This week I am looking at Pele and Maradona. The two greatest footballers ever from the two best football nations ever. Brazil and Argentina share a fierce dislike of each other when it comes to football, and these players both have their own opinions on who is better.
Pele is the elder of the two and was active as a player from 1956 to 1977, mainly playing as a forward. The majority of his club career was spent with Santos, where he scored 470 goals at more than a goal a game. This was at a time when there was no national league in Brazil. He finished his club career in New York. Pele had great success on the international stage as well, winning three world cups with Brazil while scoring 77 goals in 92 appearances.
Maradona's career began just as Pele's was ending. He operated primarily as an attacking midfielder or in the hole. He played his club career for a variety of clubs in Argentina and Europe, but the two he made the biggest effect at were Boca Juniors and Napoli. Maradona scored 311 goals in 590 appearances in club football, and won trophies in Argentina, Italy and Spain. Maradona also had a very successful international career, winning the World Cup with Argentina in 1986. In this tournament he had his most famous moments, particularly the quarter final against England. In this game he scored the 'hand of god' goal as well as the goal that was voted by fifa as the greatest in history, taking the ball from his own half to take on several players to put the ball in the net.
When looking at their careers Pele certainly had more success on the big stage with three world cup wins. He also scored more goals than Maradona, one of the few statistics in football that count. Maradona did have more success in club football, but Pele played in an era where there was no national championship in Brazil. While Maradona scored less, he did play a deeper role as either a midfielder or in the hole, positions which are more for playmakers than finishers. For player who played this type of role Maradona's scoring record is phenomenal, and in the process with his brilliant dribbling and close control provided an excellent highlight real.
Despite this I do have to say Pele had the better career of the two. He won the the biggest trophy (not just in football but in sport) more times. He has a goal scoring record that will be extremely difficult to break. I do like Maradona better though. Most of his detractors point to his somewhat ridiculous existence outside of football (drug and alcohol abuse, health and weight problems) and say he lacks credibility. However the highlightsl he supplied and his faults in his personal life make me admire him more, especially now that he has overcome them to become Argentina's coach. If he can deliver a world cup as a coach, perhaps his football career as a whole could be finally considered better than Peles...
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Slayer vs Pantera vs Metallica
This week I look at the three biggest names in heavy metal. You will not find anyone who is into metal who does not like at least one of these bands. They are three of the most influential metal bands ever, their have been many bands who have taken elements of the above bands sounds. Which one of them is the best though? Lets find out...
First of all lets look at Metallica. It is somewhat essential to include Metallica because they are the most commercially successful and well known metal band of all time. But that does not make them the best band here. Actually in my opinion they are easily the worst band. I will grant that some of their early work is quite good, but since '...And Justice For All' they have either produced very average hard rock albums, or more recently nu-metal styled rubbish. Metallica are no match for the talent of Pantera, and even their earlier speed metal albums can not match the intensity of Slayer. Lars Ulrich is also possibly the worst drummer to ever play in a metal band along with being one of the biggest dickheads in the music industry.
Now that Metallica have been eliminated from this contest lets look at the remaining contenders. First up is Pantera.
Pantera were active as a band from 1981 until 2003. Unfortunately a reunion of the band will never happen due to the murder of their guitarist Dimebag Darrell. They initially started with a sound that can be described as glam or power metal. This is not the sound Pantera is famous for, but they did release a few albums in this period, one that is worth checking out at least for a laugh is 'Projects in the Jungle', particularly for the track 'Heavy Metal Rules'.
Pantera changed their sound once Phil Anselmo joined the band. This would not have been because Phil could not do their previous style vocally, he is an extremely talented vocalist with an impressive range, but more due to a desire to fit into the changing metal landscape at the time. Their first album with Phil was 'Power Metal', which while heavier than previous works still contained some of the earlier glam influence.
Their next album 'Cowboys from Hell' would complete the transition to a heavier sound. This album was Pantera's first commercial release and the beginning of their groove metal sound. They demonstrated an ability to be a very heavy band on some tracks, notably 'Primal Concrete Sledge', while also pulling off songs with some softer edges like 'Cemetary Gates'. They were able to combine their newer heavier sound with a groove that made the songs rather catchy for heavy music. Following 'Cowboys from Hell' they continued to build on this sound and subsequent success on their following albums to further enhance their reputation as one of the most important bands in metal.
Slayer formed in 1981 and are still an active band. Their initial releases were indenpendent releases, on which they played a fast brand of metal known as thrash, a relatively new genre at this point. In 1986 they released their third studio album, and first commercial release 'Reign in Blood'. With better production than they were used to Slayer honed their sound, and produced an album of shorter songs played at a breakneck pace in an extremely heavy tone. Slayer found it hard to get distribution for this album and radio play due to the controversial nature of their lyrics. Despite this the album quickly gained a cult following, as metal fans were attracted to the sound featuring extremely fast musicianship, outrageous and disjointed guitar solos and the overall harsh and heavy tone of the band.
The impact Reign in Blood had on the metal community ensured Slayers subsequent releases generated attention and has helped Slayer have a healthy musical career. Yet the success of Reign in Blood has hung over Slayer like a shadow ever since. Slayer on the albums they have done since have been unsure what to do, and have stated several times they feel they would never be able to produce an album like Reign in Blood again. This is not helped by the musical presses approach to Slayer. On all their albums since Slayer have had to ensure comparisons of their new work to Reign in Blood. On some albums, like South of Heaven, Diabolica in Musica and God Hates us all Slayer have tried to slow down their tempo. On other albums they reverted back to strength of playing metal at a break neck pace. Even though they have had some good releases since, none seem to match the intensity and quality of Reign in Blood. It is clear that unlike Pantera, who built on their initial success and continued improving their sound and style, Slayer struggled to deal with their initial success and have failed to reach the same standard since, let alone grow their sound further.
So who is the better metal band?
This is a really hard choice. I love both bands and think they are amazing musicians. Overall I believe Pantera had the more impressive career. They grew their sound on each album and each member of the band really brought alot to their sound. Phil Anselmo is one of the best vocalists I have ever heard, and Dimebag was an amazing guitarist with a great style. They incorporated a range of different sounds into their music to create a style many heavy bands try to emulate today.
Despite this, I do prefer Slayer as a band. This is because I believe Reign in Blood is the best metal album. Ever. It was released 23 years ago, yet even in current times it is an absurdly fast and intense album. The overall pace of the album was 250 beats per minute, a pace that only the most extreme death metal and grindcore bands can top. The influence this album has had on other bands is incredible. It goes beyond metal, Slayer themselves were all fans of punk and hardcore music, and with this album they produced a sound which I hear bands from metal, punk and hardcore backgrounds try to incorporate into their music. Even though it is a criticism of Slayer that they never really improved from this album, just by listening to it I cannot imagine a way that you could produce a heavier and faster album with a better sound. It is absolutely amazing.
Next week I will be comparing Pele to Maradonna
First of all lets look at Metallica. It is somewhat essential to include Metallica because they are the most commercially successful and well known metal band of all time. But that does not make them the best band here. Actually in my opinion they are easily the worst band. I will grant that some of their early work is quite good, but since '...And Justice For All' they have either produced very average hard rock albums, or more recently nu-metal styled rubbish. Metallica are no match for the talent of Pantera, and even their earlier speed metal albums can not match the intensity of Slayer. Lars Ulrich is also possibly the worst drummer to ever play in a metal band along with being one of the biggest dickheads in the music industry.
Now that Metallica have been eliminated from this contest lets look at the remaining contenders. First up is Pantera.
Pantera were active as a band from 1981 until 2003. Unfortunately a reunion of the band will never happen due to the murder of their guitarist Dimebag Darrell. They initially started with a sound that can be described as glam or power metal. This is not the sound Pantera is famous for, but they did release a few albums in this period, one that is worth checking out at least for a laugh is 'Projects in the Jungle', particularly for the track 'Heavy Metal Rules'.
Pantera changed their sound once Phil Anselmo joined the band. This would not have been because Phil could not do their previous style vocally, he is an extremely talented vocalist with an impressive range, but more due to a desire to fit into the changing metal landscape at the time. Their first album with Phil was 'Power Metal', which while heavier than previous works still contained some of the earlier glam influence.
Their next album 'Cowboys from Hell' would complete the transition to a heavier sound. This album was Pantera's first commercial release and the beginning of their groove metal sound. They demonstrated an ability to be a very heavy band on some tracks, notably 'Primal Concrete Sledge', while also pulling off songs with some softer edges like 'Cemetary Gates'. They were able to combine their newer heavier sound with a groove that made the songs rather catchy for heavy music. Following 'Cowboys from Hell' they continued to build on this sound and subsequent success on their following albums to further enhance their reputation as one of the most important bands in metal.
Slayer formed in 1981 and are still an active band. Their initial releases were indenpendent releases, on which they played a fast brand of metal known as thrash, a relatively new genre at this point. In 1986 they released their third studio album, and first commercial release 'Reign in Blood'. With better production than they were used to Slayer honed their sound, and produced an album of shorter songs played at a breakneck pace in an extremely heavy tone. Slayer found it hard to get distribution for this album and radio play due to the controversial nature of their lyrics. Despite this the album quickly gained a cult following, as metal fans were attracted to the sound featuring extremely fast musicianship, outrageous and disjointed guitar solos and the overall harsh and heavy tone of the band.
The impact Reign in Blood had on the metal community ensured Slayers subsequent releases generated attention and has helped Slayer have a healthy musical career. Yet the success of Reign in Blood has hung over Slayer like a shadow ever since. Slayer on the albums they have done since have been unsure what to do, and have stated several times they feel they would never be able to produce an album like Reign in Blood again. This is not helped by the musical presses approach to Slayer. On all their albums since Slayer have had to ensure comparisons of their new work to Reign in Blood. On some albums, like South of Heaven, Diabolica in Musica and God Hates us all Slayer have tried to slow down their tempo. On other albums they reverted back to strength of playing metal at a break neck pace. Even though they have had some good releases since, none seem to match the intensity and quality of Reign in Blood. It is clear that unlike Pantera, who built on their initial success and continued improving their sound and style, Slayer struggled to deal with their initial success and have failed to reach the same standard since, let alone grow their sound further.
So who is the better metal band?
This is a really hard choice. I love both bands and think they are amazing musicians. Overall I believe Pantera had the more impressive career. They grew their sound on each album and each member of the band really brought alot to their sound. Phil Anselmo is one of the best vocalists I have ever heard, and Dimebag was an amazing guitarist with a great style. They incorporated a range of different sounds into their music to create a style many heavy bands try to emulate today.
Despite this, I do prefer Slayer as a band. This is because I believe Reign in Blood is the best metal album. Ever. It was released 23 years ago, yet even in current times it is an absurdly fast and intense album. The overall pace of the album was 250 beats per minute, a pace that only the most extreme death metal and grindcore bands can top. The influence this album has had on other bands is incredible. It goes beyond metal, Slayer themselves were all fans of punk and hardcore music, and with this album they produced a sound which I hear bands from metal, punk and hardcore backgrounds try to incorporate into their music. Even though it is a criticism of Slayer that they never really improved from this album, just by listening to it I cannot imagine a way that you could produce a heavier and faster album with a better sound. It is absolutely amazing.
Next week I will be comparing Pele to Maradonna
Sunday, February 8, 2009
KFC vs Nandos
This week I will look at the two largest chicken franchises in Australia. KFC and Nando's have become the dominant forces in the fast food chicken sector by offering two very different products. KFC as you all should know is short for Kentucky Fried Chicken, and as the name suggests it is American styled fried chicken. Nando's on the other hand is portugese styled grilled chicken. Due to their different styles the experience of eating their respective foods is very different, yet because they occupy the same market this comparison is necessary.
KFC began in USA during the 1950's, and opened its first franchise in Australia during 1968. KFC outlets are very similar to other American brands like Mcdonald's and Hungry Jacks/Burger King. They offer a typical fast food experience where you can order your food in store to eat in or takeaway, or you can pick up a take away meal via a drive through window so you do not have to leave your vehicle.
In terms of KFC's menu they offer meals for one person, where you can buy pieces of chicken, chicken burgers or wraps. These can come with a variety of side dishes including chips, potato and gravy as well as coleslaw. A particular highlight that must be mentioned is the return of the tower burger, a burger that combines a fried chicken fillet with a hashbrown. For a single person meal at KFC you can expect to pay anywhere between $6 and $10. You can also order family meals from KFC, and they even have a 30 piece bucket you can order, filled with 30 pieces of chicken of your choice. The 30 piece bucket is definitely intended for those who like to party!!
Nando's began in South Africa in the late 1980's, and first opened in Australia in 1990. Prior to Nando's most fast food chicken franchises in Australia tried to imitate KFC, for example Red Rooster. This tactic failed as most consumers did not want to buy an imitation: why buy something that cost the same and is less widely available. Nandos' was the first in Australia to offer a different style to KFC's. Their portugese style chicken taste less fatty, and in burger or wrap form they offer more fresh salad than KFC, who tend to only put a piece of lettuce on their burgers to compliment the meat filling. Nando's have even inspired an imitation chain in the form Oporto, which it must be said is a poor imitation.
While Nando's are present in some food courts, their outlets tend to be halfway between a restaurant and a normal fast food outlet. When you order to eat in at Nando's you can go sit down at a table and the food is brought to you on a plate, as opposed to on a plastic tray in wrappers at KFC. At some Nando's restaurants you can order alcoholic beverages including beer and wine.
Nando's menu offers similar packages for single orders as KFC do. You can order a variety of burgers and wraps from Nando's with a side of chips. Like stated earlier, Nando's chicken taste less greasy due to being grilled and their burgers and wraps offer more salad fillings than KFC, giving Nando's a fresher taste. You can even order burgers in portugese bread. However these extra's do come at a cost. The minimum for a Nando's meal consisting of chicken pieces/burger/wrap and chips and drink costs at least $11.45. In some places like the ACT the drink is not included in the meal. At KFC you can get a burger plus a piece of chicken, regular chips, potato and gravy and a soft drink for under $10. Nando's also offer a variety of family meals, however these are less extensive than KFC's and basically are only a whole chicken with some side dishes.
The highlight of Nando's menu has to be the sauces. Nando's baste their chicken in their peri peri sauce, which come in a variety of different levels of heat. Furthermore when you eat in you can take a bottle of tomato or peri peri sauces back to the table and spread it over your chips. The peri peri really add's individuality to the taste of Nando's.
So both have different angles on fast food chicken, but which one is better fast food chicken?
As stated before Nando's outlet are almost restaurant like in terms of presentation and cost. This is very untypical for a fast food outlet, and it really works against Nando's. If I wanted to eat at a restaurant I would. As it stands though Nando's cost more for a food which is nice but still borderline fast food. Furthermore there is no convenience option with Nando's, yes you can order takeaway but you have to wait the same length of time as those eating in do. There is no drive through option. As a fast food outlet it fails to meet basic expectations, yet if you compared it to a restaurant it still feels like a fast food outlet, despite the plates and the food being delivered to the table. Nando's redeeming factor is the amazing peri peri sauce, if Nando's did not have this I would not eat there.
KFC is hardly a nutritious meal, it taste obviously unhealthy. But that is the point of fast food, it is a guilty pleasure. You do not eat fast food when you are after a nice meal. You eat fast food after waking up from a night that you drank you body weight in alcohol and you cannot remember a thing. You probably vomited that night, and unless you did it on you're own clothes you have no way being sure. All you know is that your stomach is empty, and it needs filling instantly. You can drive to KFC and just swing through the drive through and order a feast for under $10, and go back to your house where the curtains are drawn to block out that evil natural light and pig out. You knows its bad for you, but you do not care. It taste good and cheap. This is the point of fast food. This is why KFC wins.
Next week will be Slayer vs Pantera vs Metallica
KFC began in USA during the 1950's, and opened its first franchise in Australia during 1968. KFC outlets are very similar to other American brands like Mcdonald's and Hungry Jacks/Burger King. They offer a typical fast food experience where you can order your food in store to eat in or takeaway, or you can pick up a take away meal via a drive through window so you do not have to leave your vehicle.
In terms of KFC's menu they offer meals for one person, where you can buy pieces of chicken, chicken burgers or wraps. These can come with a variety of side dishes including chips, potato and gravy as well as coleslaw. A particular highlight that must be mentioned is the return of the tower burger, a burger that combines a fried chicken fillet with a hashbrown. For a single person meal at KFC you can expect to pay anywhere between $6 and $10. You can also order family meals from KFC, and they even have a 30 piece bucket you can order, filled with 30 pieces of chicken of your choice. The 30 piece bucket is definitely intended for those who like to party!!
Nando's began in South Africa in the late 1980's, and first opened in Australia in 1990. Prior to Nando's most fast food chicken franchises in Australia tried to imitate KFC, for example Red Rooster. This tactic failed as most consumers did not want to buy an imitation: why buy something that cost the same and is less widely available. Nandos' was the first in Australia to offer a different style to KFC's. Their portugese style chicken taste less fatty, and in burger or wrap form they offer more fresh salad than KFC, who tend to only put a piece of lettuce on their burgers to compliment the meat filling. Nando's have even inspired an imitation chain in the form Oporto, which it must be said is a poor imitation.
While Nando's are present in some food courts, their outlets tend to be halfway between a restaurant and a normal fast food outlet. When you order to eat in at Nando's you can go sit down at a table and the food is brought to you on a plate, as opposed to on a plastic tray in wrappers at KFC. At some Nando's restaurants you can order alcoholic beverages including beer and wine.
Nando's menu offers similar packages for single orders as KFC do. You can order a variety of burgers and wraps from Nando's with a side of chips. Like stated earlier, Nando's chicken taste less greasy due to being grilled and their burgers and wraps offer more salad fillings than KFC, giving Nando's a fresher taste. You can even order burgers in portugese bread. However these extra's do come at a cost. The minimum for a Nando's meal consisting of chicken pieces/burger/wrap and chips and drink costs at least $11.45. In some places like the ACT the drink is not included in the meal. At KFC you can get a burger plus a piece of chicken, regular chips, potato and gravy and a soft drink for under $10. Nando's also offer a variety of family meals, however these are less extensive than KFC's and basically are only a whole chicken with some side dishes.
The highlight of Nando's menu has to be the sauces. Nando's baste their chicken in their peri peri sauce, which come in a variety of different levels of heat. Furthermore when you eat in you can take a bottle of tomato or peri peri sauces back to the table and spread it over your chips. The peri peri really add's individuality to the taste of Nando's.
So both have different angles on fast food chicken, but which one is better fast food chicken?
As stated before Nando's outlet are almost restaurant like in terms of presentation and cost. This is very untypical for a fast food outlet, and it really works against Nando's. If I wanted to eat at a restaurant I would. As it stands though Nando's cost more for a food which is nice but still borderline fast food. Furthermore there is no convenience option with Nando's, yes you can order takeaway but you have to wait the same length of time as those eating in do. There is no drive through option. As a fast food outlet it fails to meet basic expectations, yet if you compared it to a restaurant it still feels like a fast food outlet, despite the plates and the food being delivered to the table. Nando's redeeming factor is the amazing peri peri sauce, if Nando's did not have this I would not eat there.
KFC is hardly a nutritious meal, it taste obviously unhealthy. But that is the point of fast food, it is a guilty pleasure. You do not eat fast food when you are after a nice meal. You eat fast food after waking up from a night that you drank you body weight in alcohol and you cannot remember a thing. You probably vomited that night, and unless you did it on you're own clothes you have no way being sure. All you know is that your stomach is empty, and it needs filling instantly. You can drive to KFC and just swing through the drive through and order a feast for under $10, and go back to your house where the curtains are drawn to block out that evil natural light and pig out. You knows its bad for you, but you do not care. It taste good and cheap. This is the point of fast food. This is why KFC wins.
Next week will be Slayer vs Pantera vs Metallica
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
