He’s Not Wrong

Sean Dyche makes a good point:

It’s true. Kids are very impressionable. When I were a lad, whenever we saw anything different or exciting in the football over the weekend, there would be loads of us trying it out in the playground on Monday morning. I wonder how many kids were “moving the ball” (and the foam) before taking their free kicks, after Ivan Toney did it, and after it was praised so roundly by all the pundits?

As we remarked at the time, moving the ball might have been seen as being “a bit clever”. But as soon as he moved the foam as well, well, it was clear that he knew he was cheating.

Sure, it’s not the biggest thing in the world, but it is symptomatic of the way that some bits of football are going. And the well-paid, “celebrity” pundits sitting in the cosy, warm studios are – for some weird reason – encouraging it.
So why not start with the small stuff and actually note that Toney was deliberately breaking the rules, rather than admiring his actions? Just say that it was wrong. You don’t have to want him to be banned for 8 months: he can do that himself.

Also, I quite enjoyed this quote because he’s basically taken three whole paragraphs to just say “Fuck you, Michael Owen”.

It’s something I regularly find very easy to condense into just those four words.

Oh, and also, one more thing: I put this graphic up on our football team Whatsapp group this morning and no fewer than six people agreed with it. All of them dads. We’re bringing up our kids right. Forza.

United & Off The Pitch

My beloved Blades sent out a press release this week. They’ve teamed up with a company called Off The Pitch. OTP appear to do data analysis around the business of football. I’m not into business data of any sort, but I do know when there’s some corporate BS being used, and this press release was full of it.

But of course it was, because when I went to the ABOUT US section of OTP’s website, I was greeted with this:

Did someone drop the word “media” in there just for shits and giggles? Or am I missing something to do with the English language here? Because however I try to phrase this punctuation-free header, I can’t get seem to get it to make sense.
At the very least, surely if you’re going to use “is”, you have to use “medium“, right?

Basically, it seems to me that we’re buying this package so we can pay less for our players and pay our players less in the future.

But then the press release is packed full of boardroomisms and buzzwords:

Carl Shieber, Sheffield United’s Head of Football Administration, expressed his enthusiasm about the partnership: “Our partnership with Off The Pitch opens a realm of opportunities for Sheffield United. It provides an invaluable platform for benchmarking against other clubs, both domestically and internationally. This alliance is a step towards a more analytical approach in our business, commercial development, and player trading strategies.”

“Alliance”, “Platform”, “Benchmarking” and “Strategies”. Nice try, Carl.

But then OTP CEO Mads blows him away with this spiel:

Mads Meisner Christensen, Co-founder and CEO of Off The Pitch, shared his thoughts on this significant agreement: “We are excited to equip Sheffield United with a diverse range of tools to enhance their operational efficiency. This partnership is set to provide Sheffield United with a strategic edge in the transfer market, helping them to identify and leverage market inefficiencies for optimal results.”

Blimey! “Leverage” alone is worth 10 points! “Optimal” and “Strategic” are just the icing on the cake.

The thing is, how are we supposed to have any sort of edge – strategic or not – in the transfer market, when it seems like most of the clubs in Europe are using this same system? Did we pay more for the gold edition or something?

I don’t pretend to get it. I don’t have to get it.

But if we could just use plain English from now on, I would have more chance of getting it.

Plant xenophobia

As the fire along the coast continues to rage unabated, and with the wind threatening to turn over the weekend and potentially push it back towards the Southern Tip, Margaret et al. have now turned their attention towards the vegetation which is providing fuel for the fire.

It’s well known that some invasive species can burn at hotter temperatures than our local fynbos – which incidentally needs to burn every 15 years or so to survive – and may therefore be partly responsible for the speed and the spread of some fires. And that’s clearly not good.

But there does seem to be some issue with the glossary of terms being used here.

“Dense, inaccessible vegetation”, in which the fire is currently burning does not mean “invasive vegetation”. It just means there’s a lot of vegetation and the firefighters can’t get to it.

The Margarets on the group don’t seem to get that. Apparently, if it’s burning, it must be invasive and someone needs to be prosecuted.

Nor do the terms “alien” and “invasive” the same thing. Alien species are ones that have been introduced to this country from somewhere else. You might also see them described as “exotic”, “non-native” or “non-indigenous”.
We’re supposed to frown upon this sort of thing these days, and so we do.
But what we don’t have to do with alien plants is pull them up remove them simply because they came from somewhere else. I mean, if it’s on your property, you can do that, but you don’t have to.

I recognise that applying this logic to actual humans is a vote-winning policy with some South African political parties, but they are fairly repulsive, and there’s no need to take it out on plants as well.

Unless they are invasive.

Invasive species are ones which expand into and modify ecosystems into which they are been introduced.
This is a really bad thing, and there is legislation to cover this, which quite often does require them to be pulled up and removed.

I fully support this by buying invasive wood to burn on my braai. It’s just one (additional) way I like to help. But while I do my bit, my neighbours just up the road are actively growing a Rooikrans hedge. Maybe they just like to live dangerously.

Apparently, the municipality are coming to town today “to do an inspection” on who’s got what plants on their properties. This is laughable for several reasons. First of all, it’s far too late to do anything about getting rid of invasives ahead of the wind changing direction on Sunday and blowing the fire our way again. Where were the council 3, 6, 12 or 24 months ago?

Secondly, it’s sheer pandering towards concerned residents who will be looking for any scapegoat should there be any fire issues in the village. And lookie here: just before an election, as well.

Who ever would have thought?

And then thirdly, there’s the fact that the areas managed or controlled by two biggest landowners in the vicinity: the municipality and the Agulhas National Park, are both absolutely chock full of invasive – and high fire risk – vegetation. But woe betide you if you have a Rooikrans hedge in your garden.

Actually, no: I’d fully support them on taking that one out.

The worry is that the village is a bit lentil curtainy when it comes to this sort of thing. There are enough militant old hippies living there to go out and just chop for the sake of chopping. I’ve cleared our place of all the invasives, but I do have a shrub on my property which is alien (don’t shoot me, Rupert), but which isn’t invasive and which doesn’t pose a fire risk. But with all the convenient mix up over nomenclature, I half expect it to be gone via a vigilante chainsaw when we next go back.

I will not be happy, but I will know pretty much exactly whose door to knock on.

Let’s hope we don’t have to cross the bridge of the knocking on the door scenario, and let’s hope even more that the current fire is extinguished quickly and safely, with no more damage to the environment or anyone’s property. Or my plant.

Let’s go for a hike!

I touched on the fires rampaging through the Western Cape a few days ago. They’re still burning out of control, despite the best efforts of many hundreds of firefighters, landowners and other stakeholders. Two major ones I’m watching at the moment are the one at Die Dam, and the one between Pringle Bay and Betty’s Bay.

Die Dam has been burning for 3 days now and has spread into two separate fires, one heading west towards Pearly Beach, and one heading east towards Rietfontein. The Suiderstrand group has been alive with chatter about this since it began, especially given the unfortunate incident in the village a few years back. And so I was a bit confused when one of the ladies on the group mentioned that she “could see smoke” from her house.

I mean, yes Margaret. We all can.
That’ll be the absolutely massive fire just up the coast that everyone – including you, Margaret! – has been talking about for the past 72 hours.

Give me strength.

But even Margaret wouldn’t be as daft as some people in the other fire. Sure, you have your “disaster tourists”, the ones who turn up and get in the way of the firefighters by trying to get photos to improve their social media clout, and they’re annoying.

But then there were also messages from the authorities asking people not to hike in the affected areas.

Seriously, who looks at scenes like this as they’re driving through:

And then continues to park in the village, which looks like this:

And then heads off into the veld that looks like this?

Simply adding to the number of people the firefighters have got to look out for or save.

How many poor decisions do you have to take, one after the other, to get to that point?

Really, who needs to be told not to wander into the big, out of control fire?

And yet…

It’s the walking equivalent of the camouflaged cyclists.

Darwin Award nominees, all of them.

Honestly. Let them burn.

Sprinkles around the mountain

Stop the world. I want to get off.

I did mention the recent trend of people using TikTok to get their news, the utter nonsense that is on there, and the terrifying prospect of that nonsense influencing everyday life and – more worryingly – the upcoming election.

Here’s more evidence that reality and common sense is far distanced from that particular platform.

After the Table Mountain fire yesterday – and as an aside, I’m actually surprised that no-one has accused the water-bombing helicopters of spreading “chemtrials” yet – this genius idea:

Sprinkles? What? Like on a birthday cake?

But I’m guessing he means sprinklers. Like you use to water your garden. And stop it burning.

And in theory, it’s a great idea. Until you actual put a tiny, weeny, miniscule bit of thought into it.

Aside from the issues with water supply, infrastructure, the inevitable theft and the funding of the whole thing, there’s the sheer scale.

Table Mountain National Park is 221km2.
That’s twice the size of Manchester.

And if you’ve ever been to Manchester, you might know that there are (more than) a couple of football pitches there. And each of them requires about 10 sprinkles… sprinklers… to keep them moist and stop them burning.

Working on the basis that a football pitch is about 100x50m, and therefore has an area of 0.005km2, we can do a quick rudimentary calculation and say that Table Mountain National Park is the same area as 44,200 football pitches, and would therefore require close on half a million “sprinkles” to cover it.

So, there you go.

Why don’t they put water sprinkles around the mountain? Because it’s a frankly ridiculous idea, and if you had a brain, you’d have worked that out pretty quickly.

So I wonder what stopped that happening?