In the wake of Darren Lehmann's resignation as the head coach of the Australian men's cricket team following the ball tampering scandal in the third test against South Africa last weekend, there are now questions about who should be the next coach.
Cricket Australia has issued a statement saying that they will not be making a fast decision and that they're not in a hurry, so let's look at the possible contenders.
Justin Langer
At the top of the list, and the most likely choice is Justin Langer. He played for the Australian men's cricket team between 1991 and 2000 before taking a break until 2006 and continuing until 2009 at which time he retired from playing. Since his retirement from playing he has coached the Perth Scorchers and was an assistant coach for Cricket Australia in 2009. Outside of cricket he is Catholic and a Liberal Party member. With his coaching experience he could be the right choice however he is 47 and whoever becomes the next coach needs to be in it for a long time, especially with the World Cup coming in 2019.
Ricky Ponting
A close contender, Ricky Ponting is a former Australian cricket captain and has played cricket for 26 years, since he was 17 years old. Since retiring from cricket in 2012 he has acted as the interim coach for the T20I series in South Africa in 2016/17. He also coached the Mumbai Indians in the IPL from 2014 to 2016 and has coached the Delhi Daredevils since January of this year. He has a young family and whether he would want to stop coaching the Delhi Daredevils after such a short time in favour of coaching Australia remains to be seen however he is one of the favourites for the role. He isn't a sledger and appers to be an all round nice guy.
Mike Hesson
Cricket Australia may choose to look internationally to fill the void left by outgoing coach Darren Lehmann. He has previously coached Kenya, Otago and Argentina so he has vast experience. Currently he coaches the NZ Cricket team and has been contracted until after the next Cricket World Cup so he may not want to break that contract, however if Cricket Australia offered him the right deal it's certainly a possibility. The only issue is that Cricket Australia may be short on funds given the loss of large sponsors in the last week.
Shane Warne
He is an outsider however he has previously experessed interest in coaching the Australian men's cricket team. He has said it would depend on timing. The problems with Shane Warne are that he is not without controversy himself. He was vice captain from 1999 until 2000 when he was sacked after indiscretions in his personal life. He is known as a womanizer and has had other problems. In 2003 he was banned from playing cricket for 12 months after being accused of taking a banned substance. He denied the allegations and was eventually allowed back in the team in 2004 and he played until 2006. Since then he has held commentary roles and has coached the Rajasthan Royals in the Indian Premier League. Over the last week he has spoken out in defence of the suspended players and has said the penalty is way too harsh. He is a respected commentator however questions remain over whether or not he would be the right person for the coaching job given his indiscretions and lenient stance on the ball tampering incident.
Michael Clarke
Former captain, Michael Clarke who showed leadership after the untimely death of Phillip Hughes and brought the Cricket World Cup home in 2015 could become the coach. At 36 he is young, and with his vast experience in Australian cricket, and youth on his side he could be what Cricket Australia needs. Clarke has a clean record, isn't into sledging and is generally an all round nice guy. He wants Cricket Australia to recover from the ball tampering and genuinely cares about all of the players in the game. Last Sunday he expressed interest in the captaincy which, in the end went to Tasmanian wicket keeper Tim Paine. Clarke has made several comments in the media which have shown leadership and has indicated that he would not tolerate cheating and would be firm but fair and wouldn't tolerate cheating at all.
Given Cricket Australia needs to rebuild it's reputation, outsider Michael Clarke may be able to fill the role. It's not known if he wants to give up his media commentating roles and how he would cope with the role given he has a young daughter. That said, many of the families travel with cricketers now and so this shouldn't be an issue.
If I was on the selection panel, I would be torn between Warne, Clarke and Ponting, however I would probably have to choose Clarke because of the leadership he's shown over the last few years and he brought home the Cricket World Cup in 2015. He's young enough to be a long term coach and given he's a nice guy he may be the breath of fresh air that Cricket Australia needs.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
A recap on the Cricket Australia debacle - the one thing we're not talking about
The mainstream media over the last few days has ripped into former Australian cricket captain Steve Smith, co captain David Warner and former player Cameron Bancroft.
Today the trio fronted up to the media upon returning to Australia from Cape Town in South Africa.
David Warner issued a statement posted as a note on Twitter, meanwhile Cameron Bancroft and Steve Smith both fronted the media. Both were visibly shaken with former captain, Steve Smith the most distraught of the pair of them. He was in tears for most of the press conference and barely held it together. He apologised several times and said he hopes he can come back from this and represent Australia once again. Whether or not he can remains to be seen. Only time will tell.
I won't harp on about how they've embarrassed Australia and played outside of the cricket rules because we've had wall to wall coverage of that this week; and I won't talk about how they've been banned from playing and representing Australia for 12 months in the case of Steve Smith and David Warner; and nine in the case of Cameron Bancroft. I also won't talk about their media conferences in great detail because we can make up our own minds about what they said and how they should be treated following those conferences. It appears that based on the media conferences, Steve Smith is the only one who truly understands the magnitude of what happened on the cricket field and understands that, in his words, "playing is an honour and representing Australia is an honour".
Instead I'll talk about why Australians and the rest of the world got so angry about what happened last weekend in Cape Town.
Like Sydney Morning Herald columnist Waleed Aly said in a column he wrote today, it was such a big deal to us because of how we think about ourselves and our national pride. It wasn't a case of tampering with a ball, because let's face it, on its own, ball tampering is not a big deal. It's about the fact that it's cheating and we, as Australians, are better than that. It's about the fact that we don't cheat. Yes we sledge other players but we don't cheat and that's not how we want the rest of the world to perceive us. There are nations that you would expect cheating from but Australia isn't one of them. Yes, there was the underarm incident in 1961 BUT that was permitted according to the rules of the time. If we wanted to be perceived as cheats then sponsors wouldn't have withdrawn their sponsorship, which is so far around $24 million, and that is going to make a serious dent on Cricket Australia's books. We'll come back to that point later on though.
Now moving on from the players concerned, there is one thing that has been missed by both the public and the media and I want to draw attention to it. There has been a noticeable absence of women sports commentators and columnists discussing the cricket debacle.
I understand that men's cricket rakes in more dollars than women's cricket and that women's cricket has only really been going the last 20 years but today barely gets any coverage. I understand that as a result there is a smaller pool of female cricket commentators (normally ex players) to choose from like there are with men's cricket, but surely there would be some women with opinions on the matter other than myself. She hosts The Footy Show, so why haven't other programs brought her in for commentary? Broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson is another one who could have been brought in to talk about it given she is one of the hosts on The Project. Yet she hasn't been asked, or offered commentary either. Australian women's cricketer, Ellyse Perry who is very prominent and well known hasn't been sought for comment from the cricketing world either. Don't get me wrong, it's great hearing from cricketers such as Shane Warne, Michael Clarke and Steve Waugh but it seems it's only men who are speaking about it.
So my first is, why aren't women being asked for opinions on cricket and offered sports commentary gigs? Why have women's voices been noticeably absent from the conversation going on in Australia right now about our men's cricket team? And my third question is, why aren't more women and girls playing the sport? And yes, a kid I played cricket for about five years with my dad as the coach (and we won every single game, other than a match that we had been winning, until it was rained off - when we replayed the team, another of the best in the city, we lost the match, that was the only match we lost). My last question is, if women aren't playing sports like men do, then why is that and what can be done to encourage girls and women into sports?
I hope that cricket's reputation isn't damaged for long and that Australian boys AND girls take up the sport because it's a great sport, and it's one that anyone can play, and I for one will be taking it up again next season.
Cricket is a brilliant sport and hopefully its reputation recovers with honest, fair play that adheres to the rules.
Today the trio fronted up to the media upon returning to Australia from Cape Town in South Africa.
David Warner issued a statement posted as a note on Twitter, meanwhile Cameron Bancroft and Steve Smith both fronted the media. Both were visibly shaken with former captain, Steve Smith the most distraught of the pair of them. He was in tears for most of the press conference and barely held it together. He apologised several times and said he hopes he can come back from this and represent Australia once again. Whether or not he can remains to be seen. Only time will tell.
I won't harp on about how they've embarrassed Australia and played outside of the cricket rules because we've had wall to wall coverage of that this week; and I won't talk about how they've been banned from playing and representing Australia for 12 months in the case of Steve Smith and David Warner; and nine in the case of Cameron Bancroft. I also won't talk about their media conferences in great detail because we can make up our own minds about what they said and how they should be treated following those conferences. It appears that based on the media conferences, Steve Smith is the only one who truly understands the magnitude of what happened on the cricket field and understands that, in his words, "playing is an honour and representing Australia is an honour".
Instead I'll talk about why Australians and the rest of the world got so angry about what happened last weekend in Cape Town.
Like Sydney Morning Herald columnist Waleed Aly said in a column he wrote today, it was such a big deal to us because of how we think about ourselves and our national pride. It wasn't a case of tampering with a ball, because let's face it, on its own, ball tampering is not a big deal. It's about the fact that it's cheating and we, as Australians, are better than that. It's about the fact that we don't cheat. Yes we sledge other players but we don't cheat and that's not how we want the rest of the world to perceive us. There are nations that you would expect cheating from but Australia isn't one of them. Yes, there was the underarm incident in 1961 BUT that was permitted according to the rules of the time. If we wanted to be perceived as cheats then sponsors wouldn't have withdrawn their sponsorship, which is so far around $24 million, and that is going to make a serious dent on Cricket Australia's books. We'll come back to that point later on though.
Now moving on from the players concerned, there is one thing that has been missed by both the public and the media and I want to draw attention to it. There has been a noticeable absence of women sports commentators and columnists discussing the cricket debacle.
I understand that men's cricket rakes in more dollars than women's cricket and that women's cricket has only really been going the last 20 years but today barely gets any coverage. I understand that as a result there is a smaller pool of female cricket commentators (normally ex players) to choose from like there are with men's cricket, but surely there would be some women with opinions on the matter other than myself. She hosts The Footy Show, so why haven't other programs brought her in for commentary? Broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson is another one who could have been brought in to talk about it given she is one of the hosts on The Project. Yet she hasn't been asked, or offered commentary either. Australian women's cricketer, Ellyse Perry who is very prominent and well known hasn't been sought for comment from the cricketing world either. Don't get me wrong, it's great hearing from cricketers such as Shane Warne, Michael Clarke and Steve Waugh but it seems it's only men who are speaking about it.
So my first is, why aren't women being asked for opinions on cricket and offered sports commentary gigs? Why have women's voices been noticeably absent from the conversation going on in Australia right now about our men's cricket team? And my third question is, why aren't more women and girls playing the sport? And yes, a kid I played cricket for about five years with my dad as the coach (and we won every single game, other than a match that we had been winning, until it was rained off - when we replayed the team, another of the best in the city, we lost the match, that was the only match we lost). My last question is, if women aren't playing sports like men do, then why is that and what can be done to encourage girls and women into sports?
I hope that cricket's reputation isn't damaged for long and that Australian boys AND girls take up the sport because it's a great sport, and it's one that anyone can play, and I for one will be taking it up again next season.
Cricket is a brilliant sport and hopefully its reputation recovers with honest, fair play that adheres to the rules.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
The state of Cricket Australia following the ball tampering incident in South Africa
I don't often write about sports as for the most part I don't find writing about it exciting but occasionally an event will happen when that changes and it's necessary to blog about it.
By now you would have heard that Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were enbroiled in a ball tampering incident during the third match of a test series against South Africa. The incident was caught on camera and Australians all over the country were outraged, as were New Zealanders, the English and basically anyone with an interest in cricket.
At the time of cheating, Australia had won one match, South Africa had won won match and were on track to win the third of a four test series.
The media and the public both called for captain Steve Smith and David Warner to be stood down at the very least, and they defiantly refused to stand down.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull weighed in on the debate saying it was a terrible example for young sports players and former NSW Premier Mike Baird said the same thing. Pressure mounted as the day wore on.
Former great cricketers such as Michael Clarke and Shane Warne tweeted their disappointment and disgust in the actions, with Clarke even saying he would be happy to come out of retirement if the right people asked him to. Of course that was met by mixed reactions with 52% polled on a Daily Telegraph website survey saying they would be happy with him returning as captain and 48% saying no.
Early in the evening, Cricket Australia released a statement saying that Steve Smith and David Warner had been stood down and Tim Paine would be acting captain for the rest of the test.
Is this enough though? Given they cheated there are so many questions that need to be asked:
It isn't enough that they've been stood down for the rest of the match. If they're reinstated it sends a really bad message to the world that cheating is acceptable and that it doesn't have consequences.
Given Australia won the Cricket World Cup in 2015 under Michael Clarke's captaincy you would think that Australia would have enough faith in themselves that they could win the match by playing fairly. Tampering with the ball is not fair and it goes against our cricket history (excluding the underarm incident, which technically was legal according to international cricket standards).
Captain Steve Smith and co captain David Warner need to be sacked from the team permanently. They cheated and that means that they are not fit to represent Australia on the international stage. It's disappointing that they felt the need to cheat and that two crickets will be lost but if we're to maintain any credibility we can't be soft on their despicable actions.
With Michael Clarke saying that he would be willing to come out of retirement Cricket Australia has a chance to regain credibility. Some say it's a ridiculous idea but he only retired three years ago whereas Bobby Simpson had been in retirement for ten years before returning to the captaincy so there's no reason that it can't be done. He was also 41 at the time, and Michael Clarke is only 36. He is not the only Australian cricketer to come out of retirement. In 2003, Shane Warne was banned from cricket for take prohibited drugs and then returned in 2004, before retiring for good in 2006.
The coming days will be interesting to say the least but one thing is certain, Cricket Australia needs to make it extremely clear that cheating will not be tolerated otherwise the sport is in a lot of trouble. Cricket is Australia's national sport and we must show the world that we play it fairly, so even though it's sad we're losing two good players, we must take action for the future of the sport.
By now you would have heard that Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were enbroiled in a ball tampering incident during the third match of a test series against South Africa. The incident was caught on camera and Australians all over the country were outraged, as were New Zealanders, the English and basically anyone with an interest in cricket.
At the time of cheating, Australia had won one match, South Africa had won won match and were on track to win the third of a four test series.
The media and the public both called for captain Steve Smith and David Warner to be stood down at the very least, and they defiantly refused to stand down.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull weighed in on the debate saying it was a terrible example for young sports players and former NSW Premier Mike Baird said the same thing. Pressure mounted as the day wore on.
Former great cricketers such as Michael Clarke and Shane Warne tweeted their disappointment and disgust in the actions, with Clarke even saying he would be happy to come out of retirement if the right people asked him to. Of course that was met by mixed reactions with 52% polled on a Daily Telegraph website survey saying they would be happy with him returning as captain and 48% saying no.
Early in the evening, Cricket Australia released a statement saying that Steve Smith and David Warner had been stood down and Tim Paine would be acting captain for the rest of the test.
Is this enough though? Given they cheated there are so many questions that need to be asked:
- Have they cheated before?
- What made them cheat?
- What did they hope to achieve by cheating?
It isn't enough that they've been stood down for the rest of the match. If they're reinstated it sends a really bad message to the world that cheating is acceptable and that it doesn't have consequences.
Given Australia won the Cricket World Cup in 2015 under Michael Clarke's captaincy you would think that Australia would have enough faith in themselves that they could win the match by playing fairly. Tampering with the ball is not fair and it goes against our cricket history (excluding the underarm incident, which technically was legal according to international cricket standards).
Captain Steve Smith and co captain David Warner need to be sacked from the team permanently. They cheated and that means that they are not fit to represent Australia on the international stage. It's disappointing that they felt the need to cheat and that two crickets will be lost but if we're to maintain any credibility we can't be soft on their despicable actions.
With Michael Clarke saying that he would be willing to come out of retirement Cricket Australia has a chance to regain credibility. Some say it's a ridiculous idea but he only retired three years ago whereas Bobby Simpson had been in retirement for ten years before returning to the captaincy so there's no reason that it can't be done. He was also 41 at the time, and Michael Clarke is only 36. He is not the only Australian cricketer to come out of retirement. In 2003, Shane Warne was banned from cricket for take prohibited drugs and then returned in 2004, before retiring for good in 2006.
The coming days will be interesting to say the least but one thing is certain, Cricket Australia needs to make it extremely clear that cheating will not be tolerated otherwise the sport is in a lot of trouble. Cricket is Australia's national sport and we must show the world that we play it fairly, so even though it's sad we're losing two good players, we must take action for the future of the sport.
Monday, March 19, 2018
The truth about obesity and why saying nothing is doing more harm than good
I don't like starting blogs in a cliched way that other writers do, but there is something we need to talk about and actually listen when we talk about it.
If you grew up in the 90s then you probably grew up in a time when people still played outside and when it wasn't cool to be overweight or obese. Schools encouraged physical activity and magazines exclusively used thin models to promote clothing.
We then fast forwarded a few years and things had changed. Instead of thin models, we started to see overweight and obese models pitched as "healthy" and "real". Magazine editors became worried that people would have eating disorders if they were only exposed to thin models and that "big is beautiful". Basically they started promoting a message that you can still be obese and good looking.
Then in came vanity sizing where a size 6 is really a size 10 and a size 2 is what a size 6 used to be. Basically nobody actually knows what size they are anymore and people feel better when they fit into a smaller size. Of course, with vanity sizing people started to lose the perception of what healthy was and started to believe they were a small size when in reality they may not be.
Newspaper editors, politicians and activists started to whinge and get behind this message that, "the average is size 16 so models should be that size too".
Okay, here's the thing. Size 16 is obese, if not morbidly obese. Just because 60% of the population in Australia and New Zealand is overweight or obese doesn't make it healthy. It just means that 60% of the population are not looking after their health.
When you talk to obese people they tend to complain that everyone in a gym is staring at them (for the record, we're not. We don't care about your workout. We're focused on ourselves) and that they'd feel self conscious. This sounds like excuses to me, but let's say it's true that they do feel self conscious, what's stopping them from walking outside? Okay, so obese people also say that they can't do strenuous exercise and that they'd struggle? So why don't they start off with low intensity exercise until they've lost a few kilos and can do more?
The fact of the matter is that there is actually no such thing as fat and fit. It is a myth. If fat and fit existed then why is it that you never see fat people in gyms? Why is it that they never run marathons? It's because honestly they can't and they are lazy. That in itself is a huge problem. If someone can't run then that is a sign of poor health.
People may still be good looking when they're obese and some people can pull off obesity from a visual perspective, but that does not mean they're healthy. Most obese people are setting themselves up for a lifetime of health problems and they'll find their heart is strained. That puts them at risk of a heart attack or other health conditions.
People don't talk about the health effects of obesity. Even losing five or ten kilos can actually help.
The fact is that while trying to prevent Anorexia and Bulimia people are actually creating another eating disorder. Yes. I would sya that overeating and obesity is an eating disorder just like Anorexia and Bulimia and that it needs to be treated as a mental health issue rather than just a physical condition.
I'd love to know why people think obesity is okay but Anorexia and Bulimia aren't. None of these eating disorders are good and they all lead to health complications.
People may think they're being kind by not telling people that they're an unhealthy weight but they're acutally not being kind. By not telling someone they need to lose weight that only contributes to their bad health and ignorance that their size isn't okay.
it's time that people started being honest and took responsibility for reducing the rate of obesity.
I don't believe that a sugar tax will help though because just like smoking, people have reasons for overeating. It could be that they're stressed or working long hours. If that is the case then people need to be educated to make better choices and they need to become informed that exercise actually reduces stress levels and can increase energy. it also becomes addictive.
I'm not saying there is a quick fix to solving the issue of obesity, because there isn't but until people admit it's a problem and stop trying to justify it, things will never change and people will be eating and sitting their way to an early grave.
If you grew up in the 90s then you probably grew up in a time when people still played outside and when it wasn't cool to be overweight or obese. Schools encouraged physical activity and magazines exclusively used thin models to promote clothing.
We then fast forwarded a few years and things had changed. Instead of thin models, we started to see overweight and obese models pitched as "healthy" and "real". Magazine editors became worried that people would have eating disorders if they were only exposed to thin models and that "big is beautiful". Basically they started promoting a message that you can still be obese and good looking.
Then in came vanity sizing where a size 6 is really a size 10 and a size 2 is what a size 6 used to be. Basically nobody actually knows what size they are anymore and people feel better when they fit into a smaller size. Of course, with vanity sizing people started to lose the perception of what healthy was and started to believe they were a small size when in reality they may not be.
Newspaper editors, politicians and activists started to whinge and get behind this message that, "the average is size 16 so models should be that size too".
Okay, here's the thing. Size 16 is obese, if not morbidly obese. Just because 60% of the population in Australia and New Zealand is overweight or obese doesn't make it healthy. It just means that 60% of the population are not looking after their health.
When you talk to obese people they tend to complain that everyone in a gym is staring at them (for the record, we're not. We don't care about your workout. We're focused on ourselves) and that they'd feel self conscious. This sounds like excuses to me, but let's say it's true that they do feel self conscious, what's stopping them from walking outside? Okay, so obese people also say that they can't do strenuous exercise and that they'd struggle? So why don't they start off with low intensity exercise until they've lost a few kilos and can do more?
The fact of the matter is that there is actually no such thing as fat and fit. It is a myth. If fat and fit existed then why is it that you never see fat people in gyms? Why is it that they never run marathons? It's because honestly they can't and they are lazy. That in itself is a huge problem. If someone can't run then that is a sign of poor health.
People may still be good looking when they're obese and some people can pull off obesity from a visual perspective, but that does not mean they're healthy. Most obese people are setting themselves up for a lifetime of health problems and they'll find their heart is strained. That puts them at risk of a heart attack or other health conditions.
People don't talk about the health effects of obesity. Even losing five or ten kilos can actually help.
The fact is that while trying to prevent Anorexia and Bulimia people are actually creating another eating disorder. Yes. I would sya that overeating and obesity is an eating disorder just like Anorexia and Bulimia and that it needs to be treated as a mental health issue rather than just a physical condition.
I'd love to know why people think obesity is okay but Anorexia and Bulimia aren't. None of these eating disorders are good and they all lead to health complications.
People may think they're being kind by not telling people that they're an unhealthy weight but they're acutally not being kind. By not telling someone they need to lose weight that only contributes to their bad health and ignorance that their size isn't okay.
it's time that people started being honest and took responsibility for reducing the rate of obesity.
I don't believe that a sugar tax will help though because just like smoking, people have reasons for overeating. It could be that they're stressed or working long hours. If that is the case then people need to be educated to make better choices and they need to become informed that exercise actually reduces stress levels and can increase energy. it also becomes addictive.
I'm not saying there is a quick fix to solving the issue of obesity, because there isn't but until people admit it's a problem and stop trying to justify it, things will never change and people will be eating and sitting their way to an early grave.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Music Review: Taylor Swift, reputation and Delicate music video
When Taylor Swift first burst onto the music scene 12 years ago I wasn't really a fan. I was like, "Taylor who?!" Seriously, I couldn't have cared less about her and didn't see what all the fuss was about. I should say that I also thought the same about Britney Spears when she first released Baby one more time in 1999, but as with all pop music, it's catchy and you end up becoming a fan.
It was in 2013 when I actually did become a fan of Taylor's. The song that converted me was her duet with Ed Sheeran, Everything has changed. From that moment on I was a convert and a total "Swiftie".
I even bought tickets to the Red Tour but because I wasn't a huge fan, I ended up selling the ticket. Yeah a few years later and I regret that big time even though I did see her at ANZ Stadium in 2015 and will be seeing her in November this year as well when she brings the reputation Stadium Tour downunder.
Like most celebrities, everyone loved Taylor for the first few years and then she suddenly became the smelly kid that nobody wanted to be around. This happened after the 1989 era. There was a lot of controversy surrounding her and her friendships with other celebrities including Katy Perry (I'm not naming the others as I don't want their names on my blog) and she lost the public's respect.
It's really sad when this happens to singers. It happened to Britney Spears during the Blackout era, though it was much worse than with Taylor Swift. Swift still has some sanity left, or at least she appears to.
That brings me to the purpose of the blog. Her sixth studio album, reputation was released on the 10th of November 2017 and unlike her previous albums it hasn't done as well on the charts. It did peak at number 1 in both Australia and New Zealand, however it hasn't sold nearly as many copies this side of the world and has only reached Gold status in NZ and Platinum in Australia. That's more than most singers but it's not as good as Taylor's other albums.
There have been mixed reviews to the songs on the album. Look what you made me do was the album's lead single and was rumoured to be about a couple of media personalities including Katy Perry. Swift doesn't conduct interviews like she used to so this has never been confirmed. The song went to number 1 in several countries and is Taylor's angriest song.
The single was followed up with Ready for it, which is a very different sound for Taylor and features som rapping in it. It has not been popular and did not reach number 1 in any country. End Game is a slower track featuring Ed Sheeran and Future. It's about Taylor's reputation and again, it has not been well received.
Last night however, the iHeartRadio Music Awards were held and Taylor Swift debuted the music video for her new single Delicate, and while the charts are not actually out yet, I expect this song to be popular, even if only because of the video.
Delicate starts with Taylor facing the camera and being interviewed by the paparazzi. She's wearing a blue dress and her hair is styled in a smilar fashion to the Red era. It looks as if she's being told what to do and what to say. There's a scene where she's looking in the mirror pulling faces and smiling. It almost looks as if she feels as if she has to be a certain person and that she can't be herself.
Then throughout the video she's seen by herself dancing in various locations including a hotel lobby, a train station and outside in the rain. Nobody is paying attention to her and she is being ignored by everyone. She's trying to get their attention but they keep ignoring her. In some parts of the video she seems deflated and sad. There's one moment in a hall where she's alone and then she worries that people are watching her but they're not. They're just ignoring her. It's the same when she's on a train.
Towards the end of the video she enters a nightclub after she's finished dancing in the rain and sees a guy who is off screen and suddenly she's happy.
So what does this video mean? I'm not going to talk about all the things other bloggers and bloggers have talked about. Instead I'm going to mention that the dress is blue and Taylor said during the Red Tour that colours depict moods for her which would indicate that she's been feeling down and blue since the 1989 era. There is also a woman early on in the video wearing green, and green is the colour of envy and jealousy which could indicate that the media is jealous of Taylor. In another scene Taylor is looking at a woman who is wearing dark red, which is a passionate colour, and that could suggest that she still has a fire burning inside of her and wants to get back to who she was before the 1989 era when she was still a media darling. The video finishes with her going into a nightclub and we see the red lights outside, again, indicating that Taylor wants to get back to who she was during the Red era and that she wants to put the 1989 era when the media turned on her behind her.
This is definitely my favourite Taylor Swift video and Delicate really shows a softer side of Taylor and what she's feeling inside. It shows that she's human and is just like anyone else.
The album isn't as good as her preivous work and is almost two albums in one, with the first half being angry and then the second half being happier. I'd give it a 3.5 out of 5 stars.
It was in 2013 when I actually did become a fan of Taylor's. The song that converted me was her duet with Ed Sheeran, Everything has changed. From that moment on I was a convert and a total "Swiftie".
I even bought tickets to the Red Tour but because I wasn't a huge fan, I ended up selling the ticket. Yeah a few years later and I regret that big time even though I did see her at ANZ Stadium in 2015 and will be seeing her in November this year as well when she brings the reputation Stadium Tour downunder.
Like most celebrities, everyone loved Taylor for the first few years and then she suddenly became the smelly kid that nobody wanted to be around. This happened after the 1989 era. There was a lot of controversy surrounding her and her friendships with other celebrities including Katy Perry (I'm not naming the others as I don't want their names on my blog) and she lost the public's respect.
It's really sad when this happens to singers. It happened to Britney Spears during the Blackout era, though it was much worse than with Taylor Swift. Swift still has some sanity left, or at least she appears to.
That brings me to the purpose of the blog. Her sixth studio album, reputation was released on the 10th of November 2017 and unlike her previous albums it hasn't done as well on the charts. It did peak at number 1 in both Australia and New Zealand, however it hasn't sold nearly as many copies this side of the world and has only reached Gold status in NZ and Platinum in Australia. That's more than most singers but it's not as good as Taylor's other albums.
There have been mixed reviews to the songs on the album. Look what you made me do was the album's lead single and was rumoured to be about a couple of media personalities including Katy Perry. Swift doesn't conduct interviews like she used to so this has never been confirmed. The song went to number 1 in several countries and is Taylor's angriest song.
The single was followed up with Ready for it, which is a very different sound for Taylor and features som rapping in it. It has not been popular and did not reach number 1 in any country. End Game is a slower track featuring Ed Sheeran and Future. It's about Taylor's reputation and again, it has not been well received.
Last night however, the iHeartRadio Music Awards were held and Taylor Swift debuted the music video for her new single Delicate, and while the charts are not actually out yet, I expect this song to be popular, even if only because of the video.
Delicate starts with Taylor facing the camera and being interviewed by the paparazzi. She's wearing a blue dress and her hair is styled in a smilar fashion to the Red era. It looks as if she's being told what to do and what to say. There's a scene where she's looking in the mirror pulling faces and smiling. It almost looks as if she feels as if she has to be a certain person and that she can't be herself.
Then throughout the video she's seen by herself dancing in various locations including a hotel lobby, a train station and outside in the rain. Nobody is paying attention to her and she is being ignored by everyone. She's trying to get their attention but they keep ignoring her. In some parts of the video she seems deflated and sad. There's one moment in a hall where she's alone and then she worries that people are watching her but they're not. They're just ignoring her. It's the same when she's on a train.
Towards the end of the video she enters a nightclub after she's finished dancing in the rain and sees a guy who is off screen and suddenly she's happy.
So what does this video mean? I'm not going to talk about all the things other bloggers and bloggers have talked about. Instead I'm going to mention that the dress is blue and Taylor said during the Red Tour that colours depict moods for her which would indicate that she's been feeling down and blue since the 1989 era. There is also a woman early on in the video wearing green, and green is the colour of envy and jealousy which could indicate that the media is jealous of Taylor. In another scene Taylor is looking at a woman who is wearing dark red, which is a passionate colour, and that could suggest that she still has a fire burning inside of her and wants to get back to who she was before the 1989 era when she was still a media darling. The video finishes with her going into a nightclub and we see the red lights outside, again, indicating that Taylor wants to get back to who she was during the Red era and that she wants to put the 1989 era when the media turned on her behind her.
This is definitely my favourite Taylor Swift video and Delicate really shows a softer side of Taylor and what she's feeling inside. It shows that she's human and is just like anyone else.
The album isn't as good as her preivous work and is almost two albums in one, with the first half being angry and then the second half being happier. I'd give it a 3.5 out of 5 stars.
The new National Party lineup
I've stated this previously, not on this blog, but in general. I am not a fan of Simon Bridges being the new National Party leader. From my point of view he is too weak and "Labour lite". That is to say that although he appears to be a social conservative (anti abortion, anti same sex marriage, anti euthanasia) he is an economic liberal and pro the environment.
As someone who is "hard right" meaning I am on the far right side of the political spectrum I find the idea of an economic liberal leading the party to be contradictory. Surely he would be better placed in the Labour Party. He is not the first National Party leader in recent years to be closer to the centre than the right.
This alone will not help National if they want to win the next election in 2020.
Today leader Simon Bridges announced his new lineup and there are a few surprises and a few predictable moves.
As we all know, Paula Bennett hang onto the deputy position, while leadership contender Amy Adams (who lost out to him) holds onto the number 3 position and the Finance portfolio. Another contender Judith Collins was promoted to number 4 and holds the Housing portfolio. This decision is excellent as Collins is a strong MP and is on the far right of the party, and will hold Labour accountable over the next couple of years.
Other MPs to get promoted include Jami Lee Ross who is now in the top 10. He sits at number 8 and has been in politics for over ten years. He holds the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio. He has slowly been moving up in the party ranks. I would say he is a future National Party Prime Minister. This is based on what I've seen of him over the last ten years and how he has progressed from winning the Botany by election in 2011 to his performance in the Young Nats when he was also sitting on the Auckland Council in the Hawick ward. He has always struck me as someone who is very ambitious and is well informed. I would not at all be surprised if he becomes leader of the National Party in 2024 or 2025 and then takes National to victory in 2026 (which is a long way off, but NZ doesn't tend to have one or two term governments).
Long term MPs Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee have slipped down the ranks to 26 and 11 respectively. It is only a matter of time before they announce their retirement from politics. I suspect they will do this less than six months prior to the 2020 election so there is no by election in either of their electorates.
Quiet achiever Louise Upston has jumped to number 14 and holds the important Social Development portfolio, while Nikki Kaye retains Education and is now in the top 10.
First term MPs Simeon Brown and Andrew Falloon have been promoted to 45 and 46 respectively, while other newcomers Maureen Pugh and Nicola Willis hold 55 and 56. Willis holds the Early Childhood Education portfolio and Pugh as Associate Children's Shadow Minister. It seems odd that these portfolios are ranked so low given the importance that the Labour led government is placing on these areas. It is also odd that Horticulture and Associate Agriculture are held by the 54th and 53rd ranked MPs Lawrence Yule and Hamish Walker respectively. Given New Zealand's economy, I would have expected them to be given more importance.
It seems as if leader Simon Bridges is cleaning out the older MPs with David Carter, David Bennett, Maggie Barry, Nathan Guy and Michael Woodhouse all slipping down in the party's ranks.
This may be a winning formula for National, but given how far the party has lurched to the left I am expecting this to be an opposition party and there will be further shuffles before National sort themselves out and are in a position to govern again.
They need to do what Labour did after the Clark era and go back to their party roots. Right now it appears as if they've deserted their core constituents and have forgotten what they stand for. A genuine National Party would never place great importance on the environment or entertain the possibility of supporting the introduction of another tax. That is Labour policy.
Until National return to the right, they are not in a position to govern. This should be good news for Act though if Act can focus on economic policy, which is where the party has traditionally been strong.
As someone who is "hard right" meaning I am on the far right side of the political spectrum I find the idea of an economic liberal leading the party to be contradictory. Surely he would be better placed in the Labour Party. He is not the first National Party leader in recent years to be closer to the centre than the right.
This alone will not help National if they want to win the next election in 2020.
Today leader Simon Bridges announced his new lineup and there are a few surprises and a few predictable moves.
As we all know, Paula Bennett hang onto the deputy position, while leadership contender Amy Adams (who lost out to him) holds onto the number 3 position and the Finance portfolio. Another contender Judith Collins was promoted to number 4 and holds the Housing portfolio. This decision is excellent as Collins is a strong MP and is on the far right of the party, and will hold Labour accountable over the next couple of years.
Other MPs to get promoted include Jami Lee Ross who is now in the top 10. He sits at number 8 and has been in politics for over ten years. He holds the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio. He has slowly been moving up in the party ranks. I would say he is a future National Party Prime Minister. This is based on what I've seen of him over the last ten years and how he has progressed from winning the Botany by election in 2011 to his performance in the Young Nats when he was also sitting on the Auckland Council in the Hawick ward. He has always struck me as someone who is very ambitious and is well informed. I would not at all be surprised if he becomes leader of the National Party in 2024 or 2025 and then takes National to victory in 2026 (which is a long way off, but NZ doesn't tend to have one or two term governments).
Long term MPs Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee have slipped down the ranks to 26 and 11 respectively. It is only a matter of time before they announce their retirement from politics. I suspect they will do this less than six months prior to the 2020 election so there is no by election in either of their electorates.
Quiet achiever Louise Upston has jumped to number 14 and holds the important Social Development portfolio, while Nikki Kaye retains Education and is now in the top 10.
First term MPs Simeon Brown and Andrew Falloon have been promoted to 45 and 46 respectively, while other newcomers Maureen Pugh and Nicola Willis hold 55 and 56. Willis holds the Early Childhood Education portfolio and Pugh as Associate Children's Shadow Minister. It seems odd that these portfolios are ranked so low given the importance that the Labour led government is placing on these areas. It is also odd that Horticulture and Associate Agriculture are held by the 54th and 53rd ranked MPs Lawrence Yule and Hamish Walker respectively. Given New Zealand's economy, I would have expected them to be given more importance.
It seems as if leader Simon Bridges is cleaning out the older MPs with David Carter, David Bennett, Maggie Barry, Nathan Guy and Michael Woodhouse all slipping down in the party's ranks.
This may be a winning formula for National, but given how far the party has lurched to the left I am expecting this to be an opposition party and there will be further shuffles before National sort themselves out and are in a position to govern again.
They need to do what Labour did after the Clark era and go back to their party roots. Right now it appears as if they've deserted their core constituents and have forgotten what they stand for. A genuine National Party would never place great importance on the environment or entertain the possibility of supporting the introduction of another tax. That is Labour policy.
Until National return to the right, they are not in a position to govern. This should be good news for Act though if Act can focus on economic policy, which is where the party has traditionally been strong.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Concert Review: Robbie Williams - Sydney - 1st March 2018
I've been a fan of Robbie Williams since I was in school. I wasn't old enough to know his music when he was in Take That so I've only ever followed his solo career. It's been an amazing solo career too, packed with hits including Angels and Kids (which was a duet with Australia's Kylie Minogue.
So when I hear he was coming to Australia I decided I would have to go. I only purchased my ticket last week so I didn't get the best seat in the house. I was in the second row from the back. I've had better seats at the Qudos Arena where he played. This seat was awful. Despite the bad seating, Robbie's voice was incredible.
He opened with a mock version of God Save our Queen, entitled, God Save our Robbie and taking the piss out of himself. He then launched into the show's title song, The Heavy Entertainment Show with great energy and backed by dancers.
There was an accoustic section during the show where he sung a couple of lines from songs such as Livin' on a prayer, Angels, She's the one and many more During this part of the concert he got the audience involved in singing the chorus behind him.
Obviously Kylie Minogue who he dueted with on Kids couldn't come on stage, so one of his back up singers helped with Kylie's part much to the delight of the audience.
A standout moment was when he picked an 18 year old from the audience to come up on stage. he sung Something Stupid to her and kept on reiterating that he was singing it as a father.
Speaking of fathers, Robbie spoke to the audience about how when he was growing up he would hear his dad sing and command authority over an audience and that was when he decided he wanted to be a singer. Well, his father showed up in the flesh and together they sung Neil Diamond's Sweet Caroline.
The end of the show was packed with his biggest hits including Better Man (which he noted only charted in Australia), She's the one, Rock DJ and Angels.
He closed before returning for the encore where he sung Land Down Under and My Way. He said he loved Australia and that although he says that everywhere Australia is one of the few places where he actually means it.
The only disappointment of the show was the poor seating (but that's not his fault) and the lack of a second video screen. There was only one screen and it didn't just show him on stage.
He oozed charisma and sex appeal on stage and there were moments in the show where you were left wondering why he's not currently in the charts. The arena was almost full but there were some seats still avalable. At an estimate I'd say there were no more than 100-200 seats (not including the sections that weren't available for purchase).
I give it a 4 out of 5 on music and a 4.5 out of 5 on audience engagement and chat. Overall I'd give the show a 4.5/5. He is well worth seeing. When he comes back I'd make sure I get a better seat.
So when I hear he was coming to Australia I decided I would have to go. I only purchased my ticket last week so I didn't get the best seat in the house. I was in the second row from the back. I've had better seats at the Qudos Arena where he played. This seat was awful. Despite the bad seating, Robbie's voice was incredible.
He opened with a mock version of God Save our Queen, entitled, God Save our Robbie and taking the piss out of himself. He then launched into the show's title song, The Heavy Entertainment Show with great energy and backed by dancers.
There was an accoustic section during the show where he sung a couple of lines from songs such as Livin' on a prayer, Angels, She's the one and many more During this part of the concert he got the audience involved in singing the chorus behind him.
Obviously Kylie Minogue who he dueted with on Kids couldn't come on stage, so one of his back up singers helped with Kylie's part much to the delight of the audience.
A standout moment was when he picked an 18 year old from the audience to come up on stage. he sung Something Stupid to her and kept on reiterating that he was singing it as a father.
Speaking of fathers, Robbie spoke to the audience about how when he was growing up he would hear his dad sing and command authority over an audience and that was when he decided he wanted to be a singer. Well, his father showed up in the flesh and together they sung Neil Diamond's Sweet Caroline.
The end of the show was packed with his biggest hits including Better Man (which he noted only charted in Australia), She's the one, Rock DJ and Angels.
He closed before returning for the encore where he sung Land Down Under and My Way. He said he loved Australia and that although he says that everywhere Australia is one of the few places where he actually means it.
The only disappointment of the show was the poor seating (but that's not his fault) and the lack of a second video screen. There was only one screen and it didn't just show him on stage.
He oozed charisma and sex appeal on stage and there were moments in the show where you were left wondering why he's not currently in the charts. The arena was almost full but there were some seats still avalable. At an estimate I'd say there were no more than 100-200 seats (not including the sections that weren't available for purchase).
I give it a 4 out of 5 on music and a 4.5 out of 5 on audience engagement and chat. Overall I'd give the show a 4.5/5. He is well worth seeing. When he comes back I'd make sure I get a better seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)