Monday Moan 6

Just in time

I had been assuming I'd be able to write a piece about Andy Murray and the annual mascochistic festival that is Wimbledon.  Seventy-six years and counting ......

But things started to go wrong.  First Andy Murray failed to play his role of over-hyped loser and not only kept going and made it to the final, but played some great matches along the way.  Then we were distracted and a little confused by headlines about Marray becoming the first British winner for seventy-six years ................ had I missed this momentous laying of the Fred Perry ghost?  Turned out that I hadn't but that some imposter had tried to cash in on Andy's fame by winning the doubles under an almost identical name.

Then we had the final itself and Andy Murray again failed to meet our expectations of crumbling when it mattered. Instead, he won the first set and then produced some great tennis.  He lost, of course, but then it's probable that every other tennis player who has ever appeared at Wimbledon would also have lost to Roger Federer is that form.

But, thank goodness, Andy came through in the end with what can only be described as a major 'big girl's blouse' moment. Not for him the stiff upper lip. Not for him the quiet acknowledgment that he had simply been beaten by the better man.  True, he eventually managed to utter the right words of congratulations to Federer, but his inability to avoid blubbing like a baby was either heart-rending or cringeworthy, depending on your own emotional persuasions. 

Can't imagine that kind of behaviour would have been acceptable the last time a British man was in the Final in the 1930s, when men were men and nothing could detract from the masculinity of the players ............  if you could ignore their names, that is. 'Bunny' Austin?  How did he ever allow that one to catch on? 

I'm furious ...... I think

Diamond Bob's appearance at the Treasury Select Committee last week did not go quite the way he would have hoped. That's to say, nobody seemed impressed with what he had to say or with the man himself.

Even his admission that there had been 'reprehensible behaviour' cut very little ice. Sincerity was not the most plausible interpretation of his stance.

I like the approach of Chris Addison on last week's 'Mock the Week' - something along the lines of "we are all furious about this scandal, but nobody knows why".  Precisely.  Most of us have only a vague idea about the City, the financial system, the way everything works.  But we all know bankers and people who work in the City are bad. They are out for themselves, they make huge amounts of money at our expense, they maniuplate things to help them bolster their gains - and when we get an opportunity they should be put in the stocks and we should all be allowed to throw whatever we like at them (see also Robin van Persie, below). 

That's so much easier than having to work out why manipulating interest rates so that they stay low is a bad thing for the rest of us.

Toothless Committees?

If Diamond Bob was unimpressive then so was the Treasury Select Committee.  A series of statements rather than probing questioning, set piece and rehearsed 'anger' rather than insight and pursuit of the truth.

But then why should we have expected this Committee to be any different from the rest?  These Committees are either good at self-publicity or the media (particularly the BBC) has decided to bestow upon them an importance far greater than has previously been the case.  How often these days to we find out on the 'Today' programme that a Committee of MPs has reported that ...... blah, blah, blah.  We then get to hear from the Chair of whichever Committee it might be - these days quite often Margaret Hodge (Public Accounts) or John Whittingdale (Culture Media and Sport).  Do these people fill us with a quiet, calm satisfaction that they are able to get to the bottom of whatever issue it is that they choose to investigate and that their repots will contain penetrating and vital analysis and conclusions? 

Er, no, not really.  Their reports are mainly written by the clerks and 'special advisors' they employ. The oral evidence sessions usually manage to reveal not much more than that most MPs are reasonably competent at reading aloud questions written out for them to ask. The Chairs rarely say anything more than a superficial soundbite or two and never seem to be asked any difficult questions by their interviewers. And whilst Ministers do have to respond in due course, nothing much happens beyond the Committee getting on with its next damp squib of a report.

I love you - now where's the money?

Nobody should be surprised that Robin van Persie has decided to move on from Arsenal in pursuit of more money.  But he treats everyone with contempt when he says he is going, despite his love of the club and its fans, because he disagrees with the strategy of the Manager and Board.  Why do players (or is it their agents) come up with kind of rubbish all the time? 

Conventional 'wisdom' has it that Arsenal are not prepared to invest money in proven players because of the cost of doing so , and would rather find a few promising youngsters who might develop into stars.  According to the 'logic' of this 'wisdom' any club could buy success if it had a mind to do so and the owners of Arsenal are simply being pig-headed in not following this path.

Let's leave aside questions around the imminent introduction of new rules that will (ok, should) require clubs to become financially viable. Let's ignore awkward issues like only one team can win the League even if they all spend huge amounts of money. Let's park for now any discussion of whether van Persie is anything more than a reasonable player who has had his one season of everything falling into place. Let's put aside any questions about whether he should have shown more gratitude for the support given to him by all at the club through some serious personal problems and persistent injuries.  Let's not ask whether anybody seriously doubts the ambition of a club that has followed up improving its league position to third last season by strengthening its squad since then with the addition of two proven internationals. 

Instead, let's just ask whether this isn't really just about the money.  And whilst we are thinking about that, let's ask ourselves whether wages in excess of £200,000 a week are really necessary - even for inflated and ungrateful egos.