Looking beyond Bruno

 I should get the usual disclaimer out of the way at the outset. I'm not an expert at the game of football. Sure - i've played it, know most of the rules, have been a fan - of the game, and then for the last 2 decades - of a club. But I can't lay any claim on being a tactician supreme. Can't say I know my second balls from my inside channels.

I know how gross that sounds, but given that these are legitimate expressions used in football media, any puns here are well intended, and have no other connotations than the strictly non-sexual, pro-sporting ones.

With that out of the way, let's come to the topic at hand. Why I think Bruno Fernandes is the main reason Manchester United will not make any progress as a team - a footballing force. This opinion - in a week that saw the man score twice, add an assist in a game that United needed to come back after falling behind twice, against bottom dwellers and soon relegated Sheffield United - would seem like utter nonsense. In a failing team of constant under performers, here's someone who has played every single game that he was not suspended or (on one occasion) not nursing a slight niggle, has given it all, is the highest scorer, has been the only person who seems to give a shit, and is constantly coming up with man-of-the-match performances. And he's the reason we are not progressing? Yes - IMWO...(W standing in for worthless, in case someone in 2427 finds this while trawling for United related content and finds this).

Why?

Reason 1: I can't really tell the position that he's meant to play. He professes to perform best in the no. 10, and always seems to start there, but as the game progresses I've seen him roving around - 6, 8, 11, even 9 (true and false). One of Bruno's best characteristics is his anticipation of where the ball will be, and 70% of the time, he's not very far from where it ends up. If you drew a heat map of Bruno's position in juxtaposition to where the ball is, I'd be willing to bet he's not far off every single second of the game.

So he roves around a lot, and that makes it difficult for a coach to devise strategies around him, or to frame tactics around other positions. One commentator said recently, he plays anywhere he wants, and while that is fine these days, and is precisely the brand of football that Guardiola plays at Man City- it just brings more unpredictability (and not in a nice way) to an already chaotic style (if there is one) of play that Erik Ten Hag is trying to enforce.

Reason 2: There are better no 10s in this United team. We bought one in the form of Mason Mount last year, and one of the reasons we have not seen the best of this fine Chelsea import is the fact that he is not being played in the position Bruno hogs. So Mount plays at an improvised 8, sometimes along with Bruno, and they's often competing for the same ball when playing together. Maybe Mount is not that great off the ball, but he's a more direct, better passer through the central lines that Bruno is, and he would be a better foil for Hojlund, setting up more chances for him, rather than the indirect methods Bruno employs - squirt the ball to the flanks for Garnacho or Rashford, who then try to cut in rather than cross it to the Danish no 9. Not that crossing to him is of much use - the success percentage of that sort of play is negligible, and Hojlund doesn't win a lot in the air.

Reason 3: Bruno's short passing isn't the best. I don't have the stats, but I'm sure he's had more accurate long passes than short ones. And his tendency to rely on fancy flicks, side-boots, jinxy leaves often leads to losing possession in the most critical phases of the game, and the worst possible positions on the pitch.

Reason 4: I dont know if ETH will continue in the new season, but even with someone new, i think the challenge is to define a style of play that revolves around Bruno and his role. Unfortunately, years of giving him a free rein means that it's difficult to now define a role for him. In all the discussions previous managers have had with him, I'm sure Bruno has insisted on being able to decide where he wants to play - or has simply ignored any instructions to the contrary - like C Ronaldo used to do. so with the midfield pivot not in control, its difficult to piece together a coherent strategy for everybody around him. At the beginning of the season, I had dreams of Rice coming in before he eventually pitched up at Arsenal, but I think he would have been lost in a system where Bruno poached into his territory amongst others

In some ways, Bruno is the sweet poison that seems to revive a flagging body, but is actually just causing other parts of the body to rot away and die...like CR7 in a lot of ways. the guy would score, but was effectively killing off United's ability to really form a strong team around him.

If this sounds ungrateful, and entirely out of touch with reality - and I don't deny it could very well be - I would agree...but a large part of me wants Bruno to be out for a while so we can try and see what we can build without him in the team. We would probably lose a lot of games before it started to work, but I think we would start seeing other areas of the pitch wake up and start to shine. 

I've never had regrets of the club having signed him - there's no one more hard working, with a better work rate, or having more influence on the game than Bruno. He has over the last 4 to 5 years been the most effective players in the club whether it was in terms of creating chances, or with his record of always being available to play. But I think in the season of renewal, if this club is to change its trajectory to a winning one, we may need to have a lesser role for the man.

Loss and Gratitude

It’s been a tough week. The world is ravaged by an irrepressible virus; the world responded by clamping down on interpersonal contact. We were just about learning to live with the claustrophobia of home quarantine, wondering about the uncertainty over the length of this period of “social distancing”, hoping we’d emerge better people from this. Then the hammer blow - an already better person decided she had had enough of this world, giving it up in search of what I can only hope is a better one.

When I first met my to-be mother-in-law, I thought of my own mother and how much two women from opposite ends of the country could be that similar. When she did become my mother-in-law, the transition to ‘second mom’ did not even seem that unusual. She’s been Mom to me for nearly 15 years now, and as I’m learning over these last few days, I’m not the only one who felt that way. And that I suppose is what her legacy will be - being Mom/Ma/Maasi to more of us than most us deserved. 

She did have two of her own, girls she saw grow into strong independent women she was most proud of. Precious possessions she treasured right up until the end. Their pain at the loss of this colossus of a woman, their mother, is unimaginable and exacerbated by the fact that neither got to say goodbye in the way they would have wanted. They will feel the loss like nothing I can put in words.

The journey to get to her in time to see her go away for good was stressful and frustrating in equal measures. It stretched my belief in the future of humanity to its extreme. But now that I think about it, I’m glad I went through it. Getting to Mom to say the final goodbye needed the kind of effort that was at least a fraction of what she had put into each and every one of her bachchas.

So, instead of sulking and ranting about the insensitivity of people we’ve met, called, requested, begged, and tweeted to over these last couple of days just to find a way to get to her in time, or complain about the way things were in these days of lockdown, I want to take a moment to say Thank you. Thanks to those who showed genuine concern and tried their utmost to help, to those who couldn’t help but did try to steer us the right way, even to those who chose procedure over compassion when stonewalling our attempts to get a travel pass. I accept that the last bunch were only doing their jobs, and were fully justified in being scared of losing them. 

But mostly I want to thank Mom. You were a wonderful woman, you touched many lives and have left a global footprint like nothing a lot of eminents have achieved in their lifetime. I hope you knew that while you lived your full and eventful life, and I hope you took that knowledge and satisfaction with you as you left this world. I don’t want you to fret about the hole you’ve left in every life you touched. I certainly hope you won’t know how much pain your daughters will feel once your loss hits them. I just hope your courage and strength has somehow transcended this final station of life and found a permanent home in their hearts. That their memory of you in the years to come only cause them to smile, and help them feel the warmth of your hugs again-in the secure knowledge that you’re not too far away. 

Bye Mom, talk soon!

Not the Devils I know

The battle of the Reds - a game that Juergen Klopp calls a derby (not many disagree though it technically isn't one) - came and went last night. As a sports spectacle, it was not one of the best. There will be no pundits calling this game one of their top 10 clashes between the two sides whose names dominate the list of winners of the English Premier league, dating to when it wasn't even called that. I'm not really going to offer an analysis having heard too many already to feel an upchuck coming on when I see another suited and booted individual starting to move his hands over a giant screen teeming with brightly collared figurines and several dizzying arrows and circles.

What went wrong? Well, let's just say this is not the Liverpool v Manchester United clash of titans most football fans are used to watching. This was a game between two mediocre teams battling for the rights to stay in the collective attention of an audience that is losing any feeble interest that remains in this particular match-up. Give us a North London derby any day, but not this.

Liverpool was certainly the better team, but do I agree with one of the commentators who bravely said - United did not deserve to win? Well no, and if there was a way both teams could get no points at all, that would have been a fair result. Sure, the Merseysiders had the better chances, but they couldn't get past the only class act in the United team. De Gea shone again, making saves like nobody's beeswax, and made Emre Can, Lallana and Henderson look like chumps. United scored with their first shot on target, which is not the first time we've heard that phrase where United is concerned this season. The dismal number of shots taken and the ratio to goals scored makes me want to wish I ad never heard of the Red Devils.

What ails the Devils? Various learned and more-qualified-than-I gentleman and ladies have put forth their theories. Or wait, no I don't think there are any theories. Most have just stated facts. United are slow, ponderous, Boring, pass the ball more backwards and sideways than forwards. Yes, but why? Apparently Van Gaal wants them to play that way. Possession 9/10ths of the law and all that. Well, the last two games, they've been losing the possession game, and came out not-losers, but they could have easily lost those games too. So - repeat question at the top of this para.

Lets look at the facts as they are. Defence - the best in the league in terms of goals conceded and clean sheets. That's good right? Well, I don't have any stats that take a closer look, but I'm willing to bet there could be something worth looking into at an individual level there. Van Gaal has gone through multiple combinations of his central defence. Smalling has been his rock, staying out of the injury list long enough, and putting up several match saving performances. Along with De Gea, he is one of the two players whose performances has received praise. So why hasn't he made it to any fantasy eleven's or team of the week X1's. His most consistent partner in the heart of that defence is Daley Blind. This does not inspire confidence in me. Blind is a trier, and at times distributes the ball like a God, but he's slow, and I'm yet to see him play in a position that he can call his own. He has, at various times of his brief United career played at left back, winger, central midfield, and now central defence. He does what he's asked to the best of his ability, and the trouble with that of course is that ability is severely limited. I still think he has his utility, but his best position may be holding midfielder just in front of the back four. He's no Matic, but his skill in long range passing might just work in his favour.

The others (Jones, McNair, Rojo) either spend most of their time on the injured list, or when available don't convince anyone with their abilities. Jones seems to have been so overwhelmed by Sir Alex Ferguson's claims a few years ago that he was the next big hope, that he's lost that edge he used to have. He's a ghost of his former self, and one only hopes someone can talk to him and get him back to performing as he can. He's young, and hopefully will give himself the chance to get back to being a true United player. He is one of the few that I feel still retain that quality. McNair is young enthusiastic and sometimes makes stirring runs into the penalty area, but his defensive game is seriously flawed, and even if he wants to make an impact as a defender from the flanks, his crossing is woeful. Rojo has his good days, and if he can stay fit, should develop into a great defender, but its a stretch to think that he will.

The wing backs or full backs then. Luke Shaw is a class act, but even he hasn't really shown any sign of a resurgence of the Southampton form. He was beginning to have a say in games before his horrific injury though. One can only hope that when he comes back, he does so with the success that Aaron Ramsey did. It is never easy to come back from long term injury though. Just ask Jack Wishere. Antonio Valencia, also a trier, also injured, but effective at times, and at best. Damian made a good start to his United career, for a long time proving to be Van Gaal's best signing, till Martial came along, but even he's had an uncertain time down that right flank. His crosses still leave a lot to be desired, and defensively, a lack of stature and pace has been his bogey. I feel he is still getting used to the pace of the EPL, though if he ever will attune himself enough to form an integral part of this team, I'm not quite sure...Did have a decent game against Liverpool though, was one of the few who did.

Ashley Young has been used as a full back, and wing back this season, with mixed results. The best attacking defender of the lot, he hasn't been able to command a place in the midfield, though his performances in the defence have been better than one can expect. The problem with him is that he requires space to operate in, and when pressed, like he was by Moreno yesterday, is not that effective.

So, an average defence at best. Best lineup for me - Smalling and Jones/Rojo at center, Darmian/Valencia and Shaw/Rojo at the flanks. Do we need to buy? Yes, one center, and one for the right full position.

The midfield still remains a problem. I had hoped Schneiderlin would at least prove to be part of the solution, either as a holding player, or as someone breaking up play in the midfield. He's been OK in part, but mostly he looks like a slightly faster version of Carrick, without the passing ability that the former Spurs man had. He doesn't dictate play as he used to when at Southampton, much like Shaw. The transition to a higher level of club play hasn't quite happened for him. Shweinsteiger was less of a disappointment, as I, like most followers of the game, had known that this was a downgraded version of the German midfield maestro. Apart from waving him arms around a lot and making some misjudged tackles, we've not seen all that much from him. Carrick himself hasn't played all that much, but when he does, its hard to see why he doesn't. He's about one of the only people who can still pass through a crowded midfield with some accuracy, but his speed is representative of the overall team's. This could very possibly be the last season for him at United. It will be sad to see him go, but if United want to challenge for titles in the near future, his must be a back we will be forced to see.

We've seen Fellaini play in central midfield too this season, and Herrera at times, but I don't think that's even worth discussing. Some say Rooney might slot in there soon, and that is eminently possible, but this area remains a sore point, right from the point Scholes called it a day. With what we currently have, in a 4-2-3-1 set up, I'd have Schneiderlin and Blind play here with Lingard, Rooney and Ashley Young in front of them. I love Mata and Herrera, and in a 4-3-3 could see Herrera, Blind and Mata slot into the midfield 3, but this is not a structure Van Gaal plays with a lot.

I stopped writing here for a few days, just because it seemed like I was in the middle of a futile exercise. Which would be fine, but someday when I read this back, I don't want to say I couldn't quite say what I wanted to. In that time, we've had another frustrating game, losing to Southampton, LVG thus losing (once again) to his once-protegee Koeman. No matter how you describe it - boring, insipid, uninspired, staid....it still doesn't begin to describe how desperately bad they have looked this season.

So, again, what's the problem. Is it the team, that is inferior, or is it the manager's fault for not being able to coax a consistent performance from the team. Its a bit of both, IMHO. the team as it stands does not have a single player that I'd have in any World XI. De Gea just about makes the cut, Smalling and Martial have had a few good games, but most of this team just doesn't cut it. But that has never been a problem with United teams. United have never had a team that were world beaters in the vein that we see the Madrids and Barcelonas of old, but they have been United teams. Manchester United teams are used to winning, used to scoring goals, used to having things their own way. And the players carried that swagger onto the field, played above themselves, blew our minds with their come from behind, score in the Fergie time wins. Players like Roy Keane, Eric Cantona, Denis , Gary and Phil Neville, Andy Cole, Ole Gunnar Solskaer, Dwight Yorke...the list can go on. You wouldn't find any of these names on the top 10 of most football fans, but ask a United fan of the 90s and these names will figure every time in the team they wanted to see at the OT. Players that gave more than their all, and excelled in pressure situations, came up with moves that would seem impossible for players of their limitations. Which of the current crop fits that description? Teams arrive at Old Trafford not fearing the XI that face them; instead they find a group of players good on paper, extremely expensive, but as effective as nuts and bolts would be (suspect that's what the fans are calling most of the players these days).

The spirit of the United player needs to come back, and that won't happen with LVG in charge. He knows nothing about inspiring the players into giving more than they can, and he knows little about what United players used to stand for. Listening to him expressing surprise at how the fans are reacting is enough proof of this. It may sound naive, but technique and process can only account for so much. In the end, it's what is inside the footballer that loves being called a Red Devil that will lead this team back to days of yore. 

That name!

Premam! what a misnomer. The image that this word generates had me convinced that the movie by that name would not be much more than a sappy love story, albeit with high production values. Well, that taught me, didn't it? Saw the movie and was overwhelmed by how wrong I was in my assumptions. Premam is a modern, light, funny, breezy  look at life and love. Ostensibly, it tries to reason out the meaning of love, but it ends up talking about everything around as well.

To summarise the plot to a sentence, it is a story of a young man who falls in love, loses it in crushing manner, almost to the point of thinking life was over, only to find it again, and discover that one love is not the only thing in life. I would be tempted to call it a common of age movie but that's not quite it. Yes, it delineates the trials of love in three distinct stages of his life. The school romance, the college love that seemed to be 'the one', and then the one he engages in at a more 'mature' stage. The film doesn't make judgments, no messages about maturity being the final catalyst of true love, it just takes us through the journey of this particular young man. His life may or may not be the norm, it may not reflect everyman's journey, but it belongs to George, it involves his friends at every stage, it showcases the change in the thought process (though many things remain the same) as he ages. As a young boy studying for his plus 2 (11th to 12th-not clear which), his love for a girl he sees in one of his rare forays into church is childish, innocent, and impossible to all but him and his do-all friends. This is the one phase of the film itself that drags a little, even though it does introduce some interesting characters, generates situations that are identifiably amusing, and lends our hero his first taste of rejection.  The second phase sees George bulldozing his way through college, then stumbling into love, this time with a substitute teacher. At least this time, there is reciprocation, and everything is hunky dory, nice and pink. The end to this love story is not pleasant, a lot more crushing to the spirit than George had ever bargained for, and this seemingly toughens him for the next phase of life - one where he is more responsible, less of a 'bore', as his childhood buddy remarks. This love seems destined to fail too, unless...

I liked this film a lot, not having had a lot of expectations, even though this has been uniformly well received -both a commercial and critical success. I can see why though. There is a nice young feel about the movie, a certain freshness that emanates from every gesture, every song, every irreverent dialogue. It feels real, though  not when when you stop to think about it. It makes no heavy conclusions, the director keeps it light at all times, even with the seemingly serious stuff - like that interaction between a drunk George and friends when they argue energetically about his plan of going back  and declaring his 'truth' to his amnesia struck 'true love'. And when (in what is a delightful little cameo by the director himself) an abusive ex fiancee receives his comeuppance from George and co, and is not sure what he's got it for at the end of it. There are many moments like this, several cameos, and so many small sub-plots that you could get distracted easily. But I think that was the point Alphonse was trying to make. Love isn't the be-all and end-all. Life goes on all around it. The little events that keep happening around him are not distractors, they're just there. George, and his friends and love at the time aren't the only things that happen in George's life. Speaking of which, some of the stuff felt anecdotal - the balding inept professor, the PE instructor with a large appetite, the long list of suitors for one girl (she's not that hot either), the unrequited loves in college, the cool father - all felt a little personal. And not out of place - though that bit about the love-lorn suitors milling around the gate of the young school girl was pushed almost to the level of creep.

So, good film, one I've enjoyed in this language after a long time. Alphonse did Neram before this, which was quite a good effort, and now this, so this makes me hopeful of more to come. With that thought then...

The managerial merry-go-round

And so it begins. Bayern Munich confirm the departure at end of season of their mercurial manager Pep Guardiola, and that Carlo Ancelotti will take over there at Pep's tenure. Manuel Pellegrini is still at Man City, but I don't think anyone, including him, fancies his chances of remaining in that position next season. His club are favourites to bag Guardiola, but a couple of other developments have muddied waters enough to put at least some doubt in that decision whenever Guardiola makes it. Jose Mourinho finds himself out of a job, and Roman Abramovich's interest in Guardiola is an open secret. Louis Van Gaal's position at Manchester United is shaky, given the rash of defeats his team has just endured. PSG is interested as well, though I don't really think Laurent Blanc has that much to worry about. France may not be too much of an attraction to anyone, least of all a high flyer like the multiple trophy winning Spaniard.

What does the man himself think of all this? Famed for keeping his cards close to his chest - no body knew for certain where he was going to end up last time this happened, supposedly on sabbatical, it was quite a surprise when he was unveiled at Munich 3 years earlier - Guardiola himself will stay coy and non communicative on this topic.  But a look at his previous decisions would seem to indicate that the Premier League and Manchester City will most likely be his next port of calling. Why? For several reasons, foremost of which is that City may be the only one of his suitors to actually have a team that is most able to continue his winning streak. Sure, Chelsea is a London team and he has friends there, that they were champs last year is also a plus. But the team is a shambolic collection of players - ageing, past their best and despite the presence of some talent - Hazard, Oscar, Willian are not to be scoffed at - a team that is on the cusp of a changeover. Man United may have the history and the past, but the team really needs rebuilding, a task that I think Guardiola would not find to his liking or his considerable talent. If that seems harsh, consider this - he went from Barcelona, at a time when it was threatening to fall apart, to the Bayern that was already double trophy winners in the last year of Heynkes' era. That was a team already in the throes of greatness, and Guardiola carried on that story. Not that he didn't have his stamp imprinted on the club, but when you look at his achievements, you could not say that he took the team to heights never seen. He took them back to the very same heights, in fact one could argue he fell somewhat short as he has yet to win the big one - the Champions League, which ironically was the last trophy that his predecessor at Munich won. I was disappointed when Pep went to Munich. You like to see someone of his caliber and standing to take up a challenge, and to me, he took the easy way out. Not that 3 trophies (and counting) are anything to scoff at, but when you look at it from the perspective of what that club had achieved just in the pervious year, it doesn't seem as impressive.

So Pep, I think, looks for two things when he's shopping for teams - the quality of the team, and their recent successes. Man City may not have won the league last year, but they are favourites to do so this year, if they can recover from their inconsistency, and the constant speculation over who their manager will be next season. If they manage to relieve their minds from the conjecture and the resultant insecurities they should win this at a canter. And I'm sure Pep can see that. Even if they do not win the title this year, there is enough in that team to warrant the contention, shared by many pundits, that this is the best team in English club football, is probably most battle-ready to take on board his game philosophy, and has the financial acumen to provide him the support he needs in terms of players and other facilities. His family might find Manchester a bit of a drag, but then he never stays long enough for the frustration to hit too hard anyway.

What of Mourinho then? After having declared his intent to not take a sabbatical (I can just picture him scoffing at the very suggestion) he seems to have put himself in contention for any plum posts that may be available, Man United being at the top of the list. I would have thought his giant ego might prevent him from taking on the job now, 3 years after he feels he should have been offered the gig. Depending on the version of the story you heard, Mou was supposed to have broken down and sobbed, cancelled his home bookings in Manchester, and burnt pictures of Sir Alex and David Moyes when he learnt he wasn't to be the heir apparent at Old Trafford. Months, or even weeks later he was declaring himself the 'happy man' at the Chelsea unveiling, a second coming of the man they love at Stamford Bridge. So much so, that the Blues, specifically a couple of them, were booed during their 3-1 win against Sunderland, their first game in Mourinho's absence. Now that the Chelsea chapter is finally closed (one surmises), Mou might consider himself magnanimous enough to accept a belated (at least in his eyes) approach from Ed whatsisname and company. That's assuming of course that Van Gaal doesn't get another win in the next 2 games - a likely outcome if you consider the way United have been playing lately. I am reminded of the worst phase during Moyes' final moments as the manager. In fact, I can count on the finger of one hand the days since Moyes' dismissal when United haven't looked exactly like the team that played under the much maligned Scotsman. All this after spending 150 m pounds of the best. The LVG experiment hasn't worked, and unfortunately for the quirky Dutchman, his worst form comes at a time when two of the best managers in the business are available. And that's not even considering the man on the blue side who will be out of a job next season. Pellegrini hasn't done too much wrong, but who wants the best salmon in the world if the caviar is flowing?

Chelsea of course have already put Guus Hiddink in place till the end of the season. Hiddink is the perpetual placeholder, doing this role for the second time at Chelsea. Apparently, Abramovich already has Diego Simeone in his sight once Guardiola refuses his overtures. That would be quite an acquisition, I have to admit. Of the few who I'd like to see at OT, he's pretty high on the list. Pochetino, Klopp, and Tuchel from Dortmund would be others options. Not Mourinho, not Ancelotti, not Benitez, whose days at Real Madrid would appear to be numbered. Speaking of, wouldn't it be something if Guardiola ended up there? He has said he won't manage any other team in Spain, and there are but a few who would be able to have claimed playing on both sides of the Clasico and lived to talk about it...but who knows? Stranger things have happened, haven't they?

The situation around the football world is so fluid, managers cannot guarantee their place in any posting despite the lucrative, often long-term, and seemingly sack-proof contracts they seem to sign off on. Moyes signed a 6 year contract, was sacked before he even completed his first year. Ancelotti was fired from Chelsea, Real Madrid and PSG, and yet retains a healthy respect in the footballing community, so much so that his is the name that tops the list of almost every big club. Once Guardiola makes himself unavailable that is. On the same plane of respect is the Mou. If the troika is exhausted, either because they are otherwise occupied, or have already worked there, there is the second level that has Klopp, Simeone, and inexplicably Rafa Benitez. The most likely scenario that people are betting their houses on are Guardiola at City, Ancelotti at Munich(already confirmed), Mourinho at Man United, Simeone at Chelsea, and Pelegrini at PSG or Madrid. That would leave Benitez to go to PSG.

One feels sorry for LVG. He applied his philosophy and hoped to have his process implemented at United, but it just hasn't worked. Candid as always, he says he'd like not to be sacked from his last job. Whether that was an invitation for other clubs to offer him a short-term contract so he can retire with dignity or not, is a matter of speculation, but I hope he gets his wish. Isn't Swansea hiring?

Will I continue to support United should the nightmare scenario of the Special One finally arriving come true? I don't know. I detest the man - not his managerial capabilities, just him - and the very thought of him taking those Friday afternoon press calls representing my favourite red jersey is revolting. And this recent LVG drama has left me a little disillusioned. The owners are poncy, that Ed fellow is still in charge, taking all the wrong decisions, going after the wrong players (Cristiano Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar????), and the fans are uninspiring (sometimes I want the OT crowd to go to Selhurst Park to watch Crystal Palace - not the team, the supporters). The thing is though I'm not utterly convinced I can keep away from the Devils though. I'm an overseas supporter, I'm not steeped in the knowledge of the history of the Reds, and I certainly can't claim to know the club inside out. But still, I've followed them for the better part of 2 decades now, so I don't know. Even with the renewed interest for Liverpool, I don't see myself changing my colours to the lighter red anytime soon....

Things I like

So, keeping it simple today, which is like saying yup, I'm going to breathe today, but you know, gotta start with something.

I was just thinking the other day that we spend far too much time thinking of the things we don't like, or would like to change, either about ourselves, or about people and things we are in contact with on a daily basis. I always wondered what I would say if I had one of these "10 things I would do..."interviews where the quizzer (yes I know that's not a word) asks suspiciously intrusive questions about somebody's likes and dislikes. I felt I'd have to think about that for a minute. Don't really have that many things I feel proud about, and would not for the life of me recall the most embarrassing moment I've had, or the most fulfilling.

But yesterday as I watched a movie (can't remember which - don't judge), and the thing I noticed was the sound of thunder in the background. (Oh wait, just remembered, it was the pilot of The Leftovers..not even a movie :)) And my next thought was - I really like that sound. I really do. Lightning and thunder can be scary, and I won't say I don't feel the odd shiver down the spine, and the thump-thump of the heart when a particularly loud one bursts in the vicinity, but it's a sound and sight I really like. Have loved the rains ever since I can remember, and I guess the associative nature of these two companions of the wet weather are always pleasing to me. It could be the low rumble that goes on for minutes, or the loud fierce crack or the boom that shakes the room (you can almost smell the sulphur on a really loud one). I love them all.

Living in Penang has brought me closer to the realisation that I love these sounds, which frequently accompany the smell of rain. The weather is at its best when it's wet around here. It not only presents a relief from the stultifying humidity and heat that usually prevails in these parts, but also brings a sea-change (quite literally - we live a few hundred feet from the Straits of Malacca). The sun hides behind some friendly dark clouds and everything goes grey, blue, and green. What's not to like?

The second like in my yet unformed list is watching my wife smile. She has the smile that lights up my consciousness, which is a lot more potent than just doing the room or the building or the place we are at. It just feels like (borrowing from a book I have not read by JS Foer) everything is illuminated. It's like for that brief time nothing is wrong with my world, and if there is, then it's all going to be alright. I have never told her this, and I hope I will someday. I do remember saying to her a few days into our marriage that when I looked at her, my chest felt like it was full of something that would either make me float or just explode. She smiled at that...and I'd give anything to make her smile like that for the rest of my life, and possibly beyond that. I'm not talking about afterlife, just the memories I hope I can leave with her when I've taken my last breath.

So, that's two things I like....will hope to find more along the way...

Grand Canyon revisited

The end, or as close as you can get to it, of the year is hardly the best time to write the first post of the year, but I suppose you go with the urge when it comes.

I'm going to dive right into it. The other day, I saw the Grand Canyon again - the film, not the actual geographical marvel. It has been on my list of best films watched as long as I can remember, but it never gets a mention anywhere else. This despite the fact that it had an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay. So I kinda expected someone to remember the film, but all I get is blank stares when I do mention it. Which made me think that I saw into it too much owing to my naivety and what not. So when I had the chance, I watched it again, almost a quarter a century after it was made.

Before I talk about how the film fared on this trans-generational (well, almost) viewing, let me attempt to try and remember why I'd liked it in the first place. The film was released in 1991; India was in the throes of its discovery of liberalisation, and cable TV was making its appearance. I don't remember the year I actually saw GC, but I do know it was one of the first headline movies to show up on Star TV (or Movies, though I think this was before the time there was a dedicated movie channel), our first international channel, which brought us more than dated shows like Fraggle Rock and Fireball XL5 (Incidentally, my son recently discovered Fraggle Rock in a link coming out of an iPad app and was immensely into it for a while). So Grand Canyon, and something called Johnny Dangerously, a Michael Keaton starrer that I have never seen again, were things that seemed brand new, a nugget out of the mysterious West, of which we new only what our well-off relatives told us.

GC had a stellar cast - Steve Martin, Kevin Kline, Mary McDonnell, Mary Louise Parker, but the one that made the deepest impression was Danny Glover. As a honest, plain-speaking tow truck driver, Glover epitomised cool for me, and in the years that followed, I jumped at the chance to see his films. Watching him in the Lethal Weapon series and Predator 2 was a bit of a downer, and I always wondered why he didn't get any meaningful roles after that. The other two things I remember - Mary Mcdonnell, sweet and sexy, and the human aspect of the story of a city that the filmmaker Lawrence Kasdan definitely saw as suffering from decay and dereliction. It was a story of ennui, greed, loneliness, conflict, and ultimately hope. The finding of an abandoned child brings a dynamic change in the life of a housewife which could be attributed to the empty nest syndrome, but wasn't, not really. A mugging in broad daylight awakens first remorse, and then sel-reconciliation in a moneyed film producer.

All these things resonated with me then, and they did so even now, but then there were new revelations as well. The successful media executive, played by Kline is going through a crisis of his own - mid-life or otherwise - and his uncertainty about what matters in life changes not just with one or two incidences. Things happen around him, he floats along with the tide, learns a few things, but eventually decides to risk bringing up a new child despite the feeling that his drifting life gives him. The loneliness that his assistant and one-night-stand feels is one of the most painful of emotions that I felt. The scene where she narrowly escapes a car jacking and subsequently breaks down in front of a sympathetic cop is as emotionally wrenching a scene I have ever watched.

So I stick to my original opinion - I liked this movie when I was 17, and I liked it even better at 41. Its one of those rare nuggets that people look at cursorily, nod absently over, and then ignore and forget. But a nugget it is, and retains pride of place in my humble all-time fave film list.