My EPL recommendations for Erik

So I have a soccer-loving friend, Erik, who hasn't yet picked an EPL team, and the season is right around the corner. I'm going to attempt to help him pick a team with this post.

The groundrules: he can't pick Manchester United, just because that's too damn easy. He should pick a team with a chance for a European spot (Europa ftw!) and, if at all possible, in southern England so he can watch a game when he visits London.

Lets go to the Contenders.

THE POWER TEAMS

1) Liverpool. Perennial top-4 lock, with a *lot* of European success, so you're always right in the thick of the action. Great English (hometown) hero in Gerrard, with the rest of the team drifting Spanish in the mold of it's coach. *I* think they play attractive football. Liverpool's downside is that rooting for them is kind of like a non-Bostonian rooting for the Red Sox. There's very much a communal atmosphere around Liverpool. They also seem to have a great deal of managerial/ownership dysfunction for a top-flight club. Rafa is definitely a bit of a drama queen. But if you want a club that's going to be competitive - always - and has a great history - this one's it.

2) Chelsea. They bought their way to prominence, and they're unashamed about it. The question is, what happens when Roman (or his fortune) goes? Are they back to just being a strong London club? Chelsea is the penultimate bandwagoner's club, just behind ManU. Are they a great team? Yes. Do they play boring football? A bit, yes. Will they be competitive ten years from now? Who knows. The big plus is they're right in London. They have English stalwarts (Terry, Lampard, the Cole brothers). You have to be a bit arrogant to be a Chelsea supporter, which is why Mourinho was the *perfect* coach for them, and they'll never be the same without him.

3) Arsenal. Another consistent contender, also in London. But are they really an English football team? They may as well be PSG or Valencia with a lot of money. Despite what everyone says, Wegner is terrified of coaching big money/big ego players, and Arsenal is in a perpetual youth movement. In addition to that, their agressive forays into real estate during the boom are now impacting their transfer abilities. Look for Arsenal to finish out of the top 4 this year, and struggle in Europe.

4) Manchester City. Yep, I put them here. Long the Clippers to Man U's Lakers, Man City now has the financial resources to buy the world's best. The question is, does that make a great team? Manchester City will never have the arrogance of Chelsea because of it's blue-collar background and geography, but hopping on this team now does give you a sense of the bandwagon. But doing so now is a lot better than a year or two from now when they're in the Champion's League.

SECOND TIER

5) Everton. They're a great pick, if they weren't in Liverpool. Good coach, overachieving squad, good football, etc., etc. Unfortunately, they may not have the financial resources to continue their strong showings while their star players keep getting poached. Solid pick.

6) Tottenham. An up and down club, which should show some stability as long as Harry is there, which means "who knows?". Actually, the coach is one reason to pick this team. The other reasons are that they're in London, they're a good, attacking team, and that they'll certainly contend for a Euro spot. Plus they have a cool name.

7) Aston Villa. It's hard to get excited about this team from afar. First off, the coach is boring as dirt. Second, the uniforms are crap. Yes, there's young talent, yes, they had a great season last year. But they're in Birmingham (boring) and last season was probably a fluke. And the uniforms are *really* ugly.

THE REST

8) Portsmouth. My team, can't have 'em, and besides, we'll be lucky not to be relegated. We've lost like 8 of our starting 11 from our FA Cup year.

9) Fulham. This would have been a higher pick if Fulham were still Fulhamerica, but they're gone, except for Dempsey, whose starting spot has been in flux. Still, a London club, in a great stadium. This would be a real fan pick. But they aren't going to contend for Europe annually - once in 5 years at best.

10) Sunderland. This team was more intriguing with Keane managing, but now may rule the northeast roost with Newcastle down. Hard-working, gritty team without superstars, but a home atmosphere that is pretty impressive. But too far from London.

11) West Ham. Again with the ugly kits. But a weird, kind of boring club. This is the team that managed to keep Mascherano and Tevez on the bench for half a season. Ownership issues, and mid-table performance. Best thing about the club is that they're in London.

Everyone else - Bolton, Birmingham, Blackburn, Burnley, Hull City, Stoke City, Wigan and Wolverhampton - yawn.

So here's the final recommendation. If London doesn't matter - Liverpool and Man City are great choices. There's something special about European competition.

If London does matter, and you don't mind hopping aboard, Chelsea or Tottenham would be my suggestions.

But know this: the team you pick - that's your team. Period. Up or down. :) Good Luck!

The Hypocrisy of Michael Vick

I think it's amazing that after 23 months in prison, people still aren't willing to let Michael Vick return to the NFL. Let's compare:

Leonard Little killed a woman while driving drunk. 90 days in jail, suspended for 8 games. 5 years later, he gets arrested *but not indicted* for a DUI again, receives no suspension.

Donte Stallworth kills a man while drunk. 30 (!) days in jail. NFL has suspended him indefinitely, while Goodell makes up his mind.

Michael Vick runs a dogfighting ring, which, while despicable, doesn't hurt any *humans*, but he's treated worse than he would be if he had killed someone while drunk driving. What a joke.

The $$$$ of gaming.

So... I play Left4Dead competitively, and... I don't know quite how to discuss it in social situations. The other night, after dinner with my step-brother, he asked if I wanted to go see Bruno. "Can't", I said, praying that he wouldn't follow up the question. He did. "Well, you see, I uh... ", I stammered, "I... have a video game match."

It's embarassing. Even when I'm on the #1 ranked team in the nation (which I was for a month or so, until a couple of embarassing defeats have knocked us down), it's something that just seems goofy and childish. Until I read some numbers.

In 2008, the gaming industry made $21 billion dollars. Billion. That's double what Hollywood made on movies. And it's not kids - the prime demographic is the thirtysomething male (me!).

Right now, the competitive video game landscape is still trying to find itself. It's akin to oil in the 30's, where everyone knows it's just below the surface - you just need to find it, and extract it properly. There are several competing leagues, but none have a solid feel or polish. Maybe that will come with time. There's too much money out there to keep throwing mom-and-pop efforts at it.

Donovan vs. Beckham

On one hand, we have a player who has played for three of the four world's biggest clubs (Manchester United, Real Madrid, AC Milan) vs. a guy who couldn't make the team at Bayern Munich. That about sums up the Donovan vs. Beckham brouhaha.

In Beckham, love him or hate him, you have the uber-professional - works hard, trains hard, never says a word out of line in the press regardless of the situation. Dumped from the English squad? Silently works harder to get his form back, and is rewarded a place on the team.

The worlds of MLS and the Big Three leagues (EPL, Liga and Calcio) are so incredibly far apart, they almost don't play the same sport. Donovan has no point of reference to understand what it's like to be a player at that level.

And surprisingly, Donovan seems to have little understanding of the cultural differences with Europe. He blasts Beckham for not being the typical American "rah-rah" captain. If he knew anything, he would know that the English abhor that type of leadership, feeling that it's juvenile and simplistic. And whining about Beckham not picking up the meal tabs? Really?

Upon returning to LA, all Beckham said was "Donovan's comments were unprofessional, but I'm going to be talking to him privately." No big blast, no diarrea of the mouth, just boom-boom over.

In soccer terms, this would be 99 ManU taking on the current-day Galaxy. No Contest. One can only imagine what was said between Beckham and Zidane as they watched the Galaxy play last night in their skybox.

The growing threat of intellectual dishonesty

A long time ago, when Apartheid was in it's end days, where every party I went to was playing Free Nelson Mandela, I was yelling at my very conservative step-father about the evils of P.T. Botha. His response, which I'll never forget, was "he may be an asshole, but he's *our* asshole".

A couple of years ago, after the huge Republican defeats in Congress, Rush Limbaugh came out and basically admitted to supporting Republican policies he didn't agree with, simply because it was better to do that than let the other side gain any ground.

The last element is the overwhelming support Sarah Palin was given, publicly, from the intelligensia of the right-wing when her surprise selection was announced, and throughout the campaign, despite her missteps.

The bottom line is, that at some point, we've gone past just trying to *spin* things in our favor to allowing, and participating in, a type of intellectual dishonesty where we're willing to lie to ourselves, or others, just from fear of giving any edge to the other party. And that is when we're putting party ahead of country, and worse, party ahead of reality and honesty.

It can't continue. It may be the #1 reason why people are so dissatisfied with politics and the current state of American leadership. And it is certainly responsible for the growth of partisanship over the last ten years. If you're going to lie about where you really stand on an issue, is there *any* hope at all for compromise?

I've used Republicans as examples here, only because their position in power has created more opportunites for dishonesty; but Democrats are equally culpable. To not question Reid or Pelosi's mistakes, or to simply admit that the level of Change that Obama promised during his campaign has not yet materialized, would be continuing that pattern of lying.

We're stronger, as a Nation, when we can disagree, at whatever level, internally or externally. When people in a party start lying to themselves and others, it is done from fear, fear of weakening their party or giving strength to others. And if nothing else, the last 8 years have shown us that very little good comes from making decisions based on fear.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

The South African construction union strike enters it's second day, and if there's ever been an analogy for shooting one's self in the foot, this is it. For those of you who don't know, there's a small soccer match that will be held in SA in... 336 days.

The issue here is that SA was awarded host nation status after a lot of controversy and questioning of their ability to provide an adequate infrastructure and world-class venues. This in conjunction with SA's continuing issues with a rising crime rate. But FIFA had bowed to international pressure that Africa *must* host the cup, and so SA2010 it is.

So if you're a South African construction worker, this has to be heaven on earth. In the midst of the largest world recession in 50 years, you're guaranteed 2 years of continuous work, when SA has a 21% unemployment rate.

And now they're unhappy that they're only being offered a 10% raise instead of the 13% one they want. And they *know* they have the leverage. Unfortunately, this is extremely short-sighted of them. For the difference of 3%, they are effectively killing any chance SA has for future events and long-term construction/infrastructure projects. FIFA will *absolutely* pull the world cup if January rolls around and the sites do not look ready to go. Germany and the United States are licking their lips for the chance to step in save the day in a very lucrative manner.

Implementing the Social Contract in video games

This post is the product of three items, all related: one, a professor who studied online griefing; two, Penny Arcade's Internet Fuckwad Theory; and three, Zero Punctuation's review of Left4Dead.

Griefing is a real problem for all online games; it's the problem of having thousands of people looking for every possible way to try and disrupt other's games. We won't go into the psychology of *that* impeditment, but it's explained by the Penny Arcade Theory. Griefing can seriously impact the customer's satisfaction index with the game, resulting in decreased playtime/interest levels, which results in either cancelled subscriptions or lower sales of DLC/sequels.

The reason that people don't grief in real life is the beauty of the Social Contract. So the question is, how do you implement an Online Social Contract?

I'd be fascinated to hear what the Blizzard folks have learned about group formations in Warcraft, because it's one of the key differences between the online world and the real one. A straightforward approach would be to implement a simple rating system, where other players could judge/rate an individual's actions, resulting in an appropriate reward/punishment system. This fails on several levels. In the online world, it's relatively easy to instantly have several thousand "friends" who will rate blindly. Alternatively, it adds another potential for griefing where people rate others negatively for no reason.

In Left4Dead, which depends on a full 8 players for proper gameplay, the concept of a "ragequit" has quickly emerged. Any player can leave the match (which can take two hours) at any time. This leaves the other players either in a state of limbo, waiting for someone else to join or scrambling to invite friends, or if enough people ragequit (say an entire team), it effectively ends the game. 9 times out of 10, it's easy to tell when someone has ragequit - they're killed, or they spout off before quitting. But sometimes it's not. People's PCs crash, they get a phone call, or Real Life in general takes it's appropriate place in the priority queue.

So starting with a specific situation - how does one implement an anti-ragequit system? or at least one that labels or tags players who have a high ragequit tendency?