In my twenties I was never anything more than an average Sunday league park footballer. I could claim I was obviously missed by the talent scouts ... but people wouldn't take that seriously.
But ... I could kick a football with both of the feet God has given me. Of course I had a 'stronger' foot (my right) with which I took penalties. But if, in a passage of play, it suited to pass with my left foot (or even shoot with it) I was competent to do so.
Professional footballers (and especially those who represent their country) who can only kick the ball with one foot have always irritated me. More importantly, though, I believe they will always be a liability at some point, either from an attacking or defensive point of view.
And yet pundits, sports writers and - crucially - coaches seem to ignore this. In the less forgiving world of an individual sport (like, say, tennis) if a player had an obvious weakness to their game the coaches would work on it to improve it. Does that not happen with football?
Take Leighton Baines, the left-back. I'm sure most pundits and sports writers would generally speak well of him when playing for England as he did last night (in the World Cup qualifier against Poland).
Baines is good when England are moving forward at pace. He is strong and tenacious, and has a more than decent cross on him (witness England's first goal). If he is facing the opponent's corner-flag he is fine.
But if the play slows down and Baines is turned (so that he has his back to the sideline) he immediately becomes a liability to the forward momentum of an attack.
Why? Because every time he gets the ball in a position like that he passes back to one of the central defenders. The reason he does this is because he is only willing to play the ball with his left foot. Even when a diagonal ball infield (to a midfielder or striker) with his right foot would be the better ball. When a diagonal ball infield would keep the passage of play flowing. Watch him the next time he plays.
England are often criticized for their inability to break teams down. One of the reasons for this is we don't move the ball around the pitch quick enough.
And Baines' steadfast refusal to play the ball inside with his right foot is one reason why that doesn't happen (there are others, of course).
Coaches need to do their job properly. They should have him out on the training park and tell him he can only play the ball with his right foot until he is competent to do so. If a Sunday league park footballer can do it so can he.
Wednesday 16 October 2013
Thursday 10 October 2013
Tasteless design
Honestly! Where on earth do football kit manufacturers get their designers from these days?
Take, as an example, this year's offering from Liverpool of an away kit and a third kit (it's not enough, it seems, these days to have one 'away' kit; you have to exploit the punters' wallets by coming out with two). The 'first' away kit looks like a white shirt that someone has spilt oil on ... and then cut themselves. The so-called 'third' kit (left) looks like a child has drawn shapes on a piece of paper and coloured them in with whatever shade of pencil they could get their hands on. The tops of the socks don't even match. I am not the first to describe the whole thing as hideous.
I am torn between concluding that, perhaps, many of them are using six-year-olds who like colouring things in at random; or that they are employing people who are permanently on mind-altering drugs.
Take, as an example, this year's offering from Liverpool of an away kit and a third kit (it's not enough, it seems, these days to have one 'away' kit; you have to exploit the punters' wallets by coming out with two). The 'first' away kit looks like a white shirt that someone has spilt oil on ... and then cut themselves. The so-called 'third' kit (left) looks like a child has drawn shapes on a piece of paper and coloured them in with whatever shade of pencil they could get their hands on. The tops of the socks don't even match. I am not the first to describe the whole thing as hideous.
If I were the manager of a football team I would have it written into my contract that I would have the final say on what kit my players were actually going to wear when representing the club.
And if anyone came up with tasteless disasters like this I would tell them to go back to the drawing board and come up with something simpler.
Sunday 11 August 2013
How on earth are we winning?
Is it just me?
Is anyone else beginning to wonder how on earth England are 2-0 ahead in the current Ashes series?
Our batting, particularly from the top four, has been nothing short of woeful. As I write, we are 56-3 in the second innings of the fourth test. That's eight innings out of eight in which we have made a poor start.
I guess our success in the first two tests can be put down to a combination of good bowling and poor batting on the part of the Aussies. In the second test, for example, we were 20-odd for 3 in the first innings and 30-odd for three in the second ... and yet still went on to win the match by a huge margin.
We rode our luck in the third test, when the rain interruptions helped us secure the draw that guaranteed the retention of the Ashes (as holders we only need to draw the five-test series). We will have to so some to avoid defeat in the current test.
Whatever the outcome of this game, it's time to change things. Ian Bell has batted well at five, and our tail as 'wagged a bit' with the bat: It's the top four who have let us down. They are the guys who are meant to build an innings. It's a blessing to have someone like Broad, who can come in at eight or nine and regularly score 20-30 runs. However, it would be nice if he came in with 400 on the board - not 200. England have yet to make 400 in this series: another statistic that seems remarkable, given our 2-0 lead.
Root and Trott are at the heart of the problem, although even captain Alaistair Cook has been below his best. We need a fresh approach for the final test.
Is anyone else beginning to wonder how on earth England are 2-0 ahead in the current Ashes series?
Our batting, particularly from the top four, has been nothing short of woeful. As I write, we are 56-3 in the second innings of the fourth test. That's eight innings out of eight in which we have made a poor start.
I guess our success in the first two tests can be put down to a combination of good bowling and poor batting on the part of the Aussies. In the second test, for example, we were 20-odd for 3 in the first innings and 30-odd for three in the second ... and yet still went on to win the match by a huge margin.
We rode our luck in the third test, when the rain interruptions helped us secure the draw that guaranteed the retention of the Ashes (as holders we only need to draw the five-test series). We will have to so some to avoid defeat in the current test.
Whatever the outcome of this game, it's time to change things. Ian Bell has batted well at five, and our tail as 'wagged a bit' with the bat: It's the top four who have let us down. They are the guys who are meant to build an innings. It's a blessing to have someone like Broad, who can come in at eight or nine and regularly score 20-30 runs. However, it would be nice if he came in with 400 on the board - not 200. England have yet to make 400 in this series: another statistic that seems remarkable, given our 2-0 lead.
Root and Trott are at the heart of the problem, although even captain Alaistair Cook has been below his best. We need a fresh approach for the final test.
Friday 28 June 2013
Nurturing (home) talent
The decision not to renew the contract of England Under-21 coach Stuart Pearce provoked some considerable discussion recently.
On the one hand, the team's disappointing performances at the last two tournaments meant the decision was not altogether surprising. At the same time, there was a sense that merely replacing the coach does not really address the underlying problem: the lack of young English talent coming through in football ... and the lack of experience being gained by whatever talent is around.
Both aspects of this problem can be attributed, in large, to the huge influx of foreign players in the English domestic game over the past decade.
This is, in itself, an interesting issue to ponder. It could be argued that overseas players bring great benefit to the domestic game, in that they raise standards and enable people to compete against the best from around the world.
However, this will only be true if the environment in which this happens enables domestic talent to develop and gain experience. If young domestic players are squeezed out of the picture altogether these benefits will be largely lost.
At this point I would want to make a comparison between the English Premier League (football) and the Indian Premier League (20/20 cricket).
Both are considered "strong products" (a purely commercial perspective, but one that is relevant, nonetheless); both attract huge amounts of money, in sponsorship and TV deals; both attract the interest of businesses and wealthy individuals who want to be involved commercially as owners or part-owners of teams; and both attract the best of overseas players from around the world.
And here is the crucial difference:
The Indian Premier League has rules about the make-up of teams and squads. As far as I understand it, squads have to contain a minimum of 16 players (presumably to ensure viability) but, crucially, no more than 11 can be overseas players, and a minimum of 14 have to be Indian players, with a further requirement of a minimum of 6 from the current Indian under-22 pool.
In addition, the team picked for each game can contain no more than four overseas players.
What these rules do is to ensure that, while the rich influx of overseas players raises the standards of games from a spectator point of view, it does so in a way that nurtures domestic talent.
The English Premier League has no such rules, as far as I am aware. Perhaps it is time for the FA to look into doing so. Let them learn from the Indian cricket model.
On the one hand, the team's disappointing performances at the last two tournaments meant the decision was not altogether surprising. At the same time, there was a sense that merely replacing the coach does not really address the underlying problem: the lack of young English talent coming through in football ... and the lack of experience being gained by whatever talent is around.
Both aspects of this problem can be attributed, in large, to the huge influx of foreign players in the English domestic game over the past decade.
This is, in itself, an interesting issue to ponder. It could be argued that overseas players bring great benefit to the domestic game, in that they raise standards and enable people to compete against the best from around the world.
However, this will only be true if the environment in which this happens enables domestic talent to develop and gain experience. If young domestic players are squeezed out of the picture altogether these benefits will be largely lost.
At this point I would want to make a comparison between the English Premier League (football) and the Indian Premier League (20/20 cricket).
Both are considered "strong products" (a purely commercial perspective, but one that is relevant, nonetheless); both attract huge amounts of money, in sponsorship and TV deals; both attract the interest of businesses and wealthy individuals who want to be involved commercially as owners or part-owners of teams; and both attract the best of overseas players from around the world.
And here is the crucial difference:
The Indian Premier League has rules about the make-up of teams and squads. As far as I understand it, squads have to contain a minimum of 16 players (presumably to ensure viability) but, crucially, no more than 11 can be overseas players, and a minimum of 14 have to be Indian players, with a further requirement of a minimum of 6 from the current Indian under-22 pool.
In addition, the team picked for each game can contain no more than four overseas players.
What these rules do is to ensure that, while the rich influx of overseas players raises the standards of games from a spectator point of view, it does so in a way that nurtures domestic talent.
The English Premier League has no such rules, as far as I am aware. Perhaps it is time for the FA to look into doing so. Let them learn from the Indian cricket model.
Tuesday 28 May 2013
Messing about with the story
For some time now I have, periodically, been reading Agatha Christie's 'Poirot' and 'Miss Marple' books.
Recently I read - and enjoyed - "A Murder is Announced". It prompted me to revisit the excellent BBC TV series from the 1980s, which starred Joan Hickson in the title role of Miss Marple.
In the last few years ITV has been doing a number of 'remakes' (initially starring Geraldine McEwan and, latterly, Julia McKenzie). These modern versions have come in for criticism for messing about with the storylines and characters.
I looked up "A Murder is Announced" on Wikipedia. Of the adaptation starring Joan Hickson, it says:
Only a few changes were made: Mitzi was remamed Hannah and is said to be Swiss (in the book, her nationality is unknown) and in the novel the vicarage cat was male and called Tiglath Pileser. In the film the cat was female and called Delilah.
A name-change for the cook and the Vicarage cat! However, of the more recent version it says:
That says it all, really.
Recently I read - and enjoyed - "A Murder is Announced". It prompted me to revisit the excellent BBC TV series from the 1980s, which starred Joan Hickson in the title role of Miss Marple.
In the last few years ITV has been doing a number of 'remakes' (initially starring Geraldine McEwan and, latterly, Julia McKenzie). These modern versions have come in for criticism for messing about with the storylines and characters.
I looked up "A Murder is Announced" on Wikipedia. Of the adaptation starring Joan Hickson, it says:
Only a few changes were made: Mitzi was remamed Hannah and is said to be Swiss (in the book, her nationality is unknown) and in the novel the vicarage cat was male and called Tiglath Pileser. In the film the cat was female and called Delilah.
A name-change for the cook and the Vicarage cat! However, of the more recent version it says:
The Harmons are deleted, so Miss Marple stays with Miss Murgatroyd, the daughter of an old friend in this version. Mrs. Easterbrook is also deleted, and the Colonel is a divorced alcoholic who was thrown out of the army for drunkenness. Mrs. Swettenham is a single mother and is attempting to convince Colonel Easterbrook to marry her; her son, Edmund, greatly resents this (Edmund's romance with Philippa is also deleted.) Hinch and Murgatroyd are both younger women than in the novel, and are in an overtly romantic relationship. Mitzi is said to be Polish. Patrick and "Julia" (Emma) are more intimately involved with one another than in either the book or previous adaptations and Inspector Craddock is a gruff, impatient man who is much more aggressive in his attitude and technique of investigation than in the novel.
The film is made more emotional: Dora Bunner's character is different: not quite as muddleheaded and very adorable. When Miss Marple and Hinchcliffe find Murgatroyd's body, Hinch and Miss Marple burst into tears and some emotional music is played. When Miss Marple reveals Miss Blacklock as the killer and moves on to Bunny and Amy's murders: Bunny's delicous death (Charlotte's attempts to make Bunny's last day happy) is seen in a more kind and gentle way, and Miss Marple nearly bursts into tears again. Mitzi tries to kill Miss Blacklock and Miss Blacklock does not try to kill Mitzi. When Miss Blacklock is exposed as the killer, Dora's ghost comes into the room (unseen by anyone apart from Miss Marple and Miss Blacklock) impersonating the murderer's regrets for the only person she truly cared about.
That says it all, really.
Wednesday 27 March 2013
Same old ...
Watching the England football team is an activity that really should come with a government health warning.
Over the years the sorrows, the frustrations, the anger, the tension-induced migraines ... and that's just on the good days! What was it Baddiel and Skinner sang: "Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming...". That was back in 1996. Make that 47 - and counting.
Last night I sat through another hugely disappointing (more polite than a word like 'woeful') England performance, as they attempted to beat the might of Montenegro in a World Cup qualifier.
Montenegro is a country with a population of less than 700,000. Admittedly, it was once part of Yugoslavia and, even more recently, part of Serbia, so it does have something of a footballing heritage. But even so.
England started brightly and were a goal up inside ten minutes. But as the game unfolded it revealed once again our total inability to take control, or even to maintain the control we have established in a game. By the end we were somewhat fortunate to hang on for a draw - which was also the case in an earlier qualifier in Poland.
Personally, I think Roy Hodgson played the wrong formation. It was a kind of 4-3-2-1 (once christened "the Christmas tree"), with Gerrard, Carrick and Cleverly in front of the back four, and with Welbeck and Milner further forward and wide, leaving Rooney alone up front.
It was wrong because if Rooney is played as a lone striker he needs someone coming through from the centre of midfield to support him. Carrick will never do that in a million years. He is one-paced and seems to think that a football field consists of the centre-circle.
It was wrong because it left Milner nothing to do. He lacks the pace ever to frighten defenders. But at least when England play a kind of 4-2-3-1 (with two deep-lying midfielders tucked in and Milner as part of the '3' in front of them) he can justify his existence by dropping back and supporting the full-back in wide positions.
It was wrong because both Cleverley and Welbeck lack positional sense. Oh, and talent.
It's true that England were missing a few players because of injury, but that's something you have to put up with in football.
Maybe the influx of overseas players and the pursuit of short-term financial rewards has suffocated the domestic game. I don't know. Some will say, England just aren't good enough, but something inside of me says, We should be. At least good enough to compete at the top level of the game - even if we didn't actually win anything.
Oh well. At least we have a break now. The World Cup qualifiers don't resume until the start of next season. Perhaps by then some emerging new talent will ... have emerged. We can but continue to dream. And stock up on the Migraleve.
Over the years the sorrows, the frustrations, the anger, the tension-induced migraines ... and that's just on the good days! What was it Baddiel and Skinner sang: "Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming...". That was back in 1996. Make that 47 - and counting.
Last night I sat through another hugely disappointing (more polite than a word like 'woeful') England performance, as they attempted to beat the might of Montenegro in a World Cup qualifier.
Montenegro is a country with a population of less than 700,000. Admittedly, it was once part of Yugoslavia and, even more recently, part of Serbia, so it does have something of a footballing heritage. But even so.
England started brightly and were a goal up inside ten minutes. But as the game unfolded it revealed once again our total inability to take control, or even to maintain the control we have established in a game. By the end we were somewhat fortunate to hang on for a draw - which was also the case in an earlier qualifier in Poland.
Personally, I think Roy Hodgson played the wrong formation. It was a kind of 4-3-2-1 (once christened "the Christmas tree"), with Gerrard, Carrick and Cleverly in front of the back four, and with Welbeck and Milner further forward and wide, leaving Rooney alone up front.
It was wrong because if Rooney is played as a lone striker he needs someone coming through from the centre of midfield to support him. Carrick will never do that in a million years. He is one-paced and seems to think that a football field consists of the centre-circle.
It was wrong because it left Milner nothing to do. He lacks the pace ever to frighten defenders. But at least when England play a kind of 4-2-3-1 (with two deep-lying midfielders tucked in and Milner as part of the '3' in front of them) he can justify his existence by dropping back and supporting the full-back in wide positions.
It was wrong because both Cleverley and Welbeck lack positional sense. Oh, and talent.
It's true that England were missing a few players because of injury, but that's something you have to put up with in football.
Maybe the influx of overseas players and the pursuit of short-term financial rewards has suffocated the domestic game. I don't know. Some will say, England just aren't good enough, but something inside of me says, We should be. At least good enough to compete at the top level of the game - even if we didn't actually win anything.
Oh well. At least we have a break now. The World Cup qualifiers don't resume until the start of next season. Perhaps by then some emerging new talent will ... have emerged. We can but continue to dream. And stock up on the Migraleve.
Friday 22 March 2013
Sentences are complicated things!
Why would you want, er, why would you want a TV presenter who can't speak in sentences? Why have someone who, er, why have someone who can't speak without repeating the first part of every sentence?
If you know who, er, if you know who I'm referring to, please, um, please post a comment. Does he, er, does his spoil your enjoyment of football on TV?
If you know who, er, if you know who I'm referring to, please, um, please post a comment. Does he, er, does his spoil your enjoyment of football on TV?
Tuesday 19 March 2013
All change?
Right. Tottenham Hotspur, as all football fans will know, play in white. Inter Milan, the famous Italian club, play in dark blue and black stripes.
In their recent European tie, played at Tottenham's White Hart Lane football ground, Inter Milan played in an all-red strip.
Why?
In days gone by football teams had 'second-strips', or 'change-strips', to be used in the event of a 'colour clash'; that is, when two sides played in the same colours, or sufficiently similar colours to cause confusion.
The general principle was that, on such occasions, the away-team would wear their alternate colours. This principle gradually led to the term 'away-strip' replacing 'second-strip' or 'change-strip' as the more common reference ... but the principle behind the usage, surely, remained the same.
So why the Inter Milan colour change? I suspect this is another example of commercialism and money-men dictating terms in football. Somewhere along the line some sponsor has demanded that Inter Milan wear their new change strip on a regular enough basis to encourage more gullible people to dig deep into their pockets and fork out the not-inexpensive sum required to buy a replica shirt or kit, either for themselves or for their children.
In their recent European tie, played at Tottenham's White Hart Lane football ground, Inter Milan played in an all-red strip.
Why?
In days gone by football teams had 'second-strips', or 'change-strips', to be used in the event of a 'colour clash'; that is, when two sides played in the same colours, or sufficiently similar colours to cause confusion.
The general principle was that, on such occasions, the away-team would wear their alternate colours. This principle gradually led to the term 'away-strip' replacing 'second-strip' or 'change-strip' as the more common reference ... but the principle behind the usage, surely, remained the same.
So why the Inter Milan colour change? I suspect this is another example of commercialism and money-men dictating terms in football. Somewhere along the line some sponsor has demanded that Inter Milan wear their new change strip on a regular enough basis to encourage more gullible people to dig deep into their pockets and fork out the not-inexpensive sum required to buy a replica shirt or kit, either for themselves or for their children.
Thursday 7 February 2013
A flutter on the phone
Legalized gambling. I guess it one of the inevitable consequences of living not only in a democracy, but in a society that is increasingly liberal and secular in its outlook.
'Freedom', 'choice' and other such concepts are the shibboleths that trump all other considerations in such a culture.
People have been able to bet in this country for many years, of course. But what prompted me to write was the recent heavy TV-advertising for betting via your mobile phone.
No longer do you have to go down to the local bookmakers and hand over money; no longer do you even have to switch on your computer and gamble online. Now you can do it from the comfort of your armchair with just a few clicks on your mobile phone.
Now presumably there are processes for sanctioning or licensing things like this. At some point someone must have been in a position to say 'yeah' or 'nay' to this idea.
Did they not think about the consequences? Gambling is addictive and can ruin lives and families. Even if you consider, in a free society, that people should have the freedom to take part in it, should someone not have stopped and thought about where the all-too easy access to gambling via a mobile phone could lead?
'Freedom', 'choice' and other such concepts are the shibboleths that trump all other considerations in such a culture.
People have been able to bet in this country for many years, of course. But what prompted me to write was the recent heavy TV-advertising for betting via your mobile phone.
No longer do you have to go down to the local bookmakers and hand over money; no longer do you even have to switch on your computer and gamble online. Now you can do it from the comfort of your armchair with just a few clicks on your mobile phone.
Now presumably there are processes for sanctioning or licensing things like this. At some point someone must have been in a position to say 'yeah' or 'nay' to this idea.
Did they not think about the consequences? Gambling is addictive and can ruin lives and families. Even if you consider, in a free society, that people should have the freedom to take part in it, should someone not have stopped and thought about where the all-too easy access to gambling via a mobile phone could lead?
Friday 25 January 2013
A load of ballboys
The latest football incident to get the British media all excited concerns Chelsea footaballer Eden Hazard supposedly kicking a ballboy.
Hazard (pronounced 'Azarr', if you are concerned with the French pronunciation) was trying to get the ball back in Chelsea's League Cup match with Swansea. In doing so it seems he kicked a Swansea ball-boy, an act which saw him sent off. Now everyone is waiting to see what disciplinary action will be taken against him. The 'standard' for getting sent off is a three-match ban. A spokesman for the FA today said in this instance that was "clearly insufficient".
Rubbish.
If you ignore all the hype, what actually happened? Watch the video footage carefully and impartially.
First, in what was a tense cup match, the Swansea ball-boy flagrantly sought to waste time, falling on the ball and laying on top of it.
Second, Hazard, in wanting to get on with the game, attempted to kick the ball out from underneath him. He clearly did not aim at or intend to kick the boy.
Third, the boy writhed around as if in considerable pain. In reality, he was wearing a thick, padded coat (understandably, as it was a cold evening): If Hazard did make some sort of contact it would have been slight and I suspect the boy hardly felt it.
Fourth, not content with feigning some serious injury he gesticulated towards the referee (in fairness, where did he learn this sort of behaviour? From watching footballers who do it all the time). His acting was 'successful': Hazard was promptly sent off.
I'm not condoning Hazard's over-zealous actions - but one can understand his frustration. A booking at the time would probably have been more appropriate. The reaction has been ridiculous.
Hazard (pronounced 'Azarr', if you are concerned with the French pronunciation) was trying to get the ball back in Chelsea's League Cup match with Swansea. In doing so it seems he kicked a Swansea ball-boy, an act which saw him sent off. Now everyone is waiting to see what disciplinary action will be taken against him. The 'standard' for getting sent off is a three-match ban. A spokesman for the FA today said in this instance that was "clearly insufficient".
Rubbish.
If you ignore all the hype, what actually happened? Watch the video footage carefully and impartially.
First, in what was a tense cup match, the Swansea ball-boy flagrantly sought to waste time, falling on the ball and laying on top of it.
Second, Hazard, in wanting to get on with the game, attempted to kick the ball out from underneath him. He clearly did not aim at or intend to kick the boy.
Third, the boy writhed around as if in considerable pain. In reality, he was wearing a thick, padded coat (understandably, as it was a cold evening): If Hazard did make some sort of contact it would have been slight and I suspect the boy hardly felt it.
Fourth, not content with feigning some serious injury he gesticulated towards the referee (in fairness, where did he learn this sort of behaviour? From watching footballers who do it all the time). His acting was 'successful': Hazard was promptly sent off.
I'm not condoning Hazard's over-zealous actions - but one can understand his frustration. A booking at the time would probably have been more appropriate. The reaction has been ridiculous.
Saturday 19 January 2013
Shopping in the 21st Century
It's not been a good week for the British High Street. First Jessops, then HMV, and then Blockbusters ... all closing down.
Over the years retailers come and go, of course, and businesses are particularly prone to going under when the nation is going through the kind of economical dip we seem to be in at the moment.
However, one wonders if the demise of these three chains is not also a sign of a bigger, longer-term phenomenon.
All of them, in one way or another, have arguably fallen not just because of the current recession, but because of changes in the way we shop.
The question is: Where is this all heading? Will High Streets, as we know them, become a thing of the past at some point? Will Amazon take over the world? And, moreover, do we care and, if so, is there anything we can do about it? Principles, and the desire to see local shops continuing to stay open, quickly give way to pragmatism where prices are concerned.
As I read of the expected closure of the Blockbusters chain it got me thinking about Britain's industrial revolution. That was a time of massive economical and, more significantly, cultural change. How did people cope back then? Perhaps I ought to look for a decent history book on that period for some answers.
Over the years retailers come and go, of course, and businesses are particularly prone to going under when the nation is going through the kind of economical dip we seem to be in at the moment.
However, one wonders if the demise of these three chains is not also a sign of a bigger, longer-term phenomenon.
All of them, in one way or another, have arguably fallen not just because of the current recession, but because of changes in the way we shop.
The question is: Where is this all heading? Will High Streets, as we know them, become a thing of the past at some point? Will Amazon take over the world? And, moreover, do we care and, if so, is there anything we can do about it? Principles, and the desire to see local shops continuing to stay open, quickly give way to pragmatism where prices are concerned.
As I read of the expected closure of the Blockbusters chain it got me thinking about Britain's industrial revolution. That was a time of massive economical and, more significantly, cultural change. How did people cope back then? Perhaps I ought to look for a decent history book on that period for some answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)