers and players. But if a team outside of the Big 3 countries makes it to the final, I'll be very surprised.
I'll admit I didn't catch all of it. I was at an SF convention in Santa Clara (Baycon 2014, to be precise), so I arrived at the hotel shortly after kick-off and had to go to a writing workshop before the end of the match, although I did hang around long enough to see Real equalize.
Long story short, then, is this: Atletico scored relatively early on, hung on until about the 94th minute (the ref tacked on an extra 5 minutes), and then Sergio Ramos equalized, sending the game into overtime. I was pretty surprised to see the final score after my workshop ended - I wouldn't have expected Real's players to have that much left in them.
So, in keeping with previous blogs about the Champions League final, are there any lessons to be drawn from this year's big match?
Well, to start, my prediction from last year of an era of German dominance seems not to have come true. I'd suggested that because Bayern Munich had made it to two consecutive finals (and another in 2010), the German league was in the ascendant, replacing the English Premier League, which had pretty much dominated the final every year since 2005. It's hard to draw conclusions from a single match, but given how Bayern rolled over when confronted by Real Madrid in the semi-finals, I'm finding it hard to continue arguing that Germany has caught up to the English or Spanish leagues in terms of quality (with heavy heart, I'm forced to admit that the Italian league has clearly been overtaken by the Germans).
Let's not forget that Bayern's win against Borussia Dortmund last year, while emphatic enough, was still only against a local competitor - its two previous attempts at the Champions League final, against Inter in 2010 and Chelsea in 2012, ended in defeat. So, like I was arguing about English dominance two years ago, German dominance in the Champions League final comes with something of an asterisk.
On the other hand, there were two teams from Spain in this year's final, and three in the semi-finals (Atletico saw off Barcelona, much as they did in the league; Barcelona failed to catch a single break this year, as they also lost to Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey). Moreover, Sevilla also won the Europa League, making it a very good year for Spanish football.
I don't know if this means we're in for a period of Spanish dominance, though. Atletico had an amazing year, but - without being as knowledgeable about Spanish football as the great Sid Lowe - I suspect they slipped into the breach caused by a Barcelona team that appears to be on the wane. Barcelona and Real Madrid are two clubs with extraordinarily deep pockets, which Atletico may not be able to match - they may find themselves consolidating much slower than their rivals.
I don't want to take anything away from Atletico's achievement, of course. The Spanish league was much closer this year than it's been in years, and Atletico did well to hold their nerve in the final few games and see off their rivals, particularly in the last couple of weeks of the campaign (in marked contrast to Liverpool, who could have won their first league title in years if it hadn't been for... Crystal Palace). If they lost in the Champions League final to Real, well... a tournament final isn't like a league match. You have to be able to keep running for those extra 30 minutes, and clearly Real Madrid has more stamina for that kind of thing.
So the lesson learned is that Real Madrid is still one of the giants of European football, but we knew that already. Bayern Munich may have run away with the league title in Germany, but they'll have to strengthen considerably to challenge Real next year. Barcelona is also going to continue to compete, although under their new coach they'll likely be in a rebuilding phase next season. It won't be as dramatic a rebuilding phase as Manchester United's, so Barcelona will surely continue to figure in the knockout rounds of the tournament.
As for the English clubs, I can't really see them storming the tournament next season - Manchester City's record isn't great, neither is Arsenal's, and Liverpool hasn't played in the Champions League since the 2009-10 season (and hasn't appeared in Europe at all since 2012-13). Chelsea is likely to be the best hope for England in the Champions League, but who knows what'll happen there? Jose Mourinho could be lured away, or Roman Abramovich could throw all his toys out of the pram and sack him, or any number of things.
In any case, we'll have some more clarity once the World Cup is over, and the clubs have settled in with new managers and players. But if a team outside of the Big 3 countries makes it to the final, I'll be very surprised.
Sunday, 18 May 2014
Mostly Plants: The problem with labelling
There have been a number of adjustments to moving from London back to the Bay Area, when it comes to health and diet. The big, obvious one is that I don't walk as much as I used to - I've had to get really anal about setting daily and monthly step goals, and ensuring that I meet them. Another is the price of food. For all the talk about how expensive it is in the UK, staples like milk, bread and fruit cost way more here than they do there (and the quality is about the same).
But the most jarring difference, and the one that's really changed how I consume food - or more appropriately, drinks - is in how things are labeled.
The UK, presumably as a result of EU regulations, uses standardized measures in its food labeling, so that you can easily compare how many calories are in 100mL of Coke (42) versus the same volume of orange juice (55). Solid foods like cereal or potato chips are compared in a standard amount of 100g, and if they come in a package smaller than that, the nutritional information will reflect how many calories and grams of sodium, sugar and fat are in the full pack. Cereal boxes go one step further, and list nutritional information for a hypothetical bowl of cereal with milk.
Here in the US, all of that goes out the window. Everything is in "servings", and these servings rarely reflect how people actually consume food or drink. For single items of, to name an example at random, drinks the system is actually not too badly designed - a 355mL can of Coke is one serving, and so is one 16oz bottle of Snapple peach iced tea. As a result you learn that both contain the same amount of sugar per serving (39g). Since I used to drink iced tea as a healthy alternative to soda, this was not a particularly welcome revelation, but my intake of Snapple has decreased dramatically (full disclosure: I'm currently drinking a bottle of Snapple as I write this, but it's okay, because today is my cheat day).
The system gets complicated as you move up to larger containers, or to other brands. I've just dug a pair of empty bottles out of my recycling crate - one is a 16oz bottle of organic oolong peach-flavored tea, and the other is a 20oz bottle of peach-flavored Joe Tea. Despite the fact that it's the same size as my bottle of Snapple, the oolong claims its servings are 8oz, meaning there are two per container; it lists its sugar per serving as 16g, which at first glance looks way healthier than the Snapple, but of course it just means when I finished the bottle I polished off 32g of sugar - slightly better than the Snapple, but not necessarily great, when you consider that the recommended daily amount of sugar for an adult is 37g.
The Joe tea, meanwhile, sets its servings at 8oz too, and says it contains 2.5 servings. Each serving has a tooth-melting 24g of sugar, so if I'd drunk the entire bottle in one sitting I'd have blasted my pancreas with 60g of sugar (luckily, I drank it over the course of three days). And it gets worse the more sizes and types of container you throw into the mix.
It's the same story with cereal, but even worse. I have two empty boxes in my recycling and one full box - two set a serving at one cup, and the third says it's 3/4 of a cup. The problem is that a cup of Basic 4 is listed as 55g, a cup of Raisin Bran is 59g and a full cup of Special K Chocolatey Delight (don't judge, OK?) is around 4g. Per cup, the Basic 4 has 13g of sugar, Raisin Bran has 18g and the Special K comes out to a relatively sedate 12g; sedate, that is, until you recall that a serving (3/4 of a cup, remember) is around half the mass of a cup of Raisin Bran; if you weighed 59g of both, the Special K would contain about the same amount of sugar as the Raisin Bran. It's a little worrying when you consider that I have one size of bowl, and I throw the same amount in every morning.
The point of all these numbers and calculations is to show that even if you're diligent and always check the label to see what you're putting into your body, it's easy to get misled. That's pretty disgraceful - and I think it goes to show just how much food companies get away with. Judging by the examples above, I think it's fair to say that they really don't want you to know what's in the food you buy.
Which brings us to the GM food debate. I'm not against GMO food in principle, but I do have problems with those who don't want it to be labeled as such. Leaving aside the food companies who want to avoid labeling GMO foods for dishonest reasons, there are also a lot of sensible people who get misled into arguing against labeling, because a lot of the people in favor of labeling argue it in terms of food safety. It's an emotive issue, but it does no one any good to argue it in apocalyptic terms; GMO foods need to be labeled so that people know what they're putting into their bodies, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if the stuff kills you or makes you live a thousand years.
Instead of dishonestly (there's that word again!) trying to hide the fact that their wares may or may not be GMO, food companies should be engaging in an honest debate about why they want to sell us that stuff. If it can survive parasites or transportation, or is reinforced with nutrients that don't usually form in that food, we should be able to know; and if it confers no benefit except to line Monsanto's pockets, we need to know that too.
But the most jarring difference, and the one that's really changed how I consume food - or more appropriately, drinks - is in how things are labeled.
The UK, presumably as a result of EU regulations, uses standardized measures in its food labeling, so that you can easily compare how many calories are in 100mL of Coke (42) versus the same volume of orange juice (55). Solid foods like cereal or potato chips are compared in a standard amount of 100g, and if they come in a package smaller than that, the nutritional information will reflect how many calories and grams of sodium, sugar and fat are in the full pack. Cereal boxes go one step further, and list nutritional information for a hypothetical bowl of cereal with milk.
Here in the US, all of that goes out the window. Everything is in "servings", and these servings rarely reflect how people actually consume food or drink. For single items of, to name an example at random, drinks the system is actually not too badly designed - a 355mL can of Coke is one serving, and so is one 16oz bottle of Snapple peach iced tea. As a result you learn that both contain the same amount of sugar per serving (39g). Since I used to drink iced tea as a healthy alternative to soda, this was not a particularly welcome revelation, but my intake of Snapple has decreased dramatically (full disclosure: I'm currently drinking a bottle of Snapple as I write this, but it's okay, because today is my cheat day).
The system gets complicated as you move up to larger containers, or to other brands. I've just dug a pair of empty bottles out of my recycling crate - one is a 16oz bottle of organic oolong peach-flavored tea, and the other is a 20oz bottle of peach-flavored Joe Tea. Despite the fact that it's the same size as my bottle of Snapple, the oolong claims its servings are 8oz, meaning there are two per container; it lists its sugar per serving as 16g, which at first glance looks way healthier than the Snapple, but of course it just means when I finished the bottle I polished off 32g of sugar - slightly better than the Snapple, but not necessarily great, when you consider that the recommended daily amount of sugar for an adult is 37g.
The Joe tea, meanwhile, sets its servings at 8oz too, and says it contains 2.5 servings. Each serving has a tooth-melting 24g of sugar, so if I'd drunk the entire bottle in one sitting I'd have blasted my pancreas with 60g of sugar (luckily, I drank it over the course of three days). And it gets worse the more sizes and types of container you throw into the mix.
It's the same story with cereal, but even worse. I have two empty boxes in my recycling and one full box - two set a serving at one cup, and the third says it's 3/4 of a cup. The problem is that a cup of Basic 4 is listed as 55g, a cup of Raisin Bran is 59g and a full cup of Special K Chocolatey Delight (don't judge, OK?) is around 4g. Per cup, the Basic 4 has 13g of sugar, Raisin Bran has 18g and the Special K comes out to a relatively sedate 12g; sedate, that is, until you recall that a serving (3/4 of a cup, remember) is around half the mass of a cup of Raisin Bran; if you weighed 59g of both, the Special K would contain about the same amount of sugar as the Raisin Bran. It's a little worrying when you consider that I have one size of bowl, and I throw the same amount in every morning.
The point of all these numbers and calculations is to show that even if you're diligent and always check the label to see what you're putting into your body, it's easy to get misled. That's pretty disgraceful - and I think it goes to show just how much food companies get away with. Judging by the examples above, I think it's fair to say that they really don't want you to know what's in the food you buy.
Which brings us to the GM food debate. I'm not against GMO food in principle, but I do have problems with those who don't want it to be labeled as such. Leaving aside the food companies who want to avoid labeling GMO foods for dishonest reasons, there are also a lot of sensible people who get misled into arguing against labeling, because a lot of the people in favor of labeling argue it in terms of food safety. It's an emotive issue, but it does no one any good to argue it in apocalyptic terms; GMO foods need to be labeled so that people know what they're putting into their bodies, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if the stuff kills you or makes you live a thousand years.
Instead of dishonestly (there's that word again!) trying to hide the fact that their wares may or may not be GMO, food companies should be engaging in an honest debate about why they want to sell us that stuff. If it can survive parasites or transportation, or is reinforced with nutrients that don't usually form in that food, we should be able to know; and if it confers no benefit except to line Monsanto's pockets, we need to know that too.
Saturday, 10 May 2014
At The Midpoint
So I turned 35 yesterday.
While I've never led a particularly dangerous life, it does feel kind of weird that I made it to this age. Even when I turned 30, the next five years seemed so remote that I don't think I ever really imagined what they'd be like. On the other hand, 40 now seems like it's coming at me like a runaway train.
As I'm sure I've hinted here before, I'm not always satisfied with where I am in life - I always feel like I could be doing more interesting stuff. I still want to get in better shape, travel to more places, make more money from sources other than my salaried job, meet a lady that I like and who, for once, likes me back. All the normal stuff, I guess.
None of that stuff is out of my reach (at least, I hope not). Thirty-five may be the last opportunity for me to get to a Batman-level of fitness, but at least I feel like I could realistically do it, or at least get closer to it than I am now - I figure I could still shave 15 or 20 minutes off my half-marathon time (incidentally, I had a great half-marathon last weekend!). And, as I like to joke, once I'm too old to be Batman, I can always be Iron Man instead.
Similarly, financial independence and travel both seem within reach. I'm not in a hurry to buy a house, in part because I only ever seem to live in places where I'll never be able to afford it, and I'm working on building up my finances at least so that I'll have a reasonable amount to live off in retirement (although I figure if I can ever turn the writing into my primary income stream, I probably won't retire).
Relationship stuff feels a little problematic, of course. One of the most useless pieces of advice - after "just be yourself" - is to avoid comparing yourself to other people. But it's tough to avoid, particularly in this area of my life. My friends in London are all in relationships: almost all are married and most also have kids (hell, some are even on their second kids). My friends in the Bay Area haven't really started having kids, but they've certainly all found their life partners by now. And still dating success seems to elude me (although watch this space).
Now, the reason I mention my lack of success in dating is because, in contrast to all those other things I want to accomplish, it feels like it does come with an expiration date. Objectively that's nonsense, but even ignoring the fact that all my friends are coupled up and settled down, the culture places a lot of emphasis on getting married young, even if people of my generation are marrying later and having fewer kids as a result. It's also true that I'm now three years older than my dad was when I was born, which is kind of a sobering thought.
Looping back around to the point, the reason this failure to settle down with a partner rankles is because, as I said above, I don't feel like I've spent that much time accomplishing other goals. My professional success has come in the last two years or so, and isn't even in the field that I feel is my calling. With regard to traveling, I've managed some good trips in the last few years, but I still haven't scratched the surface of all the places I want to experience.
Just to be clear, of course, I'm not really hitting some kind of mid-life crisis - I've heard that defined as the period when a bunch of doors close that you thought would always stay open. Realistically, pretty much all of my doors are still open - I'm unlikely to live in all the countries or cities I'd like to live in, but I figure I'm more likely to meet someone by not living as a nomad.
I guess I'm just taking stock, as I frequently like to, and trying to determine where I am in relation to where I'd like to be. If there's a pervasive regret, it's that I could/should have started doing that earlier, because I presume that if I'd been more focused earlier in life, I'd be closer to my goals now. But at least I have started now, and there has been progress (though the pace still feels glacial sometimes).
Taking stock at birthdays - especially milestones - is normal, though, right? And as I said earlier this year, it's good to give yourself a break sometimes - if you're not where you want to be, you still have time to fix it. A friend once called me out for making long-term plans, saying we weren't getting any younger. But let's be honest, I can realistically make it to 90 or 95. Despite this post's title, there's still plenty of time ahead of me, and it can all be more productive than the years behind me (let's be honest, I wasn't going to do much traveling or building my finances before the age of 10 anyway). Check back in a year, and let's see what I say then.
(But also check back in next week, when I'll hopefully be in a less introspective mood.)
While I've never led a particularly dangerous life, it does feel kind of weird that I made it to this age. Even when I turned 30, the next five years seemed so remote that I don't think I ever really imagined what they'd be like. On the other hand, 40 now seems like it's coming at me like a runaway train.
As I'm sure I've hinted here before, I'm not always satisfied with where I am in life - I always feel like I could be doing more interesting stuff. I still want to get in better shape, travel to more places, make more money from sources other than my salaried job, meet a lady that I like and who, for once, likes me back. All the normal stuff, I guess.
None of that stuff is out of my reach (at least, I hope not). Thirty-five may be the last opportunity for me to get to a Batman-level of fitness, but at least I feel like I could realistically do it, or at least get closer to it than I am now - I figure I could still shave 15 or 20 minutes off my half-marathon time (incidentally, I had a great half-marathon last weekend!). And, as I like to joke, once I'm too old to be Batman, I can always be Iron Man instead.
Similarly, financial independence and travel both seem within reach. I'm not in a hurry to buy a house, in part because I only ever seem to live in places where I'll never be able to afford it, and I'm working on building up my finances at least so that I'll have a reasonable amount to live off in retirement (although I figure if I can ever turn the writing into my primary income stream, I probably won't retire).
Relationship stuff feels a little problematic, of course. One of the most useless pieces of advice - after "just be yourself" - is to avoid comparing yourself to other people. But it's tough to avoid, particularly in this area of my life. My friends in London are all in relationships: almost all are married and most also have kids (hell, some are even on their second kids). My friends in the Bay Area haven't really started having kids, but they've certainly all found their life partners by now. And still dating success seems to elude me (although watch this space).
Now, the reason I mention my lack of success in dating is because, in contrast to all those other things I want to accomplish, it feels like it does come with an expiration date. Objectively that's nonsense, but even ignoring the fact that all my friends are coupled up and settled down, the culture places a lot of emphasis on getting married young, even if people of my generation are marrying later and having fewer kids as a result. It's also true that I'm now three years older than my dad was when I was born, which is kind of a sobering thought.
Looping back around to the point, the reason this failure to settle down with a partner rankles is because, as I said above, I don't feel like I've spent that much time accomplishing other goals. My professional success has come in the last two years or so, and isn't even in the field that I feel is my calling. With regard to traveling, I've managed some good trips in the last few years, but I still haven't scratched the surface of all the places I want to experience.
Just to be clear, of course, I'm not really hitting some kind of mid-life crisis - I've heard that defined as the period when a bunch of doors close that you thought would always stay open. Realistically, pretty much all of my doors are still open - I'm unlikely to live in all the countries or cities I'd like to live in, but I figure I'm more likely to meet someone by not living as a nomad.
I guess I'm just taking stock, as I frequently like to, and trying to determine where I am in relation to where I'd like to be. If there's a pervasive regret, it's that I could/should have started doing that earlier, because I presume that if I'd been more focused earlier in life, I'd be closer to my goals now. But at least I have started now, and there has been progress (though the pace still feels glacial sometimes).
Taking stock at birthdays - especially milestones - is normal, though, right? And as I said earlier this year, it's good to give yourself a break sometimes - if you're not where you want to be, you still have time to fix it. A friend once called me out for making long-term plans, saying we weren't getting any younger. But let's be honest, I can realistically make it to 90 or 95. Despite this post's title, there's still plenty of time ahead of me, and it can all be more productive than the years behind me (let's be honest, I wasn't going to do much traveling or building my finances before the age of 10 anyway). Check back in a year, and let's see what I say then.
(But also check back in next week, when I'll hopefully be in a less introspective mood.)
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Life Does Find a Way, Dr Tyson - Just Not Always
I'd like to state up front that I am a fan of Neil Degrasse Tyson - I fully approve of his mission to raise the profile of science, particularly since America seems to have a really low opinion of the subject to begin with (can you name an American scientist? The British can name dozens, or more, of their own). If I haven't gotten to watch Cosmos yet, it's only because I have limited time to hang out watching on-demand TV at my mom's house. But I want to get to it.
My main exposure to him, therefore, is through the Nerdist Podcast (maybe they should start advertising here?). He's been on the show three times now, and his discussions have always been fascinating, not to say mind-bending - the first time he described the 4-dimensional hypercube, or a cube in four (spatial) dimensions.
But - and this is in full recognition of the fact that Dr Tyson is enormously smarter than I am - sometimes he says some silly, silly things. Or at least, things I disagree with (I sometimes have trouble telling the difference). Case in point: in his third appearance on the Nerdist, Dr Tyson takes issue with the statement that "life always finds a way", pointing out that 97% of all species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct.
My response is, this latter fact doesn't prove that life doesn't find a way - it just proves that the species who make up that unfortunate 97% didn't. On the other hand, the fact that we're here to debate the point seems to indicate to me just how tenacious life is.
Put another way, there have been times when the planet's climate has been seriously inimical to life, for instance in the exact moment that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit the Earth. As scientists in movies like to say, that was an extinction-level event. But while it wiped out a great many species, it didn't wipe them all out, because I'm here typing these words, and, one hopes, you're reading them. We couldn't be doing this if our shared rat-like ancestor (and more to the point, its entire species) had perished along with the dinosaurs.
Of course, I don't want to put too much faith in a throwaway line from "Jurassic Park", but you also don't need to look that far back to find examples that disprove Dr Tyson's critique of the "life finds a way" statement. As you head to certain areas, you find amazing adaptations to extreme conditions - camels that can cross deserts by hoarding water in their humps, Australian trees that have adapted to survive in landscapes full of elements that would kill other trees... even the creatures that live at pressures that would crush us in an instant.
And then there are the extremophiles. These are creatures - mainly in the form of bacteria, or other one-celled organisms - that can survive extremes of heat, cold, radiation, salinity. Essentially any condition that the vast majority of organisms on Earth would not be able to survive in. And this isn't theoretical - according to David Toomey's book, Weird Life, bacteria have been found in nuclear reactors and living in hard vacuum, on board satellites.
The point is that, while another asteroid strike right now would wipe out a great many species (most notably our own), it certainly wouldn't kill everything on Earth. The only creatures to survive would probably be rats and cockroaches, but within a few million years they could repopulate the planet and fill all of the vacant niches. The only thing that could conceivable destroy all life on Earth, from the macro to the micro level, is the Sun expanding to engulf the planet. And one hopes that by the time that happens, we'll have figured out a way to get out into the rest of the universe (or our rat-people successors, if not their sworn enemies, the cockroach-folk).
On the other hand, Mars may stand as a rebuke to my argument. There's evidence to suggest life may have existed there, but no smoking gun. If we discover that life did exist there, then we'll have to ask two questions: is it still there now, and if not, why? If life did once exist on Mars, but doesn't now, then I can accept Dr Tyson's argument - ignoring the observer effect bias that comes from the fact that life forms from one planet are going next door to discover that an entire ecosystem has failed.
My point here - and again, I stress this with the utmost respect for his achievements - is that just because someone's smarter than us, not everything he or she says is correct. I was intrigued that nobody in that podcast's comments section called Dr Tyson on that specific statement. They argued about science's relationship to philosophy, but because he said a whole lot of other spot-on things, then threw a number followed by the word "percent" at us, they didn't dig any further.
And while Dr Tyson may not agree with all that I've written above, he would surely agree when I say that if we want to become a more scientifically literate society, we need to stop being intimidated by numbers and statistics, and the people who use them to make points. Because Dr Tyson's comments are intended for entertainment and edification - others aren't afraid to present statistics to advance less-noble causes.
My main exposure to him, therefore, is through the Nerdist Podcast (maybe they should start advertising here?). He's been on the show three times now, and his discussions have always been fascinating, not to say mind-bending - the first time he described the 4-dimensional hypercube, or a cube in four (spatial) dimensions.
But - and this is in full recognition of the fact that Dr Tyson is enormously smarter than I am - sometimes he says some silly, silly things. Or at least, things I disagree with (I sometimes have trouble telling the difference). Case in point: in his third appearance on the Nerdist, Dr Tyson takes issue with the statement that "life always finds a way", pointing out that 97% of all species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct.
My response is, this latter fact doesn't prove that life doesn't find a way - it just proves that the species who make up that unfortunate 97% didn't. On the other hand, the fact that we're here to debate the point seems to indicate to me just how tenacious life is.
Put another way, there have been times when the planet's climate has been seriously inimical to life, for instance in the exact moment that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit the Earth. As scientists in movies like to say, that was an extinction-level event. But while it wiped out a great many species, it didn't wipe them all out, because I'm here typing these words, and, one hopes, you're reading them. We couldn't be doing this if our shared rat-like ancestor (and more to the point, its entire species) had perished along with the dinosaurs.
Of course, I don't want to put too much faith in a throwaway line from "Jurassic Park", but you also don't need to look that far back to find examples that disprove Dr Tyson's critique of the "life finds a way" statement. As you head to certain areas, you find amazing adaptations to extreme conditions - camels that can cross deserts by hoarding water in their humps, Australian trees that have adapted to survive in landscapes full of elements that would kill other trees... even the creatures that live at pressures that would crush us in an instant.
And then there are the extremophiles. These are creatures - mainly in the form of bacteria, or other one-celled organisms - that can survive extremes of heat, cold, radiation, salinity. Essentially any condition that the vast majority of organisms on Earth would not be able to survive in. And this isn't theoretical - according to David Toomey's book, Weird Life, bacteria have been found in nuclear reactors and living in hard vacuum, on board satellites.
The point is that, while another asteroid strike right now would wipe out a great many species (most notably our own), it certainly wouldn't kill everything on Earth. The only creatures to survive would probably be rats and cockroaches, but within a few million years they could repopulate the planet and fill all of the vacant niches. The only thing that could conceivable destroy all life on Earth, from the macro to the micro level, is the Sun expanding to engulf the planet. And one hopes that by the time that happens, we'll have figured out a way to get out into the rest of the universe (or our rat-people successors, if not their sworn enemies, the cockroach-folk).
On the other hand, Mars may stand as a rebuke to my argument. There's evidence to suggest life may have existed there, but no smoking gun. If we discover that life did exist there, then we'll have to ask two questions: is it still there now, and if not, why? If life did once exist on Mars, but doesn't now, then I can accept Dr Tyson's argument - ignoring the observer effect bias that comes from the fact that life forms from one planet are going next door to discover that an entire ecosystem has failed.
My point here - and again, I stress this with the utmost respect for his achievements - is that just because someone's smarter than us, not everything he or she says is correct. I was intrigued that nobody in that podcast's comments section called Dr Tyson on that specific statement. They argued about science's relationship to philosophy, but because he said a whole lot of other spot-on things, then threw a number followed by the word "percent" at us, they didn't dig any further.
And while Dr Tyson may not agree with all that I've written above, he would surely agree when I say that if we want to become a more scientifically literate society, we need to stop being intimidated by numbers and statistics, and the people who use them to make points. Because Dr Tyson's comments are intended for entertainment and edification - others aren't afraid to present statistics to advance less-noble causes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)