Friday, April 27, 2012

净选盟Q&A

http://zeusleaveolympus.blogspot.com/2012/04/q.html

警告:这一篇会56看到你眼花花。。。

1.净选盟被在野党骑劫/利用?
首先,净选盟是一个要求选举干净、公平的非政府组织。
大马的不公平选举制度(单单是选区划分就很够力了),造成在野党的得票含金量远远比执政党的来的低
同样的得票率,却因为选区划分的不公平,造成在野党和国阵不同的议席获得率。
所以,在野党是大马选举不公平的受害者,在本身深受其害之下,所以会对净选盟的诉求给予大力支持。
净选盟曾经对执政党和在野党双方伸出邀
请,但国阵代表好像对此嗤之以鼻,唯有在野党员给予支持;
现在却反过来攻击净选盟为在野党的棋子,就有欠公平了。
就好比各国政府如果实施富人税,贫穷的老百姓一定无任欢迎,但富有的人就一定会跳出来反对;
原因很简单,既得利益者都会在维护自己的利益下,采取相当的立场。
看回净选盟的诉求,分析如果净选盟的诉求被全部真正落实,谁的损失大、谁获益多
就不难理解为什么执政党完全站在人民的对立面了。
(在野党“利用”选民的请看这一篇:请够够力的利用我吧!
2.净选盟是在野党捞取选票的舞台
我个人不否认可能有一部分的在野党议员,希望借助集会的声势,冲击国阵政府的信用,从而在来届大选换取更多选票。
但这并不能否决集会的诉求。
我不能因为在救华教大会里,可能有某些投机分子把它当作宣传自己个人形象或政纲的平台,从而否决华教的诉求。
再者,我也不能因为政府的某项改革,里面含有捞取选票之嫌,而完全否决了政府的努力。
如果有天首相愿意和华教界代表认真讨论独中问题,你能因为首相的动机里有捞取华裔选票之嫌(不要告诉我没有),
而否决、杯葛这次的见面会吗?
同理,只要净选盟和绿色盛会的要求是言之有物,我们都不能因为有一部分的在野党议员的投机心理而完全否决它。

3.如果选举不干净,民联怎么可能赢得5州政权
这个说法好像很有道理。
那我是否可以说:
如果你说大马治安不好,那为什么你今天晚上还能活着回家?
如果你讲大马经济不好,那为什么到了今天你还没有饿死”?
如果你说大马警方贪污滥权,那为什么到了今天你没有被警方K过?
或者来个更贴切的比喻,早在几年前周星驰的电影《少林足球》,我想大家都有看过吧?
在电影的决赛里,星爷领衔的少林足球队和谢贤带领的魔鬼队进行了一场激烈的比赛。
虽然在那一场比赛,少林足球队战胜了魔鬼队,但你会说那是一场公平的比赛吗?
你会说,“如果比赛不公平,那星爷怎么可能赢得比赛”吗?
不会,你依然会认为那场比赛不公平。
为什么?你可以举出裁判的不公平、对方球员可以移动球门、魔鬼队可以打人而不被处罚等理由。
同样的,我们认为选举不公,并非以民联或国阵胜负来定义。
我们认为选举不公,
是因为选区划分的不公平、幽灵选民、邮寄选票的幽魂、竞选期的不足、在野党在媒体宣传上的劣势等等原因,
才有此结论,才有此诉求、才有此游行的。
4.上街解决了问题吗?集会有效吗?政府会听你的吗?
老实说,如果你问我上街集会是否可以改变大马的所有问题?集会的有效性有几高?和政府是否会向人民低头?等问题,
我会老实地告诉你,其实我也不是很确定。
而且根据我对大马政府的认识,他们是不会轻易向人民低头的。
净选盟和绿色盛会的诉求只是各一个,但大马的问题却有许多,一场集会是不可能解决我国所有的问题。
净选盟只是要求一个公平的选举制度,绿色盛会只是要求Lynas公司撤离大马的稀土厂。
我国的其他问题,如要解决,需要每个人的再往后的日子里在自己的岗位里继续努力,直到事情办好的一刻。
每一件事情的办好,都需要一步一脚印地踏出去。
只是踏出第一步,当然不可能到达目的地,但如果连第一步都还没踏出,却在那里问
“走一步又怎样?走一步又不能到达目的地!”,那就真的永远原地踏步了。
另外虽然知道政府不会轻易向我们低头,但我们还是要上街。
你不站出来,就会被政府诠释为“以沉默抗议净选盟”或“以沉默默许政府行为”的选民。
套句网络里的话,
“在童话故事里,有着精灵打大怪兽的故事。但童话告诉我们,不是这个世界上有精灵,而是大怪兽是可以被打败的。”
同样的,我们站出来,是为了要告诉他们:
“虽然你们拥有了整个国家机关的力量,而我们除了一颗爱护这篇国土的热心以外几乎一无所有,
但如果你打算鱼肉我们,把我们的生命置之不顾,我们全部还是会站出来,和你干过的”。

在未来的日子里,你也不好意思告诉你的孩子,sad ending的童话故事吧?

5.集会?如果下次又有不满,又集会吗?要集到什么时候?
很多人会问,“出席了净选盟又怎样?如果以后又有问题,又要集会吗?要集会到什么时候?”
对,如果以后“又有问题”,我们还是会“再举行集会”。
为什么你会对一而又而再的集会感到反感,却不对造成这些集会不断出现的问题,感到愤怒呢?
国家没有严重的问题,又怎么会有这么多集会呢?
如果天下太平,国泰民安,试问有谁又这么得空、有那个闲情跑出来集会呢?
想一想,如果太平盛世,不管在野党再如何“煽动选民、骑劫集会”,也不可能有人肯跑出来集会吧?
连一贯以政治冷漠而闻名的大马人、城市人,都不惜舟车劳顿地跑出来参与集会,你就可以知道我们国家的“问题”之严重性了。
对于那些想知道“集会会有效吗?要集到什么时候?”的人,我以话剧《切·格瓦拉》的台词来回答吧:
不要问正义事业有没有明天,先问人间不平今天还在不在?

请够够力的利用我吧!

http://mygodmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_26.html
有一位朋友名叫邓斌,我们将会一起出席428,他告诉我他前两天遇到一个有国阵背景的老兄,该老兄知道他将会出席428,就讥笑他被反对党利用,成为“反政府”的棋子!对方说他非常的愚笨,还要冒受伤的危险,很无聊!
 对方还说,这个Bersih 3.0根本就是有政治目的,是民联的爪牙,叫邓斌不要那么傻那么天真。。。

我问邓斌你怎么回答?
邓斌说“我知道Bersih在利用我们,我也知道民联在借Bersih的影响力提高他们在大选的胜算;但是,so what?? 难道,我们不也是在利用反对党,利用民联?如果没有强大的民联,今天我们会看到国阵那些高官拼命派钱?巫统那些位高权重的老大会需要假装自己很民主?如果国阵一党独大,我们连想被利用的机会也没有!”

好!说得好!

马来西亚的政治,到了今天,还是那么肮脏,还是那么多的贪污与滥权。
巫统高官还是傲慢无礼,308大震撼后,看到他们有短暂的“知死”,很快的,随着时间的过去,308的海啸的震撼他们已经忘记了,开始故态复萌了!

什么改革都是假的,只剩下是表面的开明,实际是变本加厉,乱乱的使用国家的未来钱,把国家的前途押到火锅上来延续自己的自私政治目的与生命。

对国家的财富予取予求,当作是自己的私人财富,好像不吃就没有机会吃那样!

最高领袖,一方面表现很开明,乱乱花钱推广一个大马,另外一方面,放任由巫统控制的前锋报发表惊人的极端言论!放任土权出来做黑脸,大搞种族主义。

50多年了,没有可能他们会改了,因为国阵内太多的既得利益份子! 利益输送盘根错节,牵连之广令人咋舌。
要改变这个国家的政治体系,只有一个办法,就是重新洗牌,换上另一个政府,把上面的利益输送链截断,贪污腐败份子完全铲除!

要达到这个目的,就要把愚民唤醒,把只顾自己的既得利益份子震醒,Bersih需要群众的力量把Bersih 3.0的感染力发挥出来,而我们也要借用Bersih 3.0来告诉那些因为种种原因不能出席的朋友,就算不来,也要用选票来支持我们,来对这个腐败的政权说“不”!
这些出席428的人,都是被逼出来的,是国阵的贪腐极端肮脏制度逼出来的! 

不要再告诉我们什么民联也有贪污,什么回教法,什么三党同床异梦,什么没有管理国家的经验,什么安华以前怎样怎样。。。 我们不需要一个十全十美的民联,因为一个不完美与还有许多进步空间的民联,都绝对比一个贪腐滥权极端不思进取的国阵好上428倍! 

趁我们手上的一票还有利用价值的时候!
净选盟,请好好的利用我,够够力的利用我吧!

428见! 

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

孤岛政治化

http://zeusleaveolympus.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_23.html



今天和同事提到我打算在这个星期六去参加净选盟的运动集会,其中一名同事告诉我,
他虽然也是不齿国阵政府操纵选举的舞弊行为,但他还是不会去净选盟3.0的游行,原因是:
“他不想参与这些政治运动”
每次提到政治,出现在大家脑中的几乎都是政治人物啦、党争啦、什么什么党啦、投票啦、政府腐败啦之类的。。。
没错,这些都是政治的一部分,或者是说政治的最大型的形式,但却不是政治的唯一形式。
我认为我们的生活几乎全部都是政治。在幼儿园,你跟他好,我就不跟你好也是政治。
在办公室里,几个三八婆讲是非,也是政治。
男生追求女生,先接近目标女生的好朋友或家人,也是政治。

基本上只要有人的地方就有政治,这是无可避免的。
除非你是一个人躲在荒岛里,那就没有政治了。
我们来幻想一下,如果你一个人在孤岛上,会发生什么政治问题。
当然如果你一个人在岛上,那就没什么政治问题好担忧的。
但是如果有一天,这个岛来了一个人,那么从此这座荒岛就开始了有了“政治课题”。
你可以和这位新来的人
1.打好关系,一起在这座岛上生存;
2.或者为了争夺岛上的资源,和他打一场架,
3.或者不理他,大家各活各的。
不管你采取什么对待方式,这就是政治了。而你选择和他的关系,
往往是为了考虑自己的利益(在这个岛上活下去)为前提而作出的。

如这时岛上再来多一个人,变成了三个,那就好玩了,基本上可以选举了。
两个候选人,三张选票。得到多数票的候选人就可以“执政”。
因为两位候选人一定会投自己一票,那么第三票就会决定谁是执政者了。
如果第三张票是废票的话,怎么办?那就会形成“悬挂议会”了,因为双方的选票都不能过半,就形成不了政府。
所以唯有重选,两位候选人一定要说服第三个人投自己一票,否则形成不了政府。
政府形成不了,就不能很好的管理和分配这座岛的资源(如谁负责捕鱼、打猎、盖房子、采水果等)。
所以为了可以很好的生活下去,第三个人一定要投其中一个候选人一票。
但是如果第三个人还是不信任两人的其中的一个,还是继续投废票,那政府还是形成不了。
这时候,两位誓不两立的候选人可以考虑联合执政,形成“联合政府”
这样的话新政府就可以得到2票,超过全票(3票)的一半,是一个合法的政权了。
再讲下去,这样对第三人有点不划算,因为这个政府没有反对党,没有人会监督执政党的舞弊行为。
所以第三个人一开始应该避免这种情况出现的,不要“自认清高”地认为两边的混蛋都烂,所以投废票。
接着第三个人为了改变自己的命运,可以组成第三势力党,来制衡联合政府的势力。
因为第三势力党拥有全部选票的1/3,还可以否决一些重要的议案,来维护自己的利益。
接着,第三势力可以试图利用联合政府的矛盾,来拉拢联合政府的其中一人,
导致“来届大选”时联合政府的倒台,实现改朝换代。

但最后会不会发展到3个人形成一个阵线,来组成一个联合政府呢?
我觉得不会,就算会也不会太久。
因为人类永远不会满足于自己的欲望,有欲望就有利益斗争,有斗争就有政治,有了政治就会有《三国演义》开头讲的那样:
“天下之势,合久必分,分久必合”,所以不可能有永远的联合政府的。
就这样3个人的孤岛政治选举可以继续这样你来我往的玩下去,直到岛上又来了个第四个人、第五个人,
那就有更复杂的玩法了。。。

只有三个人的孤岛都可以形成这么“复杂”的政治选举,有2000多万的大马难道可以完全避免政治课题?
 

Kenny Has To Go! Kenny Has To Stay!

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/04/kenny-has-to-go-kenny-has-to-stay/


Posted on April 23rd, 2012
Posted by by Paul Tomkins

There’s no doubt about it. Dalglish has to go. Also, he has to stay. If FSG listen to the fans, they’ll be left in no doubt: only sacking Kenny, whilst simultaneously keeping Kenny, will bring success. The league form is everything, although nothing (bar winning the league) beats a good cup run. Being in the Champions League is the only place to be, but no-one puts a 4th-place finish in the trophy cabinet.
Fenway Sports Group got their first sacking right: Roy Hodgson had to go. No matter what he does at West Brom, his Liverpool side played ugly, anti-football. Daniel Agger, the most cultured defender in England, was told to just “fucking launch the thing”. Ironically, Liverpool might not have lost to the Baggies had Glen Johnson – another thorn in Hodgson’s side, with that pesky passing stuff – just lumped it clear. But good sides play from the back, and accept the occasional lapse. Pep Guardiola doesn’t change Barcelona’s style if Dani Alves gets caught out, and at Swansea, if people want a more down-to-earth comparison, Brendan Rodgers doesn’t berate players who lose the ball in dangerous areas.
No amount of revisionism will change the fact that ‘Royston’ was wrong wrong wrong; just as Lawrie Sanchez was wrong at Fulham before him. Hodgson has had 20-odd seasons outside Scandinavia and won nothing. Nada. Zilch. That doesn’t make him a bad manager, as there are so many different targets each year; but it doesn’t make him a suitable big-club manager, either.
His West Brom side were completely outplayed yesterday, just like his Liverpool side so frequently were. For 75 minutes they were on the wrong end of one-way traffic, and somehow escaped with their goal intact. They grabbed a goal against the run of play, and fair play to them for that; no-one says ‘no’ when that happens, and asks the ref to chalk it off as unfair. But if the game highlighted what’s wrong with Dalglish’s latest vintage – some shortcomings that are costing points – it also showed how the current side at least play with ambition, and unlike Hodgson’s Liverpool, at least look interested.
It’s a results business, but I’d much rather take playing well and losing over playing badly and losing; the main difference between Hodgson and Dalglish in the Liverpool dugout since 2010. Ideally Liverpool would be playing well and winning – that’s the obvious aim – but if people will insist on saying how poorly Hodgson was treated and how prematurely he was sacked, that comparison remains important.
(People keep saying they’d rather be playing poorly and winning. Well, playing poorly and winning is nice, but it’s not like you can build success by looking to offer little and hoping for the best, is it?)
Goals goals goals. Where are they?
If scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in football, then creating chances is the most essential building block. You can of course score a goal without creatinganything – benefitting from an own goal, for example – but you’d much rather be a creative side working openings than one riding its luck.
Personally, I prefer this side to, say, the one that finished 4th in 2004 in Gérard Houllier’s final season, where the goals of Michael Owen just about dragged a hugely dull and mediocre side over the line. While this current team is nowhere near as good as it was in 2008/09, it’s got some oomph to it, unlike latter-years Houllier’s set-up. It just hasn’t got a reliably goalscorer.
Newcastle haven’t created hatfuls of chances, but have been clinical. That is to be admired, not least because they’ve bought predators without paying the earth. But is it a platform for long-term success? Is it sustainable?  It may well be, but let’s see. Swansea have played more aesthetically pleasing football than their fellow ‘promotees’, but are 19 points behind the Geordies. Both sides have their merits, and of course, in the cups this season, Liverpool have had theirs. Those teams will win nothing but plaudits, but of course, they also merit their applause.
While Liverpool often haven’t shown enough canniness to take leads in games and then shut them down – although it hasn’t been a problem when the name of the competition has become the FA or Carling Cup – the margins of their failures have been slim.
The move that led to the shot from Jordan Henderson, and the shot itself, were technically far superior to West Brom’s goal, but what could have been a contender for the Reds’ goal of the season (well, runner-up to Coates’ vs QPR) ultimately meant nothing, as the ball bounced back off the bar, rather than in. Even then, it hit the back of Foster but didn’t cross the line or roll to a red shirt; earlier in the season, the same thing happened to Pepe Reina at Sunderland, and the bounce was cruel to the keeper. Maybe Liverpool lack strikers who are quick to the loose ball, but at times it can just roll to the exact point you’re standing, whether or not it’s a good position.
It’s not just about luck, because the finishing from the whole team has been substandard. The worse the finishing has got, the more the players have almost expected to miss. It’s become a joke; a black joke. Here we go again ….
At times, the manager has had a right to expect more composure in front of goal. He can’t run out there and do it himself; not like he could in 1986. Equally, his selections, and his signings, could be said to have contributed to the problem. (And obviously he wasn’t helped by Fernando Torres’ long-standing desire to depart, having scored three times in five games under Dalglish.)
I’d say that there have been a few overlapping problems. Aside from the near misses and woodwork thumping, I’m not sure that there have been enough natural goalscorers in the team. It doesn’t have to just be about the strikers; in the best years under Benítez, we had six players in double figures. Right now, we have one.
While I like the fact that Dalglish trusts footballing defenders, with both Johnson and Agger in his back four and encouraged to play in all areas of the pitch (contrary to the way that Hodgson preferred the likes of Kyrgiakos, Konchesky and Carragher, and the constant ‘out’ ball), the midfield balance hasn’t been so successful.
Losing Lucas remains a massive blow, but that bad luck aside (although some see playing him in the Carling Cup as folly), but there was no-one on the staff who could play that same tactical role.
Dalglish started the season by leaving out Kuyt and Maxi, and they are two who can get goals from midfield, even if neither is 100% reliable (Kuyt misses chances, and Maxi can disappear from games).
You’d expect at least 5-10 from each of them if they started most games on the flanks. By contrast, in the league at least, Liverpool have just one from Henderson on the right, and none from Downing on the left. Given that, in the modern game, at least one central midfielder holds (and therefore hardly ever scores), it’s imperative that others weigh in.
Again, this lack of goals from wide areas needn’t necessarily be a problem in itself; if the strikers were getting 20-30 each, and one of the central midfielders adding 15, there’d be little to worry about, beyond a perceived over-reliance on the prolific players (see Arsenal, and Van Persie). In that situation, Downing and Henderson could simply do what they’ve been doing, knowing full well that someone in the box will gobble up a good percentage of the balls they deliver. It only becomes a serious problem once the other players stop scoring. Despite needing a lot of chances to score, Luis Suarez can get 20 goals in a season; that’s pretty clear. But can he get 20 in the league? What’s his upper limit?
This season, he’s been far more likely to net a goal after just one or two touches; so often he dribbles past three or four only to shoot miles over, as if he gets too excited, or is falling off balance having worked so hard to get into the position.
By contrast, a ball to him in the box when he’s facing the goal often seems to end up in the back of the net; certainly more so than when he’s been running with the ball. Let me take you through this season’s 14 strikes.
Everton last week: one touch into space after receiving Distin’s back-pass, second touch past Howard; vs Aston Villa, one touch – a header; vs Wigan, one touch – side-foot finish from low Gerrard centre; vs Stoke in FA Cup, curled finish from edge of box, shot being his second touch after receiving ball back from Maxi; Brighton, one touch – close-range header; Man United, close-range first-time volley when alert to defender’s mistake; QPR – one touch, a header; vs Stoke in the Carling Cup, winning goal a header from Henderson’s looping cross; vs Exeter, first-time half-volleyed shot after keeper flaps at cross; vs Arsenal at the Emirates, a one-touch tap-in from unmarked central position after good supply from the right; and a deft header from a Charlie Adam free-kick against Sunderland on the opening day.
Stoke away in the Carling Cup is the main exception, as he receives the ball out wide, takes a couple of touches, nutmegs a defender and then curls the ball into the far corner. Brilliant stuff. Wolves at home sees him run in behind the defence, turn Berra one way then the other, then fire in left-footed from a tight angle. Everton (at Goodison) is also an exception of sorts, as he dribbles his way into a dangerous position, but loses the ball. However, it fortuitously bounces back to him, when he’s facing goal on the edge of the six-yard box – as if he’s just received a pass – and he takes a touch to steady and fires in. So that could go in either category.
I make that 11 – maybe 12 – finishes within two touches; nine with just one touch, five of which were headers. It suggests that, while others may benefit from his mazy dribbles and clever touches, he has been more effective finishing off others’ good work. So he can do the poaching, but if you limit him to a central, advanced area of the pitch, you lose his creativity, and his ability to drag defenders out of position.
Having missed a fair chunk of the season, 14 goals – all from open play (although two missed penalties will keep him off spot-kick duty) – isn’t too bad at all. But it’s not especially prolific, either.
Again, that’s not a problem if Suarez is the support striker; it’s a Beardlsey-esque goal tally, for a player who can drift all over the front line. But Suarez isn’t the support striker; at least, not in terms of goals.
The elephant in the changing room
Now, I rate Andy Carroll reasonably highly. I think he’s playing well right now, and is a good target-man. He’s got underrated technique, and looks capable of scoring more goals than he does at present; this analysis by Andrew Beasleypoints out that he aims for the corners, rather than just blasting at goal. As such, he’s had a lot of near misses by trying to do the right thing, when closing his eyes and belting it, or even scuffing it, might have had better results. There’s a player in there, I have no doubt; the question is, whether it can be brought outsufficiently at Liverpool, and whether it’s worth the time and effort (and money) trying.
Let’s be clear: his record since joining Liverpool is mediocre at best. Again, if he was paired alongside a nimble poacher – or if Suarez could somehow translate his Ajax scoring form – then it becomes less of an issue. Didier Drogba only scored 10 league goals when Chelsea won their first Premier League title in 2004/05, even with the abundance of quality in that side (that was with Damien Duff and Arjen Robben on the flanks, not Henderson and Downing).
A year later, when the title was retained, it was still only 12 league goals from the big Ivorian. But elsewhere, players like Robben and Frank Lampard were banging them in. Drogba could be the menace-maker, while others pounced amid the mayhem. Carroll, though still three years younger than Drogba when he arrived in England, is capable of performing a similar role. (At Carroll’s age, Drogba hadn’t even played in a top division; aged 23, he was with Le Mans in the second tier of the French league, where he’d scored just 12 goals in 64 games. This is not to say that Carroll will be better than Drogba, or even get to be as good, but it does show how big strikers can get better with age.)
While Carroll and Suarez have played fairly well as a partnership, with the Uruguayan scoring more frequently when paired with the big Geordie, there’s a distinct lack of killer pace in the partnership. How many top teams can say that?
Suarez is nippy, but not especially quick. Carroll isn’t as slow as some make out, but is slow off the mark, and even once into his stride, is no Drogba (at his devastating peak) or Emmanuel Adebayor. Perhaps one of the reasons Downing has been chosen over Maxi is his pace; but all the time, no matter how the pack gets shuffled, Dalglish and Clarke have not found a sufficient combination of both pace and goals.
The only way to present a threat in behind defences is to push Suarez up against the last man, with Carroll deeper and, if he wins headers halfway or two-thirds of the way up the pitch (as he did for the equaliser against Everton last week), he has Suarez already in position ahead of him to get onto them. So there’s a logic there, and it was also the way the pair lined up in the 3-0 win over City last April, when Carroll got his only brace so far. Look at heatmaps, and you’ll see Carroll often touches the ball in deeper areas than Suarez.
But if you play Suarez as the spearhead, you lose a lot of his strengths. With five headed goals to Carroll’s one, it’s not exactly illogical to play Suarez as a target-man, and he can be quite brilliant at holding off defenders, but Carroll isn’t going to speed into the box in the manner of a more mobile forward (or, by comparison, in the way Gerrard used to a couple of years back from the second-striker position).
Again, if you switch Carroll to the focal point, you can have Suarez buzzing about, but it reduces the threat in behind teams; Carroll, if isolated up front, can’t do what Torres used to, and turn and run at defenders, either with the ball or without. His only option is to hold it up and wait for support. And Carroll doesn’t have the clever movement, or the pace, to make runs off the back of centre-backs.
So with two strikers who either have yet to mature into goalscoring machines in English football, or who simply may never do so, the onus is on the midfield. And this, to me, is where this Liverpool side have failed. There just hasn’t been enough threat from that quartet.
The Everton hat-trick aside, and the late strike versus Newcastle, Steven Gerrard hasn’t been scoring in the league from open play, although those four goals show that he can still put the ball in the back of the net when he’s in advanced positions. He’s had an injury-blighted campaign, but as he approaches 32, the days of regular barnstorming may be beyond him. Getting the best out of him is another dilemma.
So, with two strikers who, at best, look incapable of scoring more than 25 league goals between them – and right now, share a measly 12 (and have just 19 between them in almost 18 months) – then unless that pair radically improve their chance conversion rates, the midfield has to pose more of a goal threat than it currently does.
I believe that Henderson has the ability to score more goals, but I’m not sure he’ll do so from the right flank. A quick look at some of his career goals, particularly for the England U21s – where four in 16 from central midfield shows his potential – highlights how he seems to prefer instep curlers, and even though his one Liverpool goal to date was left-footed in that manner, he hasn’t had too many memorable shots from right of centre.
He reminds me of a free-kick taker, whose right foot means he only takes shots from either the centre, or left of centre. From the right, with his right foot, he’s provided hardly any goal threat; very few stinging drives across goal. Yesterday, against West Brom, he used his instep to curl a fine effort against the underside of the bar, having received the ball centrally.
He’s clearly a far better player in the centre than out wide, but I understand some of the reasons he’s been used out there: as a ‘solid’ option to counterbalance the winger on the other flank (the Houghton to Downing’s Barnes, although the comparisons end there!), and the fact that he can cross the ball. That said, the goals issue from midfield makes it a problem in terms of him playing there in this side.
(Videos of his 10-or-so career goals to date can be found here:
Who else can score goals? Craig Bellamy was banging them in during the middle of the season, but then injury blighted his career yet again, and since his return hasn’t looked half as confident. Again, he’s never likely to be regularly prolific enough up front these days, and perhaps is not reliable enough, fitness-wise, to plan a best XI with him in.
Bellamy’s chance conversion rate has been excellent, as has Maxi’s. But both are in their 30s, and both have been behind Downing and Henderson in the pecking order. Kuyt’s not having his best season, but he got double-figures under Kenny alone last season, and has five this time, in his first season as a mere squad player. If Liverpool lose both of these players in the summer, then the squad will have even fewer goals in it; their replacements will need to be ultra-reliable to make it worthwhile.
With Kuyt and Maxi having scored their only three Premier League hat-tricks to date in the second half of last season, as part of almost 20 goals the pair shared within just a few months, it does continually bring us back to why Kenny (and Damien Comolli) felt that new players would do better.
If the manager genuinely felt that they would improve things, then he had to go with that belief; but if it fails, then just as he got heaps of praise for revitalising Kuyt and Maxi after their struggles under Hodgson, he has to take the blame for the new approach falling short. The only way it can be redeemed now is by Downing and Henderson going on to show that this was just a bedding-in period; which is more plausible in the case of the 21-year-old than the man who is seven years older.
Missed opportunities
A key question remains: should Liverpool have signed someone in the January window? I know that, as winter approached, FSG felt Liverpool needed a striker and were happy to supply the funds for one; but that Damien Comolli felt Liverpool needed a centre-back. At the time, I still felt Suarez – who’d just scored four in a tough game for Uruguay against Chile – would suddenly transform into the striker who once netted 50 in a season in Holland; or, at least, the one who gets a goal every two games for his country. But by the time the window opened, it was looking increasingly like Liverpool needed a dead-eye poacher, with ice in his veins (as opposed to the fire in Suarez’s).
There’s no doubt that the January window is not the ideal time to buy. But both Papiss Cissé and Nikica Jelavic were new to the Premier League, and both have been sensations. Yes, they might end up being overnight sensations – we can’t yet say that they are long-term solutions – but the signs are that they are the real deal.
They were inexpensive – the pair combined cost less than Downing – and neither striker commands massive wages. You can argue that the pressure is much tougher at Liverpool, and that’s true. But they’ve done more than could reasonably have been expected at what remain fairly large clubs.
Demba Ba, though no longer scoring as many due to Cissé’s arrival pushing him out wide, only arrived in English football at the start of 2011; in that time, he’s scored 23 league goals. He was another inexpensive January purchase, initially for West Ham.
Kenny to go?
As much as I love Kenny Dalglish, for the incredible amount he has given to Liverpool as a player, manager and dignified grief counsellor, I can see the argument for the league performance signalling the end of his reign. Equally, I can see a valid argument which says it’s crazy to sack a manager who may win two cups in his first full season (in his case, after 20 years away).
I can see why some people think his record in the transfer market is worthy of dismissal (after all, it helped cost Comolli his job). It hasn’t been like when he brought in Steve McMahon, John Barnes, John Aldridge, Peter Beardsley and Ray Houghton within a couple of years of first landing the job in 1985; and as such, it doesn’t provide optimism for the future. Equally, I can fully understand the argument that Liverpool have played some excellent football this season, only to fail to convert total domination into points. While a Barnes would be lovely, it’s perhaps just needed an Aldridge to prod the ball over the line from six inches.
To me, this is not sitting on the fence, but seeing both sides of a complex situation, where a mix of the incredibly good and the incredibly bad leaves individuals deciding if their glass is half full or half empty.
For me, the glass is simply filled to the midway point right now, with an equal mix of sweet and bitter. And I’ve honestly no idea if it’s going to fill up or drain away.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

幽默-12-01

http://www.limfang.com/2012/04/blog-post_14.html


活下去


在一个有众多名流出席的晚会上,鬓发斑白的巴基斯坦影坛老将雷利拄着拐杖,蹒跚地走上台来就座。

主持人开口问道:您还经常去看医生?

是的,常去看。

为什么?

因为病人必须去看医生,医生才能活下去。

台下爆发出热烈的掌声,人们为老人的乐观精神和机智语言喝彩。

主持人接着问:您常请教医院的药师有关药物的服用方法功能吗

是的,我常请教药师,有关药物的服用方法,因为药师也得赚钱活下去。

台下又是一阵掌声。

您常吃药吗?

不,我常把药物扔掉。因为我也要活下去。

台下更什么哄堂大笑。

主持人最后说:谢谢您接受我的访问

别客气,我知道你也要活下去。台下哄堂大笑。



  
当理论与实务合而为一

一位老外在他办公桌旁边贴了一张告示,内容是这样的:

"所谓理论,就是我们当前知道为什么,但是什么都行不通;

所谓实务,就是我们当前不知道为什么,但是都行得通;

本公司理论与实务已经结合为一:什么事都行不通,而且没有人知道为什么?"

比凶手更可怕的警察 - 转载

http://lengkekmun.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_13.html 

“比凶手更可怕的,是无能又满口谎言的警察。”这是《朝鲜日报》社论给于韩国警方的一句评语。

日前引起国际关注的韩国女子遭奸杀分尸案,比凶手更挑起韩国民众滔滔怒火的,竟然是捕获凶手、成功破案的警方!民众的愤怒,在于28岁的受害者在被色魔强行拉入屋内后,还能机警地趁色魔上厕所时拨电报警求救,而且案发地点距离警局不过7分钟路程,本该从鬼门关边缘成功自救的受害者,却因为警方的无能误判,把紧急求救当作夫妻吵架处理,在拖延了13个小时后才找上门,结果只找回了被凶手大卸八块的尸体。

在民怨沸腾下,韩国警察厅厅长赵显五公开鞠躬道歉、引咎辞职。

警察失责事件,肯定不是韩国的特产,可是倒从未听过马来西亚有哪个警队高官引咎辞职的。我国民众对警察的评价,大家心中自有一把尺。贪污、滥权、暴力、无能。。。观念的形成,冰冻三尺,非一日之寒。

要不是警队的声誉及公信力已经跌至谷底,前首相伯拉也不会在2003年上任不久后就设立了“皇家调查委员会”,以针对警队改革作出建议。皇委会后来提呈的报告,政府有没有诚意接纳并推行,看看政府至今尚拒绝成立“独立警察投诉及行为不检委员会”(IPCMC)的建议,大家心中有数。

反对政府成立“独立警察投诉及行为不检委员会”的,正是警方本身。伯拉当年的作风不够坚决也就算了;叫人百思不解的是,每天把“改革”挂在嘴边的纳吉,怎么也对皇委会当年的这项建议不闻不问?

政府和巫统议员们给于的解释是,现有机制已经足以监督警方。问题是,如果现有机制已经足够,为何还会发生诸如:嫌犯在扣留所离奇死亡、15岁少年无牌驾驶被警察射杀、女性投诉在录口供过程中被男警员非礼、男性申诉在审问期间被警员殴打、老百姓投诉被警方栽赃嫁祸、贼赃在警局内无故消失、警队被指遭黑势力渗透。。。

各种各样的警队丑闻,从新闻变成旧闻,最后变成嘛嘛档的奇闻,谁被查办了、谁被问责了?没有人懂,反正政府认为现有机制已经足够了。

警队的声誉和形象,不是靠政府砸重本登广告自称KPI满分,或是请人戴上老虎头套扮吉祥物和公众合照就能重建的。安全感这回事,民众自己是可以感受到的。改革警队,难道非要等到警方沦落至比凶手更可怕的地步,才愿意踏出第一步?

Posted by 凌国文 at 12:10 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: 凌志纵文

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Dazed and Confused: A Liverpool Nosedive

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/04/dazed-and-confused-a-liverpool-nosedive/


Posted on April 2nd, 2012
Posted by by Paul Tomkins
I’ve been saying for many months that I don’t quite know what to make of this Liverpool side. And it only gets more confusing with the passing of time.
I always felt that I knew where I was with Rafa Benítez’s Liverpool, even if the ride could still get bumpy. And I certainly knew where I was with Hodgson’s: desperate to parachute off. (The Croydonian was a successful Cessna pilot who looked terrified and confused at the controls of a Boeing 747. What does this lever do? – ah, drop Daniel Agger in place of Soto Kygriakos.)
This is different.
We have:
  • a manager who had been out of the game for a decade, but who had won four league titles spread across two different clubs, and whose instant impact last season was a breath of fresh air;
  • a highly-esteemed assistant manager, who helped Chelsea to two league titles in fairly recent times;
  • new owners, who ended a Boston Red Sox title drought dating back to World War I, but who are still trying to work out just what the hell they’ve bought;
  • a Director of Football who, at the time, was ridiculed at Spurs, but whose purchases are now a key part of their new existence as a top four team;
  • an improved Academy set-up, with exciting young players who, though humbled by an incredibly efficient Ajax side, ended the Next Gen series in third-place;
  • and a senior squad that has been altered by three different managers (and one DoF) in the past two years but, when everyone is fit, is still pretty strong.
In every area, with regard to the bigger picture, you can see reasons to feel optimistic, and yet nothing is quite working as it should; certainly in 2012.
Liverpool have a fantastic record in the cups this season, particularly against Premier League teams who qualified for Europe: five wins out of six against Chelsea, Man United, Man City and Stoke. And the Carling Cup in the trophy cabinet to boot. But the Reds’ league form is increasingly poor – and undeniably terrible during 2012, during which time only Wolves have won fewer points.
It’s hard to explain, because of the stark contrast between the league and cup form – often against the very same teams – and also between how the Reds were playing earlier in the season compared with now.
One theory I have is that the success in the Carling Cup – with three months of the season still remaining – resulted in some coasting. Equally, it also coincided with the unfortunate defeat to Arsenal, when the top four chances seemed to peter out. The combination of the two may have collided to disastrous effect.
Some of the subsequent performances have had the air of a post-season tour of a country where the beaches are too inviting. I’m sure that the coaching staff will be livid if complacency has set in, but the psyche of an entire football team is hard to control. It just needs a couple of the starting XI to be drifting, and it can all fall apart.
It doesn’t even need to be a conscious decision from the players; just a subconscious easing off, thinking, at the time of the Arsenal defeat, that they were safe around 6th, having walked up the Wembley steps and qualified for Europe. To return to the aeronautical theme, a nosedive of 20,000 feet has caught them by surprise – and now, whether or not the effort is there, they’re locked into a negative spiral. Mid-table beckons.
Liverpool have gone from a team playing well and somehow conspiring to lose, to a side that seems resigned to missing glaring chances and watching the other side score with its first shot on target.
The surprise has gone; now they seem to just expect it to happen. They play like they expect to be unlucky, and when they are unlucky, as they were with the early decisions at St James’ Park (and Newcastle taking the lead against the run of play), there is no sense of defiance; just resignation.
Maybe Liverpool are a much better team than they look right now – my view is that with Agger, Johnson and Lucas back, the side would be at least 20% better. And a second trophy would certainly do much more than paper over cracks. (If there are indeed deep cracks, then two trophies is, at the very least, a decent blob of Polyfilla.)
But to move forward next season, does it need a change of approach?
British Woes
On the whole, I’m not a particularly big fan of the modern British player. I think the best ones are definitely worth having, and as with anything, it depends on the individual in question. But beyond the elite, do you get enough from them?
Last summer’s spending could quite easily be seen as ‘sensible’. I know, because I thought so at the time. But looking back, it was also ‘safe’; low-risk (or so it seemed), but uninspired. It was solid, unspectacular – all of the main signings had played almost 100% of their team’s games last season – but to date, it hasn’t worked out too well.
Everyone who went in the first XI spoke English and understood British football. No-one was a maverick who could go off the rails (Bellamy aside, although he was a ‘free’ and, at 32, maturing as a person). And yet, at the same time, no-one was anything particularly special. No flawed geniuses. Indeed, no geniuses full stop.
No-one was paid high wages, and with the chaotic comings and goings dating back a couple of years (managers, owners and players), perhaps a bit of sensible thinking – ‘within the box’ – was understandable.
But then Roy Hodgson was unveiled with similar ‘steadying the ship’ principles. Sometimes ‘steady’ just isn’t good enough.
The key thing to remember is that things change; players who were ‘crap’ in their first 12 months (or more) at clubs have subsequently come good, even if others will remain unconvincing. But with all but one of the British signings dating back to January 2011 looking more than reasonably assured, it begs a question.
Go back to Roy Hodgson, and neither Joe Cole nor Paul Konchesky – both capped by England – did much beyond make us groan. That makes seven British senior squad signings – all internationals – dating back almost two years, and only Bellamy hasn’t looked overawed.
All five Englishmen have failed to ‘settle’, and if you had that kind of buying record from any other region – South America, say – then you’d start to wonder why they weren’t working out; you might even put it down to cultural differences. (It’s been said of Italians at Anfield, and only two have been bought.)
Glen Johnson – an atypical Brit in that he’s clever and cultured on the ball, and whose game is not about large lungs and feisty tackles – is the last excellent Englishman Liverpool have bought; and even then, perhaps due to injuries, he’s not been sensational. He was, however, fully established as a first-choice England player, and at a good age. That combination was not shared by Cole, Konchesky, Henderson, Carroll and Downing, who were either one or the other (or neither, in Konchesky’s case).
Expand Britain to include Ireland, and Robbie Keane – who moved to these shores when aged just 15 – becomes another overpriced mistake. No-one had to teach him about English football, and yet he failed to sparkle.
Peter Crouch was often pretty good, and, at times very good; but overall, yet again, bar a couple of overhead kicks, nothing sensational. Jermaine Pennant was man of the match in a Champions League final, but not exactly a dedicated professional who could be that bothered most of the time; talented, but a wastrel. Emile Heskey cost almost £30m in today’s money, but with the exception of an excellent debut campaign – in itself unusual – failed to impose himself thereafter.
In the past 20 years, Liverpool have had some world-class – or, at least, international class – English players. However – and this may again be mere coincidence – there seems to be a pattern: they were all home-grown.
Gerrard, Fowler, McManaman, Carragher and Owen were all great players for Liverpool. They weren’t all perfect, but they are up there with the best this club has ever had in their respective positions.
Now, this doesn’t mean that all home-grown players will turn out like Gerrard, just as not all British purchases will end up like Konchesky. Hard as many have tried, the youth system just hasn’t found locals of this calibre in the past dozen years, and in truth, nor have Everton, beyond Rooney (and possibly Rodwell.)
But it does make me wonder if there’s something in the process that allows younger players to get accustomed to the demands of a big club as part of their formative education. It’s far less of a culture shock going into the first team because they are already ‘at home’. (Just as Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll gradually eased their way into their previous sides.)
At Chelsea, Daniel Sturridge was bought young, and this could be the key: after a brief, unsuccessful spell in the first team, he was dropped, and then, much later on, phased in gently. It’s taken time. He played just 13 games in his first season at Chelsea, and 13 in his second, scoring just one goal (having previously scored five in 21 for Manchester City, albeit with just two and three league appearances in his first two fledgeling seasons). Danny Welbeck at United also briefly played for the first team, went on loan and came back a better player.
And this is what happens with youth team graduates in general: they are dipped in the water, a little bit at a time. Fans may be excited by hot prospects, but they don’t expect instant miracles. They don’t keep saying “£20m for that? Fuck off!”
A loan elsewhere was involved with Sturridge, just as it was with Joe Hart – the one world-class English player at Manchester City. They got Premier League experience, but without it costing their club points if they made mistakes. Micah Richards is another whose introduction over a period of time perhaps made it easier than if a large fee had been paid and been parachuted into the side from day one.
For Mancini’s men, Joleon Lescott is another who looked pretty rocky for a long time. He seems more assured now, but it has taken a few seasons for a man who may not even have needed to move house after his switch from Everton, let alone relocate to a new country and learn a new language. James Milner also took a while to impress, and has been, at best, very good; never remarkable.
At Spurs, Gareth Bale spent a long time as something of a joke figure; it took him a staggering 25 appearances just to end up on the winning team. Even though that wasn’t necessarily his fault, it took a gentle easing-in, from eight league games, to sixteen the following season, to 23 the one after that, before he looked capable of pulling up any trees.
The reason all this springs to mind is that, in the old days, Liverpool often used to buy the best up-and-coming British players. But then never play them. At least, not at first. It was seen as part of Bob Paisley’s genius. It was seen as part of the Liverpool way.
Alan Hansen was signed at 22 – so, no mere kid – and then only played in less than half of the league games in his first season. Ronnie Whelan was 18 when signed, but only really got into the team aged 20. Steve Nicol was signed aged 20, but had to wait 12 months, and even then only played four times that season. Famously, Ian Rush wanted to quit the club after a year on the fringes following his move from Chester, and could have ended up at Crystal Palace.
Yes, Liverpool could afford to keep young talent in reserve back then, due to winning the league most years. There was no rush (just Rush). And there can be little doubt that these particular players were in a raw form back then.
But it’s interesting that this quartet, who ended up amassing a mind-boggling 2,241 appearances between them (average 560 apiece), all started out so slowly, even though they’d been purchased for what in some cases were pretty big fees. (For instance, a teenaged Ian Rush cost £300,000 in 1980; the signing of Dalglish had broken the British record just three years earlier, costing £440,000.
I don’t know why, but unless you buy players who are sensational and ready-formed, then British buys may need even more adjustment timethan their foreign counterparts – who, you’d expect, face more challenges off the pitch (language, lifestyle, family relocation, etc.) and also have to come to terms with the pace of our game. Perhaps the majority of Brits are just too technically and tactically deficient by comparison, or maybe it’s a question of mentality.
Why do so many foreign players seem to walk straight into top clubs and, within six months or so, seem to have it nailed? Some may take three or four months to get going, but plenty make relatively seamless transitions.
This does not mean that you give up on anyone who takes a bit longer – quite a few times Arsene Wenger has persevered beyond a year and had success, and we’ve seen it at Liverpool with Lucas – but the failure of so many British players does make something of a mockery of the notion that they settle more quickly.
Just look at Newcastle, and how well almost all of their summer signings have done, even if the pressure isn’t as intense on Tyneside. They’ve brought in a pretty eclectic bunch, from French and German football, but they seem united as a collective.
Again, looking only at clubs who have been in the top four in recent times (and starting with Liverpool), you can see that Hyypia, Alonso, Reina, Mascherano, Torres and Suarez leap out in a way that no British signings have in the past dozen (or even twenty) years. Not even one bears comparison with those seven. Only Mascherano had experience of English football, albeit just five games at West Ham.
Elsewhere, in the past decade-or-so, we’ve seen smooth transitions for imports like Fabregas, Vermaelen, Sagna, van Persie; Silva, Aguero, Kompany and Yaya Toure; Makelele, Drogba, Essien, Carvalho, Gallas, Cech, Robben, Ramirez, Mata and Ivanovic; Van der Vaart and Berbatov; van Nistelrooy, Heinze and Hernandez.
The following started slowly, but were excelling from around six months: Hamann, Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vidic and Evra. Outside of top four, Carlos Tevez did so well at West Ham he’s now played for two of the big clubs. He started slowly, but his talent was apparent halfway through his first season.
Nani, Modric, Nasri and Malouda all took even longer, and Shevchenko never did adapt. Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting because despite too many step-overs, he was very good at 17 after arriving from Portugal, but only sensational a few years later.
The very successful English players signed by these same clubs, where the player settled into top form within six months: Rooney, Ferdinand, Smalling, A. Cole (Chelsea), Parker (Spurs) and Johnson (Liverpool). Joe Cole did well at Chelsea, although Scott Parker flopped there. Phil Jones and Ashley Young have done pretty well at United this season, but without consistent form or fitness. Frank Lampard has had a great career at Chelsea, but wasn’t an instant hit.
Only lately has Theo Walcott started looking suitably consistent, and he’s possibly Arsene Wenger’s second-best English signing, after Sol Campbell. The exciting Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain fits into a couple of brackets: English, young, fairly expensive (£12-15m), but also phased in; a substitute appearance here and there, and a full league debut only after seven months.
Or … maybe there’s nothing in this. Maybe it’s all just random, and I’m looking for patterns in fairly small data sets. Or perhaps I’m cherry-picking examples, even though I don’t mean to. No doubt I’ve overlooked a few examples for either side of the argument, too.
There’s no doubt that the bigger clubs have bought a greater percentage of overseas than home-grown players in the past decade, so there should be a higher number (if not proportion) of successes.
If I’m wrong in thinking that English players might actually find it harder to adjust to life at a big club, then I see absolutely no evidence of it being a more reliable approach than importing from overseas.
It’s just that with the whole footballing world out there, maybe it’s mad to look mainly in here, even if the players’ wives can now all converse in the same language.
Buying the very best English players equates to common sense (Manchester United keep doing so). Buying the next rung down, when you could be buying the very best from most – if not all – other countries, is where it starts to fall down a little. As I’ve said before, any one of Carroll, Henderson, Adam and Downing on their own does not bother me as a signing; it’s just that, when combined, they look underwhelming and overpriced.
(By contrast, young Raheem Sterling can now be eased into the side. He was bought two years ago as a 15-year old, and it’s deals like this, and the more recent capture of 16-year-old Jordan Ibe, that can see young English players adapt to the club away from first team pressures.)
The good news is that, having had a Spanish enclave at the time when Spain was the best footballing nation in the world (only to then disband it, starting in 2010), Liverpool now have a Uruguayan flavour, at the time when they are champions of South America.
Work permit issues can make it tougher to procure players outside of the EU, but if, like Coates, they have recent European ancestry, it can make life easier. The link-up with Nacional can strengthen this bond, and while top players gravitate to Champions League clubs, they can also be swayed by the presence of compatriots if the project is exciting. Right now, I’d rather have some of the best Uruguayan players than more mediocre English ones.
Maybe another problem is signing players injured at the time: both Carroll and Aquilani arrived unfit to play, and while both were bought with five years (and not five months) in mind, it meant that when they did finally play, they were off the pace. And by starting life off the pace, people instantly questioned the large outlay; what a waste of money, etc. And the pressure just ramped up. A good start can be vital for any new signing, and neither of these players were able to achieve that.
If the conscious decision to buy British last summer is repeated in 2012, I’ll be struggling for optimism. Most of the best ones are already at the elite clubs, with a good proportion having come through their ranks.
I haven’t given up hope on those purchased in 2011 (particularly the younger players), and the right Brit at the right price is fine, but there are so many great players in leagues around the world that would surely represent better value for money.
A bit more thinking outside the box might help solve problems within it.