In the dark midwinter

Few people in the world get a darker winter than the one we experience in the UK. We are so far from the equator that the sun for several months of the year has hardly any power in it at all. And as we approach Christmas, it just about gets above the horizon at midday. Unless you live in Northern Russia, one of the barely-populated regions of Canada, Greenland, Alaska or the Nordic countries (or you are stationed in Antarctica), you get a brighter winter than we do here in mainland Britain.

There is more and more acknowledgement of the effects of weak sun on our mental state. Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is now recognised as a genuine condition, and "SAD lamps" are doing great business this winter.

Meanwhile, anyone who's done biology at school can tell you that a lack of vitamin D, which our bodies generate through contact with sunlight, can lead to rickets. But the list of serious ailments linked to insufficient vitamin D keeps growing. Recent research has even reinforced the link between vitamin D deficiency and Multiple Sclerosis (see the MS Society for more information).

Given that the winter sun in the UK is not strong enough to enable our bodies to create the vitamin D we need, it's vital we get the vitamin from other sources. There's some in oily fish and eggs, as well as fortified breakfast cereals and margarine. But given the overwhelming evidence around vitamin D, surely it should be added to more staple foods in order to ensure the population gets what it needs? It would even make sense to add it to mince pies, yule logs, christmas pudding, advent calendar treats and anything else we tend to guzzle during the dark midwinter. Fortified brussel sprouts anyone? 

Cricket coaching: it's not just cricket

During November I've completed UKCC1, a short course for cricket coaches. The whole experience was impressive and really worthwhile. The standard of tuition for one thing - as delivered by Hampshire Cricket Board in my case - was outstanding. The tutors were passionate and knowledgeable about their cricket, and skilled communicators to boot.

The course content was spot on too. It went right back to basics. So we looked at some fundamental skills for young batters, bowlers and fielders. However, most of the time was spent working on the best ways to explain, demonstrate and impart such skills. All of which helped to remind me of some inescapable rules around effective communication and learning, such as:

• Keep it simple - a young audience can only take in so much in one go, so it's best to focus on a single aspect of a technique (the position of the hands, for example) rather than trying to get everything across in one go
• Sometimes you need to talk a lot less than you might think - keep explanations concise and when demonstrating a technique, keep your mouth closed and let the kids take it in
• Plan and prepare for a coaching session even more than you think is necessary
• Make it fun, obviously
• Make sure everyone is involved and can learn and enjoy, regardless of ability.

First and foremost, I took the course as a first step in learning how to coach young cricketers and get them excited about the game. But I must say that, as you might guess from the list above, I got a useful refresher in how to communicate with any group, no matter the age and no matter the topic in hand.

A fallen idol and lessons we could learn

Lance Armstrong has been deservedly stripped of his titles and reputation. He stands to lose a lot of his ill-gotten money as well. Much has been written about Armstrong's crimes and what cycling and sport might learn from them. But the comment that stood out for me went much further and pointed to implications for us all.

The piece in question, The voodoo cult of positive thinking, was penned by Ed Smith for the New Statesman. It's well worth a read. Smith's point is that Armstrong's demise underlines the folly of the modern world's obsession with willpower, our belief that if we want something enough and focus our energies strongly enough on achieving it, we can make it happen.

Smith compares Armstrong to another tainted exponent of focus and drive, Tiger Woods. I'd say he's also cycling's equivalent of Richard Nixon, Silvio Berlusconi and Bernie Madoff. Such was the force of his personal conviction that the ends came to justify any means necessary. The world and the people around him were just tools to be manipulated in order to secure his victory and power. Many of us have worked with people who share some of these traits. They are often, like Armstrong, charming, charismatic and popular. But they can also be extremely destructive. No doubt some of the bankers who arrogantly failed to spot the flaws in their massive gambles on sub-prime mortgages (see my blog piece on The Big Short) would fit this category too. 

The cult of willpower doesn't only apply to immoral alpha males and females. As Oliver James points out in his much-read book Affluenza, many people in the English-speaking world (and increasingly elsewhere) are dangerously stressed by the gap between what they believe they should achieve in their lives and what they are actually, realistically, able to achieve. Armstrong perpetuated the lie that, by applying our willpower, we can overcome all obstacles and challenges on the path to personal success. His unmasking as a serial cheat should help us to chill out a bit, stop obsessing with over-achievement and, in the words of the serenity prayer, accept the things we cannot change.

Armstrong - like other great deceivers - will not be forgotten. But given what we could learn from his story, perhaps that's no bad thing. The final irony is that an individual once hailed as an inspiration, an example to all, has now become a sobering lesson in how not to live and behave. 

Welcome back KP

We've all heard quite enough about Kevin Pietersen's fallout with the rest of the England cricket team. With an overseas tour about to begin and KP back in the squad, it's time to get on with playing the game again.

Even though I can't defend his behaviour in recent months, I for one am pleased to see Pietersen back in the England fold. This is simply because he is an exciting and high-quality cricketer, the kind the game needs and the kind that can win matches for his team.

The stats stack up favourably for Pietersen. As the chart shows, he has the best batting average (49.48) of any long-term England batsmen of the last 25 years.

If we look at strike rate, it's not hard to see why Pietersen excites the crowds and has the ability rapidly to take a game away from the opposition. Of the players in the chart, only KP and David Gower have a strike rate over 50, meaning they score at better than 3 runs an over in tests. Gower's strike rate was 50.59. KP's is 63.26, so he ticks along at almost 4 an over.

An England team that includes Pietersen scores more runs and scores them faster, and is therefore more likely to win games. Unless KP's presence in the dressing room has a seriously negative effect on the performance of other players, he should be the first name on the team sheet.

The Flaw: money-grabbing and misery in modern America

I have finally watched the 2011 documentary The Flaw. Pulling together interviews with a range of academics and experts, as well as people involved in and affected by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the film works as a highly watchable insight - albeit a polemical one - into the causes and consequences of the financial crisis in America.

A few ideas from the film stood out for me:

• Asset markets are naturally prone to bubbles because they fail to obey the normal rules of supply and demand. People tend to buy more of an asset - equities, property, etc - as its price rises, driven by the belief that the price will continue to rise and that they will therefore make a profit when they sell the asset. This fact implies that stock market and property bubbles are pretty much inevitable in market capitalism.

• Asset bubbles and income inequality are intrinsically linked. As assets inflate in price, wealthier people have the spare cash to invest in assets, so they tend to be the ones to profit most from asset price increases.

• Income inequality in turn inflates asset market bubbles and damages the real economy, since the very wealthy spend proportionately less of their income, compared to the average citizen, on real goods and services and proportionately more on assets.

• Over the last 30 years, banks have, as we all know, put more and more of their resources into financial instruments based around personal debt (notably mortgages and credit card debt, and derivatives thereof). This is because these instruments offer a quick return. In other words, bankers have - surprise, surprise - been trying to maximise their profits. The consequence, however, is that banks have come to see the real economy - i.e. factories, small businesses, infrastructure, etc - as a less attractive destination for their capital.

This last point helps to explain not only the untenable rise in obscure financial engineering that led to the financial crisis itself, but also the drop-off in investment in the real economy and the decline in manufacturing. This link holds true, I suspect, not only for the US, which is very much the focus of The Flaw, but also for the UK.

You have to wonder whether the catastrophic events of recent years will convince banks to shift their priorities back from obscure financial instruments to lending in the real economy. Sadly the evidence from lending figures so far suggests that this isn't happening. And herein lies a reason why we all need the bonus culture to be dismantled for good. So long as bankers are motivated to seek out fast profits, they will do so in the way they know best, i.e. constructing and trading credit default swaps and the like. Thus there will be less money available to support businesses and projects that actually employ people in a sustainable way and create wealth for the broader population.

My one cheerful thought to come out of the film was a realisation that, in the UK at least, things could have been worse. The Flaw shows how the bursting of the US house price bubble had miserable consequences for individual home owners burdened with mortgages that they never should have been granted. Many now owe considerably more than their houses are worth. This hasn't happened to the same degree here in the UK because house prices have not crashed as dramatically as they have in the US, not to mention Ireland, Spain and so on. For this scrap of good fortune, we in the UK should, for now, be grateful.

Memories of The Games

It's hard to argue with the widespread view that the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics have been a resounding success. We've had so many memorable performances, an even better than expected showing from the home team and very few administrative cock-ups or other embarrassments for the organisers: cue a justified feeling of a job well done among all those involved.

For me, a couple of memories stand out. Firstly, there were the crowds and the atmosphere at the two events we attended. The number of people up Box Hill for the men's cycling Road Race was amazing. It's not an easy place to get to, especially when all the surrounding roads are shut for the day. But the great British public turned out in force and thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Even the police joined in the relaxed, celebratory spirit of things, with some of the boys in blue even high-fiving the crowds lining the route from their passing motorbikes.

Similarly at the Paralympics, the main stadium was packed and the support never anything but totally wholehearted. As at the Road Race, the loudest cheers were reserved not just for the winners but for those doing their very best at the back of the field. An Iranian cyclist who trailed the peleton by a bigger and bigger gap on each of the nine laps of Box Hill received a bigger and bigger dose of vocal support each time he passed us. A runner from Djibouti who took over 11 minutes to complete the 1500 metres brought the Olympic Stadium to its feet in applause.

Maybe there is something in the British psyche that makes us love the underdog, or maybe it's just human nature. Either way, it was a warm and rather moving way to show that doing your best is really all you can do, that winning gold isn't everything and that, despite the fervour for Team GB, we welcome all comers to these shores.

One unmistakably British ingredient in the Olympic mix was the Opening Ceremony. My expectations of it were so low, but what an extraordinary thing it was. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, radical and vibrant, I loved it. Beyond the sheer spectacle and ingenuity of it, the show won me over with its focus on some the things that make Britain what it is: the pioneering resourcefulness that kick started the industrial revolution, our singular creative output, our sense of humour, even our national health service.

If the opening ceremony opened a few people's eyes to some of the things that are uniquely British in our past and our present - things that we should treasure or in some cases try to rediscover - then it was a few million quid well spent. Indeed I hope that a bit more national self-confidence will be one positive legacy of The Games. If nothing else, surely we've shown that we can design, build and run a hugely complex event with great panache. And surely the oft-voiced, defeatist assumption that stuff in Britain tends to go wrong now sounds more than a little hollow.

Recommended reading - Michael Lewis on the banking crisis

I read Michael Lewis's excellent book The Big Short while on holiday. Although not as funny as his most famous work, Liar's Poker, it's a compelling, revealing and at times scary read.

For me, Lewis brought much-needed clarity to the reasons behind the cataclysmic - not to mention costly - banking failures of recent years. I would highly recommend the book for anyone who feels they don't completely understand what the financial crisis was/is (which is surely pretty much all of us!).

I finished the book with a number of strong impressions of the convoluted, out-of-control investment banking world that Lewis dissects. The over-riding sense is of the sheer folly - nay gross stupidity - of banks' decision-making and investment choices around sub-prime mortgages and the many exotic financial instruments that were spawned from them.

All this left me more convinced than ever that governments' financial support for businesses like AIG, RBS, Bank of America and so many others was simply wrong. These banks were not victims of circumstance, nor were they brought down by the actions of a few rogue employees. As institutions they made appalling business decisions. They deserved to fail, and the world economy would surely be better off without them.

Lewis is very adept at telling his complex story through a number of fascinating characters. In particular, he focuses on the handful of individuals who were not only smart enough to spot the sub-prime crisis on the horizon but also shrewd enough to bet big on the crisis with their investments (hence the title of the book). What's interesting about these people - the likes of Steve Eisman and Dr Michael Burry - is that they aren't your standard Wall Street/City types at all. They are outsiders, swimming against the tide. They are wired to "think different".

Burry, who stuck to his bearish convictions despite huge pressure from his clients to take more conventional investment positions, has Asperger's Syndrome. Of course when the sub-prime crisis hit, he was proved very much right, and he made fortunes for himself and his doubting clients. What a telling lesson in the value of diversity and different voices within society and within organisations.

If more people had been willing to pay attention to the views of "oddballs" like Burry and Eisman, rather than following the received wisdom emanating from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the ratings agencies and indeed governments, perhaps this whole mess could have been avoided.

The age of sport

I was interested to learn that Roger Federer was the first Wimbledon finalist since Jimmy Connors to have passed his 30th birthday. Meanwhile, 2011 Tour de France winner Cadel Evans was the oldest rider to seal the yellow jersey in Paris in the post-war era. This year, at 35 and a half, he looks well past his prime.

So what is the peak age in sport? I looked at details of the current top 15 ranked players across 4 sports (using the final placings at the 2012 Tour for cycling, and official world rankings for the other sports). That analysis produced the averages shown in the chart below. And the optimum age to excel on the international sporting stage, based on my not very scientific analysis, is... 30 years 7 months.

It's surprising to see that there is not much divergence between the mean ages of elite players in these 4 sports, despite their very different physical demands. You might expect golfers to be considerably older than stars of sports that require more speed, reaction and agility. But, at an average age of 33, the world's top golfers are only a couple of years older than their counterparts in cycling and cricket.

In fact, the youngest player in the entire group of sportsmen I analysed was a golfer, Rory McIlroy, at 23 years 2 months. That said, the oldest - Steve Stricker (45) - is also a denizen of the fairways. Clearly golfers can hope for greater longevity than cyclists, tennis players or cricketers.

Tennis stars are the relative babies of the group. Roger Federer, who is 31 in a couple of weeks, is the oldest player in the ATP top 15. The narrow spread of ages in the top 15 - there are only 7 years between youngest player Marin Cilic and the great Rog - underlines the achievement of players like Federer and Sampras in winning grand slams over such long periods.

Cricket presents some interesting contrasts. Batting definitely favours maturity. The world's top ten batsmen are all 27 or over, and their average age is 32. But fast bowlers average a comparatively youthful 29 and a half. And not surprisingly, without the same requirement for pace and aggression, spin bowlers are a tad more senior at just below 32.

Meanwhile in cycling, Bradley Wiggins (soon to be Sir Bradley, then Lord Wiggo, surely) should have a couple more shots at Tour glory in him. But, at 32 already, you wouldn't bet on him winning in 2015 or beyond. In any case, I'm already relishing his battle with comparative youngsters Chris Froome and Andy Schleck - both 27 - in the 2013 race.

Euro 2012: fun while it lasted...

Everyone has a view or two on England's performance in Euro 2012. Here are some of mine:

- The positives?  Much better than our showing in South Africa 2010. The team looked relaxed and played with more discipline and spirit than we've seen from England for some time. Defence was strong, because that's how the team was set up. We won the group. 

- The less positives?  Still deficient in possession compared to the top sides. Lacking impact up front and attacking potential/intent throughout the side. Squad is thin, hence the inclusion of some players who were out of their depth (e.g. Young, Henderson).

- Hodgson?  8/10. His appointment was vindicated, and his international experience showed. Can take much of the credit for the improved desire, confidence, spirit and discipline in the team. That said, even with a lack of creative class to work with, you'd like to see an England team put out that looks like it could score a few. Couldn't we be more positive? For example, after Walcott's contribution against Sweden, surely he should have featured more?

- Good performances?  Wellbeck, Gerrard, Parker and the back four all impressed. Carroll, Walcott and Oxtail-Chambermaid contributed when their chance came, although more minutes on the pitch from one or all of them might have improved England's chances of scoring.

- Disappointments?  Hart was less solid in goal than you'd expect. Young was poor, Milner only OK. 

- Rooney?  2/10. Not at the races. Seemed almost mellow and carefree, but at least he didn't misbehave. Maybe Roy slipped some Valium into his Lucozade. Hasn't delivered for England since 2004. I would like to see him tried as a super sub.

- England and penalties?  Having played in a few competitive games (where absolutely nothing but pride is at stake!), I have some idea of how the tension of the moment can affect performance. Still, you'd hope for better from pros. 

- Chances in World Cup 2014?  Another quarter final exit is on the cards, but we could always get lucky.

Smiles in Egypt

Egypt is still very much in the news, and I've been looking back at my photos from a trip there in 1998. There are a few of pyramids, naturally, and hookah pipes and Red Sea snorkelling. But the image below - just a happy family scene from Alexandria - caught my eye.

Jubilations

Polls continue to show overwhelming support for the Queen and the whole idea of monarchy. Only a fifth or so of us support a move to a republic. Even the Australians opted to keep the Queen as their head of state when they had a free choice - yes, really, Australians (see here).

So what conclusions can we draw from the apparently unswerving popularity of the monarchy?

• A lot of people like the status quo. Conservatism runs deeper than we might think, even among younger generations.
• That said, I suspect there are a lot of people who would like to see a scaled-down, more self-sufficient royal family, but who wouldn't go as far as calling for abolition and a republic.
• If you can get away with it, saying very little and promising even less is a great strategy for staying popular and out of trouble. Politicians must wish they had this option, but of course they have to compete for votes and actually do stuff that affects our lives, so it's not.
• Britain will be a monarchy for the foreseeable future, although the Queen will no doubt be a tough act to follow. Maybe the scaled-down option will start to come into play once she is no more on the throne.
• Arguing the rational case for a republic with monarchists (i.e. the majority) is about as fruitful as arguing the case for the non-existence of god with people of faith. This is about heart, not head.

Hope everyone enjoys the long Jubilee weekend!

The Haslemere Cellar - excellent service and wines

How's this for service and expertise in retailing?

I went to The Haslemere Cellar/Cheesebox last weekend looking for something a little bit special for dinner. Our guest was a great friend renowned for his excellent taste and knowledge in food and drink. But as usual I didn't want to spend silly amounts on a bottle of over-priced wine.

The conversation went something like this...

Can I help you?

Yes please, I'd like some wine to go with dinner tonight.

What are you eating?

Beef.

How are you cooking it?

In an oil fondue.

Ok, and what are you having with the beef?

Potatoes.

What type of potatoes?

Sauteed potatoes, possibly some asparagus as well.

Right, you have a couple of choices...

After a bit more discussion, I bought choice A. I don't really care whether the wine - Chianti, btw - really was great or whether the buying experience had conditioned me to think it would be. It was very enjoyable and seemed an ideal match for the food.

You don't get that at the supermarkets, do you?

See Naples and Live

I spent last weekend in Italy with friends. The trip was great fun, and I expect we will return once again next year.

Our destination was the excellent Lido Cerullo, on the beach near the ruins of Paestum. On the way, our coach skirted Naples, the sight of which always takes me straight back to a visit I made there in the summer of 1990. The place made a big impression on me. Being an idealistic teenager, I found its alien ways highly alluring. Grimy, sultry and anarchic, it seemed the opposite of much I'd grown up with in southern England.

But despite a couple of opportunities and trips to the south of Italy, I've been back to Naples itself only once in the intervening 22 years. Like a lot of other people, Naples just hasn't seemed like the right place to take a young family or to head for a romantic weekend. Understandable I guess, but it's a shame more of us don't visit the place, despite all the rave reviews it gets in many travel guides.

Naples has two great attributes for the visitor. Firstly it is hugely atmospheric and exciting. The backstreets are the stuff of Italian cliché - ancient, claustrophobic, chaotic, populated by noisy extraverts fed on the world's best pizza. But you wont find anything comparable in Rome, Milan, Florence or Venice. This is unmistakably the South. Culturally you feel closer to Tangiers than Turin.

Secondly, Naples is simply stunning. They used to say "See Naples and Die" because the city was such a sight to behold. It remains so. Climb up the hill to get a view of the city, the vast bay and looming Vesuvius. The photo to the left, which I took on that trip in 1990, doesn't do it justice.

No other major European city offers your eyes a more awe-inspiring combination of historic urban sprawl and natural beauty. Barcelona doesn't come close, Marseille (another under-rated and under-visited city) is the next best I've been to.

So my recommendation is to take sensible precautions (yes, there is no doubt petty crime to rival any city in Europe) and dive into Naples. It's an experience you won't forget.

Declinism? No thanks, I'll decline

Excellent 40-minute slot this evening on Radio 4 from David Aaronovitch entitled Things Ain't What They Used To Be. Punchy but thought-provoking, it was the type of programme Radio 4 does very well.

I'm with Aaronovitch on the topic in hand. Look at history with any sort of informed clarity and it's surely evident that things have got a lot better for much of the world. We may therefore also believe, quite logically, that they will continue to do so.

On average, we experience lives that are healthier, longer-lived, more peaceful, safer and admittedly less contented than ever before. And looking forward, without taking an absurdly Panglossian outlook, I don't find it that hard to believe that we will find solutions to the world's great challenges. I even suspect the current economic hardships, awful though they are for many right now, will be seen to have positive effects (more of which in future post, no doubt).

The programme asked why pessimism appears to be the default setting in human psychology. One academic posited a fascinating idea. Early humans needed to pay more attention to negative news because it demanded immediate action, unlike most good news. A shout of "lion coming" was much more urgent than one of "no lions around today". This kind of evolutionary reductionism, although easily dismissed, appeals greatly to me. I'm happy to think that there may be a direct link between that alarm call on the ancient savannah and the endless cycle of bad news stories that dominate the media.

So pessimism prevails. What wasn't explained was why it is so unappealing in other people. We naturally are drawn to more upbeat friends, partners and leaders. Optimism is attractive.

To answer my own question, I guess the appeal of optimism is the flip side of pessimism. When the call of "lion" goes out, we fear the worst but are drawn to those who have an optimistic solution that could lead to safety. Despair and inaction will get you eaten.

Marketing that sucks: Henry vs Dyson

Ask a professional cleaner what brand of vacuum they prefer and there's a high chance they will cite lovable little Henry. This product is popular with people who do a lot of vacuuming. That's not because of its cute face, I suspect, but because it does the job well, is tough, simple to operate and seems to be highly reliable.

But which brand dominates the consumer consciousness when it comes to hoovers? Not Henry, not even Hoover. It's Dyson. The Britsh firm has done a brilliant job of positioning its products as simply better by design. A combination of top-notch engineering and marketing by Sir James Dyson and his team has created a very strong brand that attracts a lot of business and a premium price.

Meanwhile Henry is a great example of a sleeper brand. The product is popular and inspires loyalty where it's used, but it's also under-marketed and ineffectively positioned. It has an iconic design and most people have heard of it, but its identity is unclear, its attributes uncommunicated, its price point well below Dyson.

So here's my suggested positioning for Henry. It's the smart choice - no gimmicks, no gadgets, no see-through dual turbo cyclones. Just great results and reliability at a great price. And the killer brand fact: cleaners (and cleaning firms) like to use 'em. Cue market research to demonstrate this and an ad campaign featuring hard-working people hugging their Henrys.

Henry, your time has surely come.

Haslemere Educational Museum

Time to highlight a precious local institution. Haslemere Educational Museum is like a mini British + Natural History museum in one. Bears, giant crabs, Egyptian mummies, palaeolithic hand axes... it's free and it's right on the high street. Highly recommended and every town should have one.

Local elections and scepticism

There was yet another dismal turnout in this week's local elections around the UK. Cue the ever louder voices lamenting that "they're all as bad as one another" and that they can't trust anyone in politics these days (e.g. see the highest rated comments here).

What we seem to forget is that we, the public, have evolved. We are more sceptical than ever before because we know so much more. The media pries into public affairs and public figures in ways unimaginable even twenty years ago. We are lucky to have the knowledge and insight that such prying gives us, but it does breed contempt for those in power and those who want to be in power.

I would therefore tend to read the widespread dissatisfaction with politics as a sign of modern day scepticism, rather than a deterioration of parties or politicians. Today's crop of ministers, MPs and local councillors are surely no more clueless or corrupt than those of any previous period.

So how does democracy flourish in a society with ever increasing disclosure, knowledge and scepticism? That's a question we seem to miss when bemoaning so loudly that there isn't a better calibre of politician for whom we can cast our precious vote.

London less rainy than Paris

As anyone around these parts (south-east UK) will tell you, we've had epic amounts of rain recently. And it's still falling.

However, our British climate is often unfairly maligned, mostly by we Brits. According to my 1997 edition of this reliable source:

London - 153 days with 0.1mm+ rainfall per year
Paris - 162 days

London annual rainfall - 593mm
Paris - 619mm.

And yet which city would most people believe to be the wetter?

Exponential growth

I notice I have received no fewer than 32 page views in two days, with 100% growth between days one and two.

So at current course and speed I will have one page view for every single person on the planet before the end of May. I'm going to call that a "stretch target", but let's see how it goes.

It really is true that if you could fold a piece of paper 27 times it would reach higher than Everest. 100 times and you are somewhere around the width of the known universe. See this for more on exponential growth.