Jamie's tinkering signals the onset of old age

There are certain signs that you know you’re getting older. You start fancying your mate’s mum, you can’t get up and down the touchline like you once could, getting up in the morning takes that extra 10 seconds longer sitting on the edge of the bed.
I can still hop out of bed ok, I’m actually a better runner now that I ever was and, at my age, the notion of fancying any of my friends’ mothers isn’t just wrong, it’s plain weird.
Still, my youthful step was brought to a shuddering halt this week when, driving around the wilds of Cheshire on doorknocks, Jamie Cullum came on Radio 5.
Now I’ll be honest here. I’ve always regarded Cullum as an annoying little squirt, the pint-sized twerp prancing around and jumping off pianos. He’s annoying and his music’s rubbish. I like rock. I like pop. I can’t stand this self-indulgent type of pseudo pop-jazz.
So I was minded to turn the radio off but couldn’t be bothered. It was a nice day, the view of the High Peaks was beautiful and besides, Simon Mayo, regardless of the quality of guest on his show, is relentlessly brilliant.
So it was with a growing mix of pleasure and self-disgust that I not only stuck with Cullum, but starting enjoying him. He was refreshingly self-deprecating and fun.
And then they played a couple of excerpts from his new album, including a song he co-wrote with one of my teenage heroes, Ricky Ross. And it sounded good.
This meant I was enjoying listening to Jamie Cullum and his music. The panic really started to set in once I realised I was thinking ‘why don’t I buy the album?’. Go on, the little devil on my shoulder teased, give it a go.
I stopped myself there, thankfully. Not because the album’s no good, I’m sure it’s extremely good.
But handing over that £7.99 to iTunes would represent a seminal moment in my life. That moment of passing when you know that once done, things will never been the same, that a slice of your youth has been forever lost.
These are things you should not let go lightly. Thought and effort should be exerted before signing your life away.
So, clinging on desperately, I won’t buy the album.
This isn’t fair on Cullum, who is clearly hugely talented, and I'm sure he won't really mind, but I just can’t admit to myself the truth.
If I do, where will it all stop? What next? Katherine bloody Jenkins?
No, the cork must go in and a line drawn in the sand.
And if that means a fiver less in Jamie’s bank account, then I’m a sorrier, but far happier man.

pic: yahama.com

Balls, balloons and bolts – odd ways to win a football match

The beach ball incident at Sunderland recently, when Darren Bent’s shot was deflected into the Liverpool goal by an inflatable thrown onto the pitch by a Liverpool fan, wasn’t the first case of outside intervention swaying the result of a football match.
The bizarre, and only, goal of that game brought to mind many an odd incident which, one way or another, has affected the outcome of a match.
Joe Hart, then of Manchester City, suffered a similar inflatable embarrassment last year when a ball into his penalty area hit a couple of balloons, bamboozling his defenders and presenting Sheffield United’s Luke Shelton with an open goal. Bang went City’s hopes in the FA Cup – they lost 2-1 – along with the balloons Hart spent the rest of the afternoon popping in his six yard box.
One celebrated occurrence of course came here at Pride Park in 2004 during the 4-2 dismantling of Forest. As Barry Roche prepared to clear a back pass, the ball hit a coffee cup that had blown onto the pitch and popped up onto Roche’s swinging shin. It ballooned into the air and landed at the feet of a surprised Paul Peschisolido, who gratefully stuck it into an empty net. (The pic above, from dcfc.co.uk, is of the Pesch "reliving" his glory moment)
It’s typically English for a beach ball to wreck a team’s chance of winning the league, but across the world there have been more sinister powers at work.
In 1998, 11 players were injured during a match between Jomo Cosmos and Moroka Swallows in South Africa, when a bolt of lightning struck the ground, leaving players from both sides writhing around in agony.
And locals blamed witchcraft for a similar incident in Congo when the entire home side was hospitalised after a lightning strike.
It was the supporters themselves responsible for halting at game in Argentina between San Lorenzo and Velez Sarsfield in 1990, and not for the usual reasons. The referee was forced to abandon proceedings because every time the ball went out the crowd refused to give it back. When San Lorenzo ran out of balls, the match ended.
And if you’ve ever dreamed of scoring a vital goal for your team, the dream came true for one ball boy in 2006 during a cup tie in Brazil between Santacruzense and Atletico Sorocaba. In the final minute and with the away side 1-0 down, a Santacruzense shot flashed wide and went to the ballboy who duly delivered it onto the pitch and into the goal. The referee, who wasn’t paying attention, only saw the keeper fetch the ball from the net and so awarded a goal. Stuart Atwell, eat your heart out.

Vladimir Lenin died of syphilis, new reseach claims

Vladimir Lenin, the Russian revolutionary and architect of the Soviet Union, died from syphilis caught from a Parisian prostitute and not from a stroke as has always been believed, new research has claimed.
Helen Rappaport, an acclaimed historian and author, said that books, papers and journals charting Lenin’s last years show that he contracted the sexually transmitted disease and that it ultimately claimed his life.
She said Lenin showed many symptoms of syphilis and that many among the Soviet hierarchy believed he had it. (Even lying dead, he looks like he's scatching his balls!)

Unsurprisingly, they were banned from speaking in public and threatened with death because of the embarrassment it would cause.
Instead, official documents show that his death was attributed to declining health following three stokes and an assassination attempt in 1918.
Central to Miss Rappaport’s case was a report written by the celebrated scientist Ivan Pavlov – famous for his Pavlov’s Dog’s theory – which claimed that the "revolution was made by a madman with syphilis of the brain."
While public criticism of Lenin was banned and anyone found guilty of doing so would be often be killed, Pavlov was free to be so scathing because Lenin had granted him immunity in order to trade on his pre-eminence in the world’s scientific community.
Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, the vanguards of communism, led the 1917 October revolution, part of the Russian revolution which overthrew the Government and installed the Soviets. He became the first Head of State of the Soviet Union and remains one of the strongest political influences of the 20th Century.
He died in January 1924, aged 53, after suffering three stokes in the previous two years. By the end he was paralysed and dumb.
Blaming the strokes for his death, the Soviets made huge attempts to cover up whatever lay behind Lenin's erratic, manic behaviour, his bouts of rage and his untimely death.
Miss Rappaport, an expert on Russian history and a member of several societies, including the Society of Authors and the Oxford Writers’ Group, said evidence showed Lenin probably caught syphilis from a prostitute in Paris in about 1902.
She makes her claim in a new book "Conspirator: Lenin in Exile".
She said: "It was the unspoken belief of many top Kremlin doctors and scientists that Lenin died of syphilis, but a decades-long conspiracy of silence was forced on them by the authorities.
“But through it all, none was more vocal in his assertion than Prof Pavlov.”
Miss Rappaport said that proof of Pavlov’s assertion are in a documented conversation, held at Columbia University New York, he had with a fellow doctor, Mikhail Zernov, in Paris in 1928.
She said: "Pavlov maintained to Zernov that Lenin had suffered from syphilis and that during his time as Soviet leader he had manifested all the classic signs of someone sick with progressive paralysis brought on by the disease.
"Pavlov knew the eminent scientists who had been called in to examine Lenin's brain after his death in 1924 and they all concurred in this diagnosis. It was an open secret among them, but of course none stated it publicly and there are no official Soviet records documenting it.”
Lenin would not be the first leader to be struck down with syphilis. Other documented cases include Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible, Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Watching a game simply isn't enough anymore

The Internet streaming of the England game was an important breakthrough in the way we watch live sport, and it won’t be too much longer before we can view a game on our mobile phones whilst relaxing on the beach or sitting on a bus, not that squinting into a tiny screen holds much attraction.
Far better to wait for the next wave of technology, when a special headset will beam the game right into your brain, and you can choose where in the ground to sit and at what angle to watch.
Better still will be the day when, like playing on a Wii, you can plug yourself into a live match, take part and fulfil all those boyhood dreams by nicking the winner in injury time.

Fergie rant signals the end of Respect

The continuing spat between Sir Alex Ferguson and the nation’s referees is certain to dissipate any goodwill officials had left for the Old Trafford outfit.
Ferguson’s rants, first against Alan Wiley and then widened to take in all referees, were as ridiculous as his attempts to dig himself out of a hole by pretending he was trying to raise a serious issue.
Furious that his team had failed to beat Sunderland, he took it out on Wiley, questioning his fitness – a claim totally discounted by the Prozone stats which showed Wiley ran further than all but seven players out of the 22.
In typical style, Old Trafford sources then tried to claim that there was a media and referee’s vendetta against Ferguson – again total nonsense.
If, as he claimed, he made his comments to raise an issue that should be investigated through the proper channels, then he should have raised them through the proper channels, not in a post-match tirade to the media that smacked of sour grapes.
Wiley, one of the game’s most experienced referees, was in charge for United’s recent 2-2 draw with Sunderland, during which United equalised in injury time.
Seeking a scapegoat for his own team’s failures, Ferguson claimed Wiley should have played longer and questioned his fitness, even going so far as to suggest the referee only booked players because he needed 30 seconds rest.
His attempt at an apology then only widened the net to cast aspersions over all officials.
His accusations are highly damaging. It is one thing criticising a referee’s decision-making – God knows, everyone does it all the time and it’s all highly subjective - but attacking something as fundamental as his fitness is another matter entirely.
If managers are banned for criticising missed penalties and offsides, then Ferguson deserves a lot more for such a personal insult.
The referee’s body, the Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, is now threatening legal action against Ferguson and good on them for not taking it on the chin – as so often they have been forced to – and standing up to such bully boy tactics.
We all know what a fantastic manager Ferguson is and how important he is to football. But that doesn’t make him above the law.
Now the referees need the FA, which this week charged Ferguson with improper conduct, to stand strong and throw the book at him.
If they don’t, not only will it shatter the morale of referees, but will also kill its own Respect campaign, set up to protect officials from exactly this kind of abuse, stone dead.

Size does matter - if you're a footballer

It appears that size really does matter, for a footballer at least. Research conducted at Wolverhampton University shows that tall, lean players are more successful than others.
It’s not just the fact that if you’re eight foot tall you’re always going to be able to win a header against a 5ft 2in opponent, and there is more of your body to get in the way when making a block or save is required, there’s a science to it all too.
Experts said that tall, thin people can disperse heat quicker than smaller, stockier types, allowing them to carry on running longer.
The odd thing is that it seems that reality is reflecting the science because a big frontman is suddenly the must-have accessory for football managers.
When Tottenham meet Wolves, the two tallest strikers in the country will come head to head, albeit with both of them in the clouds. Stefan Maierhofer is 6ft 7.5in, meaning that for the only time in his life, Peter Crouch, at 6ft 6in, will feel relatively dwarfish.
Elsewhere the return of the big man up front continues with the likes of Bendtner, Carew, Adebayor and Chris Samba, who is sometimes used as a striker to good effect despite being a centre half, all important parts of their manager’s plans.
Having a towering centre forward can work for and against though. Real world class requires them to have a superb turn of speed and be as good on the ground as they are in the air, but for every Emmanuel Adebayor there is a Kevin Francis, for each Peter Crouch there is, somewhere (normally league 2), an Ian Ormondroyd.
Testing player statistics from specific periods in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2003-4, and taking into consideration the teams they were playing for and when they played, the investigation showed that among the most successful player were Thierry Henry, Arsenal (2003-04) forward, 1.85m, 77kg, Peter Crouch, Aston Villa (2003-04) forward, 2.01m, 75kg and Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Manchester United (2003-04) forward, 1.88m, 82kg.
Professor Alan Nevill, who conducted the research, said: “These results suggest that football coaches and talent scouts should pay attention to the body shape when selecting potential players for their squads.”
So there you go, managers, your not-so-secret weapon is unveiled. I’m sure that Jermain Defoe or Michael Owen would argue with it all. They might even claim they could match the likes of Crouch in the air. And I’m sure they could. But only if one stood on the other’s shoulders.

Battle of Bosworth is "on wrong spot", claim archaeologists

One of the most celebrated battle sites in British history is situated on the wrong spot, archaeologists now believe.
For hundreds of years history followers have visited Ambion Hill in Leicestershire, believing it to be the site of the Battle of Bosworth, which marked the end of the War of the Roses and the beginning of the reign of the Tudors.
It was also the last time a British king was killed on a battlefield and immortalised by Shakespeare’s Richard III’s famous offer of his kingdom for a horse.
However, after an extensive three-year archaeological survey, experts now believe that the proper site was a mile away.
The revelation could prove an embarrassment for Leicestershire County Council, which built an award-winning interactive visitor centre at Ambion Hill, near the village of Market Bosworth.
It attracts thousands of visitors each year and the council has always believed marks the spot where Richard III lost his life and his crown to Henry Tudor. It signalled the end of the Plantagenet dynasty and Henry VI took the throne.
However, Richard Knox, curator of Bosworth Battlefield, said it was now likely that the proper site was on low-lying ground between the villages of Shenton, Stoke Golding and Dadlington, first proposed by the historian Peter Foss in 1990.
The key to the mystery is likely to be finding the former marshland that Henry is said to have used to his advantage to attack the vastly larger army of his enemy from the flanks.
Investigations there have found ancient names given to the area such as Fenn Hole and Fenn Meadow, and a team is currently scouring the area with metal detectors.
Mr Knox said: “We feel that Peter Foss’s argument is the most likely site.
“We have found ridges and furrows where there could have been a marsh.”
He said tests had ruled out that the battle had taken place on Ambion Hill itself, and also that the stone memorial erected to Richard III half a mile away, on the spot he supposedly fell, is situated on the wrong spot.
He added: “We won’t move it because it has become a landmark in its own right. But when we do decide on the correct spot we can put up another memorial provided it is practical and has public access.”





Controversy over the site has raged for several years. Apart from the perceived site and Mr Foss’s theory, a third premise puts the battle around eight miles away in Atherstone, where documents show Henry’s army might have camped prior to battle.
Tests are ongoing there after documents showed that Henry paid money to locals for damage to their crops “at our late victorious field”.
The Council was awarded a £1 million Lottery Heritage grant to carry out the survey, the most comprehensive ever carried out on a British battlefield.
The results were due to be released this summer but have been put back until next year following the wet summer of 2007, which made much of the research impossible to carry out.
Mr Knox said: “There is still a lot of work to do and we are not in a position to officially say yes or no to anything at the moment.”
Mr Foss said that he never doubted his original theory about where the correct site is.
He said: “I have a great knowledge of the area and it all made sense. When I carried out my research they had none of the technology they have today but my work was very, very sound and I am delighted if it is now recognised as being right.”
The official results of the survey will be announced early next year.