Same old Rooney?

Picture courtesy of dullhunk.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/2237368858/

I read an article in the Times today about Wayne Rooney by their Chief Sports Writer Simon Barnes. He starts by describing how Rooney used to be; "an unstoppable teenager who tore football matches in half just for the hell of it, the player who made the world afraid", but goes onto suggest that Rooney isn't that player anymore. We must be watching a different Rooney.

Rooney has been in superb form these last two seasons and I'm sure his current form especially will strike fear into many defences when the World Cup kicks off next year. Having captained England for the first time on Saturday in the 1-0 friendly loss to Brazil, Barnes suggests "nobody was really sure if he was playing," well I was. Rooney was one of the few players to come out of the match with any credit in my opinion. And before we start to slate the England performance, lets not forget that it was our second string against Brazil's first string. A first string that has the capabilities to lift the trophy in South Africa next year!

He suggests that Rooney has changed over the last five years. Let's have a look at his goalscoring record over the last five years...

2004/05 = 24 (5) Premier League appearances - 11 goals

2005/06 = 34 (2) Premier League appearances - 16 goals

2006/07 = 33 (2) Premier League appearances - 14 goals

2007/08 = 25 (2) Premier League appearances - 12 goals

2008/09 = 25 (5) Premier League appearances - 12 goals

2009/10  = 11 Premier League appearances - 7 goals so far. 

So this season Rooney score the most Premier League goals for Manchester United ever. Seems like if anything he's improved? I got my stats from the Manchester United website.

Then there's his England goal scoring record; 25 goals in 57 appearances, a very impressive record. The same guy who goes "missing" for England was also voted England player of the year by fans for 2008 after scoring 5 goals in his 8 competitive appearances. 

To suggest Rooney is a different player is fine, of course he will have changed from the 16 year old that was thrust into the limelight. He's matured, he's grown, but to suggest that has made him a worse player for England is a joke. Let's wait until the World Cup before we slate the team and one of our best players!

Drunken Mistake?

After reading an opinion piece in The Times today by Melanie Reid I was left in two minds as to whether or not I agree with what she was saying. She was discussing the recent pictures that were printed in the national newspapers of a drunk 19 year old student urinating on a war memorial.

Melanie Reid explains how this student came to be in this awful position, he had been on a pub crawl called Carnage, which if you're a student reading this, I'm sure you've head of and many have probably been on! In some respects, I feel sorry for the student as many people in Britain have been in the position where they've consumed far too much alcohol and have done 'silly' things but in the same respect I think it is an absolutely disgusting act.

She goes on to blame the drinks industry and with her last line asks the question "Why weren't Carnage in the dock? That they weren't says it all." This is a reference to the fact that the student who urinated on the war memorial has been in court and could possibly face a jail sentence. I think that blaming the drinks industry is a cop out when it comes to people facing responsibility. Yes these bar crawls promote drinking and many people get extremely drunk when on them but surely that is the choice of the person? They are not forced to go on these crawls and many people I know who have been on them have always had an excellent time. The act of urinating on a war memorial is perhaps a result of going on the bar crawl organised by Carnage but he himself got into the state he was in and he himself urinated on the war memorial.

I see that this student has been made an example of and is in someways a scapegoat for the binge culture that is often plastered across the tabloids but in the same way I think after such a disgraceful act it was just, a war memorial is a place of remembrance and place that deserves so much better.

You can see the picture here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220579/Carnage-Shame-drunken-student-caught-urinating-war-memorial-mass-pub-crawl.html

The Tories "Public School Boy" Image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edublogger/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

After watching Question Time on the BBC last night and reading this morning's Times, I have started to dislike the stick The Conservatives get for their reputation of being from wealthy, public school backgrounds.

To make it clear, I didn't go to public school, I went to a State School with a shoddy reputation. But after watching the programme last night and reading the newspaper this morning I've decided that "The Tory background" is something that I 1) Don't envy them for, 2) dislike them for or 3) use against when it comes to politics.

During Question Time last night a member of the audience stood up and asked The Shadow Chancellor George Osborne how he could say that; "Britain was in this together" when he was the heir to a multi million pound fortune. I'm sorry but how does that make the slightest bit of difference? If anything, his father who owns a very successful fabric and wallpaper business will have been hit hard by the credit crunch, which is shown here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/6259728/Wallpaper-company-chaired-by-Shadow-Chancellor-George-Osbornes-father-hit-by-7.5m-loss.html

Does this boil down to just jealousy? George Osborne's family have loads of money so he doesn't know what it's like is the usual excuse made by people. And yeah ok maybe he doesn't know what it's like to be short of money or not being able to afford things but so what? I fail to see how this would affect his role as Chancellor. His Dad has earnt the life he has and it certainly shouldn't be held against George Osborne, after all they have both lived in Britain during the recession and witnessed the effect it can have.

There was a similar tone in the The Times this morning with regards to what David and Samantha Cameron were wearing at the Conservative party conference. A lot of the papers show pictures of Samantha wearing a £65 M&S dress whilst David is wearing a £1,185 suit, I wasn't aware what they wearing had a bearing on how he would perform as Prime Minister? "Samantha Cameron may stock her wardrobe from the high street, but her husband has more lavish taste" reads the caption, did it occur to people that maybe Mrs Cameron happened to just like the dress regardless of the fact that it was "less than £100." If anything that's a good thing and demonstrates wise spending in tough economical times.

The country should give The Tories a chance by listening to their policies and ignoring all this public school boy stuff and perhaps focus on the fact that he could be a good Prime Minister. His background or Mr Osborne's background is not a reason to vote against them.

There is of course another option, slate Cameron for wearing a nice suit and vote for Gordon Brown. I know which I'd prefer.