Richard Williams

For those of you who are sensible enough not to waste your time by obsessively following football, Richard Williams is chief sports writer for The Guardian. On Tuesday his article was entitled “The heart sinks as Fabio Capello misses chance to make a fresh start”.

A fresh start would have been nice, and there could have been no better moment. Laurent Blanc knew an opportunity when he saw one, and decided to “suspend” France’s entire World Cup squad for his first match as head coach. Fabio Capello, by contrast, has merely reassembled the remnants of his Rustenburg rabble for what amounts to a lap of dishonour.

Blanc’s action left no one in any doubt that for him this represents the start of a new era in which younger, fresher faces will be given the chance to make an impact. The French public will not mind if they are beaten by Norway in Oslo tomorrow as long as the performance shows commitment and promise, just as the 60,000 or so who will turn up at Wembley would not have minded an indifferent result against Hungary if they felt they were being shown some sort of vision of the future.

[...]

To read his projected team sheet for tomorrow’s match is to feel the spirits slump. Better late than never for Joe Hart and Michael Dawson, who may play most of the match, and there is the promise of a glimpse of Jack Wilshere and Kieran Gibbs. But the continued presence in the starting line-up of Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, John Terry, Gareth Barry and Wayne Rooney, en bloc, shouts the message that there will be no cleansing of the Augean stables before the Euro 2012 qualifying campaign starts in September.

England had a very poor World Cup, but France managed to make them look like a tightly-knit unit of footballing excellence and self-discipline. To compare a squad that played badly with one that actually went on strike in the midst of a World Cup is deeply misleading. Laurent Blanc was able to suspend his entire team safe in the knowledge that he would have the full backing of both the media and the fans and that the players were not in a position to complain. Mr. Williams is being either disingenuous or ignorant in arguing that Capello could have dropped “Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, John Terry, Gareth Barry and Wayne Rooney” without risking a backlash from the media or the dressing room. The unfortunate fact, which Mr. Williams must also be aware of, is that there is insufficient strength in depth in the English game for these players to be simply cast aside. The only possible scenario in which this may be feasible is if the English media and fans were willing to write off qualification for Euro 2012 with the aim of focusing on 2014, but of course this is also a fantasy: Messrs Capello and Williams both know that qualification for 2012 is expected and that any slip-ups will be instantly pounced upon. With the first qualifier only three weeks away, this friendly was as much a rehearsal for the qualifying campaign as a catharsis for England’s unfortunate summer failures: it was never realistic to expect a full-scale revamp of the team with young and untested players going into an important qualifier.

Mr. Williams also understates the extent to which the ‘Augean stables’ have been cleansed: only ten members of England World Cup squad remained in the selection for last night’s game. This may not constitute a revolution of the French variety (they lost 2-1 to Norway incidentally), but Wednesday night definitely signalled a new direction for the team.

Deep down, Capello blames the players. That much is clear. So perhaps his decision to recall almost all of those responsible for the World Cup debacle for tomorrow’s match is actually a gesture of ritual sacrifice before the genuine renewal can begin. Or maybe he just can’t think of a better plan.

Maths according to Richard Williams: 10 out of 23 = “almost all”.

The cupboard is by no means bare. England’s unwillingness to devote resources to training young coaches is an enduring disgrace, and the proportion of players in the Premier League eligible for selection by Capello – around 38% – is unquestionably a handicap, but somehow the talent continues to emerge, however unfinished it may be as it comes off the lathe.

I think he manages to contradict himself three times in this paragraph. The idea that there is actually a genuine pool of young talent to draw upon is questionable, and even Mr. Williams admits that is is ‘unfinished’. The problem is that ‘unfinished talent’ is often quite brutally exposed at international level and if the development is not happening at club level there is very little that Mr. Capello can do about that. The only two examples of this rich seam of talent that Mr. Williams mentions are John Bostock (no Premier League Appearances) and Nathan Delfouneso (1 Premier League Goal in 13 appearances): if he really thinks that these players are about to transform England into world-beaters I would suggest he gets some fresh air.

At least the Under-19s reached their semi-final and were beaten by the outstanding heirs to the new world champions. Pearce’s Under-21s reached their European final last year before being soundly beaten by Germany, several of whose team went on to reach the last four in South Africa last month. We know the last crop of Under-17s were outstanding, since they won their European Championship earlier this year, while the new intake, now in the care of Kenny Swain, have just won the annual Nordic tournament in Finland.

A semi-final appearance sounds impressive, but Mr. Williams fails to mention that this actually involved only winning one game (against the might of Austria) out of four: we are not dealing with a group of world-beating prodigies here.

It is what happens to the players after they emerge into the senior ranks that presents Capello with his greatest problem. The exaggerated sense of self-importance instilled by vast salaries and a retinue of sycophants can distort values and behaviour in ways that are hard to eradicate. Those recent pictures of Rooney smoking a cigarette and urinating in the street remind us, with a shudder, that only a few weeks ago he was being talked about as a plausible candidate for the England captaincy.

The Italian is powerless to influence what goes on at the clubs, but surely one way of creating a significant degree of control and loyalty would be to identify a group of mostly young players whom he can mould into the sort of team he wants to lead. He would not be the first international head coach to discover that such a policy entails the controversial step of excluding established favourites in favour of players who can do the sort of job that needs to be done, and others have found that it can work.

Alf Ramsey grasped that nettle when he made Nobby Stiles a vital component of his World Cup-winning team. Capello, however, has shown no appetite for making unorthodox choices based on his own perception and judgment rather than on reputations already established. When he backed Sven-Goran Eriksson’s initial hunch by calling up Theo Walcott he reaped the reward in Zagreb, but then, at the crucial hour, allowed his faith to become eroded.

Now, as he delivers apologies that appear to have been scripted by his employers and picks a couple of young players seemingly to mollify his critics, faith in him has vanished. Even a respectable qualification for the next big tournament will not fully repair the damage. After all, look what happened last time.

Once again, the problem with this is that such an approach carries risks that simply are not acceptable given the weight of expectation and the readiness of journalists such as Mr. Williams to criticise anything that falls short of footballing perfection. Developing a team of promising youngsters takes time and necessarily involves learning from mistakes. The FA know this, Capello knows this and I am pretty sure Richard Williams knows this. If the FA were to publicly state that the focus is on 2014 and that qualification for 2012 would simply be seen as a bonus, then of course Capello could be expected to follow Mr. William’s revolutionary manifesto; in the absence of such a commitment, he would be mad to to do so.

 

Demographic crisis?

While browsing through the Gulf News recently I happened upon an article entitled “Push for review of maternity leave law to increase Emirati birth rate” regarding the lobbying of Dr Amal Al Qubaisi, an FNC member, on the issue. Although I am sure that Dr. Al Qubaisi has the very best of intentions, I do have to question certain aspects of her argument, which can be summarised as follows:

1) The Emirati population is not increasing: “mortality and birth rates in the UAE are equal”.

2) The reason for the declining birth rate is the concern of women regarding the effect of having a child upon their careers.

3) This is a problem that government can and should solve.

4) The main solution is increased statutory maternity leave, accompanied by an increase in paternity leave and the introduction of nurseries at work premises.

Dr. Al Qubaisi does not provide any figures to support her proposition regarding Emirati birth rates. Her claim did not quite ring true with me so I conducted a little online research. It turns out that she raised the same point back in April, when she claimed that “the fertility rate among nationals stood at 1.9 per woman last year” but “did not cite any sources”.

At first glance the facts appear to give credence to her concerns: the article quotes World Health Organisation statistics showing that between 1990 and 2007 the UAE birth rate “fell by almost half over the same period, from 4.4 children per woman to 2.3″. Another article in The National earlier that same month stated that “the fertility rate in the UAE is among the fastest declining in the world, with the average number of children born per woman dropping from 5.7 to less than two over the past three decades”. However, and it is a very large ‘however’, the following crucial point is also made:

“The statistics are exaggerated by the large number of migrants entering the country, with young, single migrant women usually coming to earn money rather than start a family, she said. The others are more highly skilled workers who come with their families, she added. They may have some children while in the Emirates, but generally come from countries that already have low fertility rates.

The nation’s shifting demographics is a contentious issue. In 1980 there were four expatriates living in the country for every Emirati. But the relative proportion of Emiratis in the population is shrinking, and now there are six foreign residents for every national. Both declining birth rates and increased immigration are considered to be the main causes.”

It is utterly misleading to focus on the fertility rate for the entire UAE population when trying to assess trends for Emiratis. The rapid increase in the expatriate population and the ratio of expatriates to Emirati means that the aggregate figures are of very limited value on their own, and to base public policy on these statistics alone would be very unwise.

Unfortunately, this does not stop The National printing the headline “UAE birth rate falls by nearly 50%” and unsubstantiated speculation such as:

Although the figures can be attributed in part to a rise in female expatriate residents of the UAE, one expert said the drop was reflective of wider changes in Emirati society.

Dr Fatma al Sayegh, a professor of UAE and Gulf history at UAE University in Al Ain, said the decline was to be expected.

She said women were now better educated, more ambitious and married later – all of which led them to have fewer children.

However, she said the country’s “demographic problem” meant it was “a national necessity” that birth rates be increased.

“The decline in the number of nationals will impact on the whole of society,” she said. “We want [women] to work but we want them at the same time to have more children.”

Dr al Sayegh praised government efforts to encourage Emiratis to inter-marry, including initiatives such as state-funded mass weddings. But she called for greater maternity leave payments and better workplace childcare.

Dr Rima al Sabban, a sociologist, said some of the decline in the birth rate could be accounted for by the influx of expatriates.

In addition, she said, “there seems to be a movement, especially among the younger generation, where they believe they don’t want to have as many children as their mothers. This change of perception needs to be addressed at a national level.”

I am not disputing that the increased education and empowerment of women has likely led to a decline in the Emirati fertility rate, but if you are basing such statements on aggregate figures the whole dialogue is meaningless as you don’t actually know how much of the decline is simply due to a large influx of unmarried women or women from cultures with lower birth rates.

Some further online research revealed that it is surprisingly difficult to find relevant and recent statistics on Emirati demographics and birth rates as opposed to aggregate figures. The statistics I could find were as follows:

• a total of 385,821 Emirati babies were born between 1981 and 2001 while the expatriate births were estimated at 605,831.
• In Abu Dhabi, the Emirati birth rate is almost twice as high as for non-nationals, with 40.2% of Emiratis there aged below 15 and only 2.2% aged over 65.
• In 2000, a survey “indicated a fertility rate of 4.04 births per national (Emirati) woman in Dubai.”
• UAE women went from 7.2 children on average in 1985 to 4.6 in 2005.
• “In the 1970s, the birth rate was 41 babies per 1,000 (newly-married) couples. “The figure was 31 in the 1990s and it has plummeted to a mere 23 now,” he said.

The first two statistics don’t help us with the fertility rate per woman, but it does at least demonstrate how misleading aggregate statistics can be in this context. The final statistic is also not particularly helpful as it relates to the timing of births rather than the actual number, but does at least support the theory that Emirati women are waiting longer after marriage to start a family. However, as of 2005 it would appear that the Emirati fertility rate was still well above both replacement level and the global average. The figures certainly cast doubt on the claim of a looming demographic crisis and certainly make Dr. Al Qubaisi’s claims regarding the Emirati fertility rate in 2009 extremely questionable.

In fact, based on these figures, it would seem that Dr. Al Qubaisi is focusing on the wrong issue: if there is a looming demographic crisis, it lies in the impending influx of large numbers of young Emiratis into the workforce over the next few decades when public sector employment is reaching “saturation point” and public education is generally acknowledged to be an insufficient preparation for work in the private sector. The reality is that increasing or maintaining a high Emirati birth rate is not going to restore any demographic balance to the UAE unless those Emiratis are ultimately able to meet the skill requirements of the private sector. Dr. Al Qubaisi is therefore putting the cart before the horse: the first priority is to ensure that young Emiratis are receiving a world-class education. Unless this is in place, pronatalist policies are likely to cause more problems than they solve.

- UPDATE -

Another questionable point is how effective pronatalist government policy can actually be in the context of the social and cultural changes that come with modernisation and increasing levels of female education and economic activity. For example, Dr. Al Qubaisi holds up Sweden as an exemplar of enlightened government policy in this area:

Sweden permits their women 16 months of paid maternity leave, and two years of parental leave shared between the father and the mother and funded by the government.

Furthermore, public child care is “heavily subsidised” and “women with children of pre-school age are entitled to reduce their working hours”.

The result of these incredibly generous (and expensive) policies is a current fertility rate of 1.67 children per woman, still well below replacement levels and only slightly higher than the EU average. There does seem to be a very high correlation between economic development, modernisation and lower fertility rates. Dr Fatma al Sayegh may want ”[women] to work but [...] at the same time to have more children”, but one has to question how realistic this aspiration really is.

Hyperbole Alert

The Khaleej Times has long been an eccentric publication, even by UAE standards. A few years ago its formatting and editorials were becoming so quirky that I would not have been surprised if they had started using green ink. They seem to have sorted themselves out somewhat more recently, but they still manage to write some rather quirky stuff such as their recent editorial entitled Nature’s Unbridled Rage.

In much the same manner, this tinkering with the scientific balance and plundering of the natural resources are two activities that have combined inimically to create a violent and unforgiving force that we see today manifested in the natural crises that have increased exponentially.

There are those who say there is no such thing as global warning and this is a usual period in a cycle but for many of us the evidence seems strong enough to suggest otherwise. It is warm where it should be cold, it floods where the earth is largely parched. Hurricanes and cyclones and inundation have changed the global topography entirely. Rivers that were feeders are now torrents of rage, lakes overflow, mountains come sliding down, forests stay aflame for weeks and even the polar icecap splits into pieces, the last only two days ago being the largest splinter in living memory.

So, how can we be so blasé as to still believe that something unusual is not occurring, that earthquakes have not intensified, that pollution and the rape of the planet is not having a reciprocal effect that threatens life as we know it.

Even the natural migration of animals and birds and marine life has changed. Weather patterns have changed. Our lives have changed as the coastal areas live in suspense of the next tsunami.

What then, is the answer to this increasing catastrophe? If we do not wake up and realise that the globe is slipping away from underneath our feet and that floods and drought, disaster and devastation are no longer the bane of third world countries and that Nature is democratic is her reprisals things will only get worse. In one day we see Pakistan tottering under a major storm; the picturesque India city of Leh torn asunder by landslides and globs of mud, a 260-kilometre chunk of Greenland’s glacier ripped apart and more fury waiting in the wings we have no choice but to accept that the time for the payoff is upon us: time, as Merellus said, to run to our houses and fall upon our knees and pray.

Febrile stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. So are we all doomed? Or is this just lazy hyperbole and irrational anthropomorhism? Are we really witnessing an ‘exponential’ increase in natural disasters?

Here are the ten most deadly natural disasters in history…

1.	1931 China floods	China	July, November, 1931	1,000,000–2,500,000*[1]
2.	1887 Yellow River flood	China	September, October, 1887	900,000–2,000,000[2]
3.	1556 Shaanxi earthquake	Shaanxi Province, China	January 23, 1556	830,000[3]
4.	1970 Bhola cyclone	East Pakistan (nowBangladesh)	November 13, 1970	500,000[1]
5.	1839 India Cyclone	India	November 25, 1839	300,000[citation needed]
6.	526 Antioch earthquake	Antioch, Turkey	May 526	250,000–300,000
7.	1976 Tangshan earthquake	Tangshan, Hebei, China	July 28, 1976	242,419[1]
8.	1920 Haiyuan earthquake	Haiyuan, Ningxia-Gansu, China	December 16, 1920	234,117[1]
9.	2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami	Sumatra, Indonesia	December 26, 2004	230,210
10.	2010 Haiti earthquake	Port-au-Prince, Haiti	January 12, 2010	222,000[4]

… and of the last hundred years:

1.	1931 China floods	China	November, 1931	1,000,000–2,500,000
2.	1970 Bhola cyclone	East Pakistan, Pakistan (nowBangladesh)	November, 1970	500,000
3.	1976 Tangshan earthquake	China	July, 1976	300,000
4.	1920 Haiyuan earthquake	China	December 1920	234,000
5.	2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami	Indonesia	December 2004	230,000+
6.	2010 Haiti earthquake	Haiti	January 2010	230,000
7.	1923 Great Kanto earthquake	Japan	September 1923	142,000
8.	1991 Bangladesh cyclone	Bangladesh	1991	138,000
9.	1948 Ashgabat earthquake	Turkmen SSR, (nowTurkmenistan)	October 1948	110,000
10.	2005 Kashmir earthquake	Pakistan (disputed region)	October 2005	79,000

I am not a Khaleej Times writer, but I am struggling to discern any recent ’exponential’ increase in natural disasters in these figures. Indeed, if you also look at the figures for those disasters with the most obvious links to climate change (cyclones, floods & landslides etc.) on the same page, there does not seem to be any apparent increase in the severity and impact of such events. I would posit that what has actually changed is that the development of mass communications and international 24-hour news media has vastly increased our awareness and the psychological impact of such events. It is also worth noting that the possible effect of climate change of the frequency and severity of natural disasters is still a matter of scientific debate and conjecture, although this has not stopped the idea taking root in the public consciousness and the rhetoric of politicians. Indeed, according to climate scientist Mike Hulme, there is “no real evidence” that natural disasters are already being made exacerbated by climate change.

Even more dubiously, the Khaleej Times seems to be implying a link between recent seismic activity (earthquakes and tsunamis) with climate change. Interestingly, there is scientific speculation that climate change could result in increased seismic activity in the future, but this still seems very uncertain and the extent of the impact is still a matter for conjecture. Certainly, there does not seem to be any serious scientific suggestion that the seismic events of the past decade have been in any way linked with climate change, so the editorial is simply veering into nonsense at this point.

I do find this proposed link between warmer temperatures and increased volcanic activity quite interesting though as it forms a possible negative feedback mechanism for climate change. Volcanic eruptions can have quite a dramatic cooling effect: for example, Mount Pinatubo lowered global temperatures by 0.4 to 0.5°C in 1992/3. It will be interesting to see if any firm scientific conclusions are reached on this issue. 

 

 

 

Guardian/Observer Nonsense

I came across some truly asinine Guardian/Observer articles recently that I haven’t had time to critique. Thankfully, some other people have done a very good job of it already.

The first article is Catherine Bennett’s quite worrying attack on the value of choice (I look forward to her next offering: ‘Free Will – Other People Don’t Need It’) and suitable ripostes can be found here and here. The second is a outburst of such loony-lefty post-colonial bilge that I initially thought it was a parody. A good response can be found here.

Some random and totally unrelated facts

With the new Premier League season imminent, some facts for your delectation:

UAE Education Budget: Dh 7 billion (GBP 1.2 billion)

World Bank ranking for the UAE education system: 77th out of 132 countries

Abu Dhabi United Group investment in Manchester City: Dh 2.3 billion (GBP 400 million)

Manchester City pre-tax loss in 2008/09 financial year: Dh 535 million (GBP 92.6 million)

Annual Fee for a Non-EU, Full-Boarding Upper Sixth student at Brighton College:* Dh 179,870 (GBP 31,101)

Robinho’s weekly salary: Dh 925,344 (GBP 160,000)

Number of students who could be educated at Brighton College for GBP 400 million: 12,861

(* – Brighton College is a leading co-educational Boarding School in the UK, chosen merely for comparative purposes.)