Antonia and Natalya look at the confusion at Cardinals’ Cocktails, the Sexbridge blogger (as well as the sexless at Oxford blogger) and violence at Oxford.
They then take a cheeky peek at the centrespread on Chatroulette and fill up on their weekly dose of Fit College and Blind Date.
Link to Sexless at Oxford blog: http://sexlessatoxbridge.blogspot.com/
What on earth is going on? Gordon Brown is exposed as an office bully who screams at his staff and shoves his most trusted advisors around (including Magdalen politics tutor Stewart Wood), the “forces of Hell” have been unleashed on the Chancellor by Downing Street for telling the truth about the recession, and there are renewed signs that the economy may well dip again before the next quarter. The public response? Labour improves in the polls. More than improves in fact: the current polls are the best for Labour since Gordon Brown came to power, and on a “uniform swing” would produce a parliament where Labour would have the most seats. How has David Cameron managed to throw away an election that was his for the taking? Would the British public really prefer a Bully to a salesman?
I think that there are four issues that need to be untangled if we are to understand what’s happening in the polls, two statistical and two tactical.
First, while the Tory lead is indeed down to two percentage points it’s really not that simple. The poll referred to was conducted by YouGov on Friday and covered about 1000 voters. At first glance for the reported swing to have occurred the sample would’ve needed about 20 more people who said that they would vote Labour then the poll the day before. This is well within the margin of error (the allowance that pollsters make for mistakes). When we look a bit deeper we note that YouGov, like most of the pollsters, weights voters by the party that you voted for in the last election. Something that the political websites have been noting for a while is that it is becoming rather difficult to find enough Labour-leaning voters in each sample, and those who are “labour type voters” have to be heavily weighted. So we’re no longer talking about 20 people, but maybe 10 or 12. This may well be down to sample bias (that YouGov aren’t targeting the right people), but may also be because there is something odd going on with the polling. While the unweighted numbers are somewhat unreliable, the method that YouGov use (ie. Online sampling) means that what we might be seeing in the unweighted sample is a reflection of enthusiasm. Think about it, if you are a labour-type voter and are generally dissatisfied with the Labour party you’re probably not that likely to fill in an online survey. This might well prove to be a somewhat weak proxy for whether you intend to vote. What are the unweighted vote shares? The Conservatives are on around 42% (as they have been since July) and Labour has risen from 27% to 28% over the same time period.
Second, there is no such thing as a uniform swing. British politics is still constituency based, however much the media may focus on the party leaders, and the seats that matter are the marginals. The issues that matter in marginals are different from the rest of the country. For example, as I mentioned in an earlier article, people who live in the British marginals tend to be more likely to be married then the rest of the country so policies that benefit married couples may well be unpopular nationally whilst still helping the Conservatives towards victory. There hasn’t been a reliable set of figures for the marginals since the Angus Reid poll of 24 February, but that poll had the Conservatives on 42% in the marginals and 38 % overall.
So it’s not quite as low as the weekend papers might suggest. But it is still bad for them. Whilst the scale may well be wrong, there has been a slide in Conservative support. I think that there are two strategic issues at work here.
The first is that the Conservatives appear to have well and truly lost the plot. Their message is confused and difficult to relate to. Most people haven’t been particularly badly affected by the technicalities of the recession, have short memories and don’t really know what the deficit is. When David Cameron says that the country can’t just get a new credit card when its current credit card runs out of money they ask a simple question, why not? They care about jobs, schools and the NHS: the very things that the focus on deficit reduction makes them worry will be cut. And they don’t know what the Conservative party want to do about jobs, schools or the NHS. Frankly, I’m not sure that Tory MP’s know what their party want to do about jobs, schools or the NHS.
It gets worse. This weekend the Conservatives laid out the six key issues that they will fight the election under. Yes, you heard right, six. This is madness. The first rule of running an election is that too many messages confuse voters. Three is about as many as most people can remember. Six is insane, especially when no one really knows where you stand on anything. Whilst “ a future fair for all” might sound stupid, it’s easy to understand, and given that everyone knows that Labour are fighting the election on the economy, easily highlights the strengths of the party. “Vote for Change” on the other hand means nothing. David Cameron isn’t Barack Obama. He’s a Tory. Tories don’t like change. Everyone knows that. So change what? To what? Back to Thatcher? To Blair? Who knows.
Which leads me to my final point, Gordon Brown is clawing back what I think is the most important part of any modern campaign: the personal narrative. The interviews and bullying story have, in an odd way, made him seem more human and also stronger. When your choices in a crisis are between a big clunking first and a used car salesman, many of us would choose the former. People voted for George Bush over Kerry in part because he reminded them of themselves. He shared their distrust of the over educated, the elite, the rich kids in school (even though he was one himself). He made them feel like he understood where they were coming from. David Cameron all too often comes across as too slick, too confident, too cocky. He has the smile of someone who knows his place and lets you know that he knows yours too. Salesman Dave not only appears to have nothing to sell, but looks like he may well take you for a ride. Forget the six points if you want to become Prime Minister Mr Cameron: It’s all about crying on television and the televised debates.
I’m sure many of you have been missing our intrepid debating correspondent since his last appearance on this blog, so here’s Jacob Donovan’s report on last week’s Obama Debate.
‘Thursday’s debate was a slightly odd spectacle on two counts. First, the motion: This House believes that Obama has failed to live up to expectations. As one of the speakers noted in the opening speech, whose expectations? Democrats? Republicans? What Bonnie Greer called “Obama-maniacs”? Or the “average American voter” (If they in fact exist)? This question became increasingly problematic as neither side could agree with the other side, or even their own side, as to how to judge the Obama Presidency.
For the Proposition the fact that Obama hadn’t ended all warfare, brought peace to the Middle East, created a world of plenty for all, destroyed racial inequality and ended boom and bust (not everyone can be Gordon Brown) meant that he had fundamentally failed. This seemed a bit of an excessive burden for, as noted in a Point of Information from Ashvir Sangha (Ex-Treasurer-Elect), Obama isn’t the Messiah. Yes he hasn’t turned water into wine, but he’s done a pretty good job repairing the image of America abroad, helped transform the image of what it means to be black in America and managed to help mitigate the effects of a potentially devastating economic crisis.
Which meant that when the first Proposition speaker, the Chairman of Republicans abroad who looked and sounded a little too much like Fred Flintstone to take seriously, sat down it looked like the Opposition would need to do very little to sweep the floor. Unfortunately, just like David Cameron, they seemed intent on doing quite a lot to throw away certain victory. Bonnie Greer’s down to earth demeanour and charm which served her so well against Nick Griffin on Question Time was refreshing, but she dropped the ball. Instead of facing criticism of Obama head on, she told us that the way to assess his Presidency was to judge it on Obama’s potential. We should just give him a chance. Really Bonnie? Come on. As James Kingston (Librarian) noted in a floor speech, as unfair as it is to presume that he is the Messiah, it’s also unfair to treat him as some sort of Affirmative Action candidate with special needs who has to be judged differently to everyone else.
The Proposition as a whole didn’t take advantage of this however, and the second odd feature was just how insane they became. Nirj Deva, a Conservative MEP who no one I spoke to had heard of, and David Amess, a Conservative MP who I found out at drinks was only famous for a particularly idiotic appearance on Brasseye, were terrible. Truly awful speakers. Illogical, incredibly angry for no apparent reason and at times just plain rude, this was the old Tory party at its worst. Quite why they cared so much about Obama wasn’t clear but their anger seemed especially directed at anything to do with change. Whoever crafted the new Conservative election slogan clearly did not have these two in mind. On the other side, the two best speakers of the debate by far were two academics, Professor Michael Cox and Professor Phillipe Sands QC, who proved that the length of your Wikipedia page bears no relationship to your speaking prowess. Their speeches go some way to explaining the Opposition victory, though it did fall short of the margin that one would have expected, a symbol perhaps that the audience eventually left about as confused as the speakers.
Postscript
For all its flaws this wasn’t a bad debate, and it was a shame that it wasn’t better attended. If it hadn’t have been for Stuart Cullen’s rent-a-schoolkid delegation the chamber would’ve been almost empty by the end. Whether it’s been due to poor publicity and advertising, a lack of any big name speakers or maybe just too many debates this term, attendance has been worryingly low. Not a good sign for the future.’
The greatest criticisms facing the third film in the Alien Quadrilogy inevitably stem from comparisons, as ultimately David Fincher’s addition to the franchise must stand alongside Alien and its sequel Aliens: two very different films that are nevertheless broadly recognised as seminal and high quality works in the cinematic genre. Already under pressure to perform, Alien 3 was the result of an over-complicated creative process that involved six screenwriters and numerous revisions. Such trials and tribulations gave rise to the film’s initial reputation as a confused and regrettable footnote to its masterly precursors.
The plot has Ripley crash-land on the barren prison planet of Fury 141, where an all-male enclave of murderers and rapists is forced to accept her unwelcome presence when the eponymous alien begins to stalk the prisoners through the confines of the facility. It’s pretty basic and rather slow to start, and the often flimsy dialogue doesn’t sound any better in crude British accents. But look closer, however, and there is much to acclaim.
Thematically, Alien 3 is surer of itself than its predecessors; ideas of redemption, of sacrifice and duty, all well-suited to the penal setting, are intertwined with a millenarian Christian element that invites interpretation without taking itself too seriously. Charles S. Dutton, playing the charismatic leader of the prison’s religious sect, is more than able to carry off a role prone to disastrous bathos. And while the prison doctor, Clemens, is underused despite the character development he is afforded, the inmates’ varying responses to their grisly predicament belie claims that they are simply fodder for the murderous beast.
The talented Fincher, who went on to direct Seven and Fight Club, deserves praise for a number of memorable sequences, including a funeral scene intercut with the alien’s gory birth and the final frenetic show-down in the prison’s lead works. Sigourney Weaver, in an inversion of the maternal action-hero role that contributed so much to Aliens’ success, remains fresh and convincing. Ultimately, Alien 3 was always going to be easily criticised, yet learn to look past initial disappointment and we find a film quite worthy of its parentage.
3D cinema is by no means a new phenomenon. It first found fame in the 1950s when pioneering films such as House of Wax used the illusion of depth perception to astound cinemagoers. As 3D experienced a new lease of life in the 1980s, audiences watched in horror as Jaws 3-D hit cinema screens. However these projects had limited success but the recent revival could change that. So what’s all the fuss about?
The 3D technology of today is slightly different to that of the past. Whilst the essential idea, making the picture ‘jump out’ of the screen, remains the same, the techniques are more sophisticated. Audiences 30 years ago would have watched two images coming from two separate projectors (one for each eye). There are several competing projection methods; some rapidly alternate between the two images, whilst others still use a dual-projection system to put both images on the screen at the same time. Either way, the end result is the same; each eye receives an image at a slightly different angle to the other. The glasses act as a filter, allowing each eye to see only one of these images, leaving the brain to do the rest. Yes the ticket prices are substantially higher than for 2D features and the glasses (no matter what they try to tell you) don’t make you look cool, but the experience is out of this world.
Although the experience of watching 3D in IMAX is undeniably powerful it can be a bit of an optical assault. I found that the opening 20 minute sequence of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince in 3D was quite enough for me on an IMAX screen (which is just as well because that’s all there was!). However the producers definitely selected the most appropriate scenes to present in 3D; whirling through the streets of London following the death eaters’ destruction of Diagon Alley and the Millennium Bridge was nothing if not impressive.
Of course the biggest buzz of 2009, 3D or otherwise, was for Avatar; 14 years in the making and costing over $200 million to create – only one word can describe Avatar and that word is ‘epic.’ It is easy to immerse yourself in the world of Pandora when it is so perfectly captured for us onscreen. The use of 3D is at times subtle and at others mind-blowing; it can touch us or it can have us clinging to our seats. Avatar was much more than just a gimmick. To those who have claimed that in creating a technical masterpiece Cameron has neglected his craft, I can only say that I disagree emphatically. Whilst Avatar is undoubtedly more impressive in 3D it is truly great entertainment however many dimensions you watch it in.
2010 is set to be a huge year for 3D cinema with Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3. With each passing year the output of 3D films becomes greater and greater. In as little as a decade 3D films could become the standard format. I have mixed feeling about this prospect; granted, there are many films which look amazing in 3D , such as thrillers, but it is unlikely that the average rom-com would greatly benefit from the technology. There is a danger that film makers will rely on the novelty of 3D to the detriment of quality. Whilst new technology can improve our cinematic experiences it can’t, and shouldn’t, be used as the basis for a film. But, if Avatar is anything to go by then we have no need to worry. 3D is back and looks bigger, brighter and better than ever.
For what is supposedly the most prestigious and authoritative celebration of cinematic excellence on the planet, the frequency with which the Oscars gets it wrong is startling and not a little depressing. This isn’t exactly a new problem – in 1942, How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane for Best Picture, while in his long and brilliant career, Hitchcock never won Best Director (though the Academy subsequently realised their mistake and attempted to cover their tracks with a conciliatory memorial award in 1967) – yet it still persists to this day. In 1995, Oscar deemed Forrest Gump to be superior to both Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption while in 2006 the heavy-handed Crash was favoured over the braver and subtler Brokeback Mountain. Indeed, while smaller ceremonies such as the BAFTAs are far more discerning in their decisions – as seen in the recent sweeping victory of The Hurt Locker over Avatar [working title: Smurfahontas] – it’s a rare thing indeed for the Academy to get it right, with last year’s victory of Slumdog Millionaire being an unexpected and extremely welcome surprise. Yet although the nominations this year haven’t been too disastrous, there were some gaping and unforgivable omissions from the shortlists. Some of the best of 2009 were forgotten by the Academy, so this is a chance to sit the Oscars in the chair, clamp open its eyelids and force it to acknowledge its mistakes. Preferably to Beethoven’s Ninth.
One of the finest British comedies of the decade, In The Loop, was rightly nominated for its screenplay, but it was Peter Capaldi’s blistering and surprisingly heartfelt performance which was the film’s sweary centrepiece. His absence from the Best Supporting Actor category is conspicuous and worrying, “like a big hairy rapist at a coach station,” to quote the man himself.
On a purely aesthetic level, the cinematography of the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s supposedly unfilmable novel The Road were astounding, as it brilliantly and beautifully evoked a slowly dying world. But the film also showcased two heart-wrenching performances courtesy of Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the Man and Boy respectively. The film owes much of its success to these two actors, yet the Academy has ignored both.
While the merits of Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll can be debated, what cannot is the powerhouse performance of Andy Serkis as the late, great Ian Dury. Perhaps the CGI ghosts of Gollum and King Kong still haunt him, but whatever the reason, he was denied a deserved Oscar nod.
Staying with acting, Moon is a film that succeeds or fails with the central actor’s performance, and fortunately Sam Rockwell knocks it out of the park in a part written specifically for him. His portrayal of the lonely Sam Bell is fragile and affecting, and so, predictably, he was denied a nomination. Indeed, the film itself has been entirely ignored by the Academy, despite being a superior sci-fi to District 9, which received a somewhat bizarre Best Picture nom. Fortunately, its director, Duncan Jones, was given due recognition at the BAFTAs, yet this ingenious little film deserves so much more.
This selection barely breaks the surface of the under-appreciated films of 2009, yet the Academy seems insistent to keep its mainstream blinkers firmly on. It might be the biggest event in the film calendar, but it seems that as an arbitrator of excellence, this ungainly leviathan cannot be trusted. Not one little bit.
Stood in my work clothes next to a pair of Czech junkies in what seemed to be an abandoned shopping centre, I guess I did feel slightly out of place. I was beginning to wonder whether I’d taken a wrong turn, and was about to risk being robbed of my budget phone to call a friend, when I noticed the name of the pub scrawled in tiny lettering next to a doorbell. Eager to leave the crackheads behind; I pressed the buzzer. “Ahoj!” came a voice from inside the machine. I panicked. Was there something I was meant to say? A password, perhaps? Some kind of codeword that pledged my allegiance to whatever was going on behind those doors? I apologized several times over, and after a baffled silence over at the other end, I regained my wits and stammered the name of the place; “Èítárna“, or “The Reading Room”.
The door opened and I walked into an empty, dark hallway in what looked to be one of those apartment blocks with art decor banisters and winding staircases. There were no signs, but I presumed I was supposed to walk up the stairs until some other little clue presented itself. 5 flights up and I’d approached this massive rusty iron grill, like the ones you’d imagine they have in places Notorious BIG visits when he’s not busy writing poetry. I walked tentatively through and into the foyer of an apartment that also had a bar, and which looked like it hadn’t had a makeover since communism ended. And, aside from the handful of typically pierced and stoned students with Czasta’s – (that’s Czech rastas, for those of you unacquainted with the Czun, or Czech pun) – the same could be said of its guests (the makeover, or Czakeover. not the Czun.) who seemed to be championing the fashion of the 70s. (By the way, If you’re finding this difficult to follow, that’s because I’m being deliberately Kafkaesque. Did you notice the door motif, the mysterious passageways and the disembodied voice? I was this close to describing my new exoskeleton, but thought that may have been a bit of a giveaway).
“Èítárna“, as it turned out, is a coffeehouse/pub that holds small lectures and jazz music events. The establishment also collects magazines and books, and is home to a very large and lonely fish who spends his days watching the comings and goings of Prague’s self-proclaimed intellectual crowd. Some say, in his salad days, he’d chat to Rilke about life in a fish tank, and inspired the Prague born German poet to write “Der Panther”. I walked past a poster of “Plastic People of the Universe” (the Czech rock n’ roll band partly responsible for the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia) and one of Frank Zappa (a famous Czech dissident during, and political figure after the Velvet Revolution, who, incidently also sang the classic; “Don’t you eat that Yellow Snow”), and ordered a drink at the bar. That’s when I spotted a young Jarvis Cocker lookalike, who peaked timidly over the top of his book and tactically moved it closer to me so that I could notice he was reading Wittgenstein. Sure, that kid seemed a bit of a, well, what Salinger (RIP, brother) would refer to as a phoney. But the place in itself seemed pretty authentic. I have to admit, I was pretty czuffed with myself for finding what seemed to be a secret ex-dissident hangout. I wanted to find out more about its history.
I got talking to a guy who looked like he’d been sitting on that mangy beige couch, pondering deep and meaningful things and blowing smoke rings since the Prague Spring. “Oh yes, this place is where all the Czech intellectuals (Czintellectuals?) have been coming to discuss politics, literature, and philosophy for decades. It had to be kept secret back then, of course, because the government were watching” he said proudly, stroking his ponytail and blinking behind his massive lenses. How exciting! “Really!” I exclaimed “Like who? Vaclav Havel?”, I peered eagerly around the room of chin-stroking fogies and detendu students brandishing gaulois cigarettes. “Oh, well, maybe not him, I don’t think. But others”. “Milan Kundera?” He shook his head. “Bohumil Hrabal? Vladimir Holan? Jan Beneš?” “Well. I don’t know. But this is where intellectuals have come to escape and discuss things for years!” Gesturing to his group of friends, he continued; “We’re here all the time, we don’t like to leave. Out there, people have got stupid.” His friends nodded. When asked why they thought that to be the case; each had his or her own opinion. One cried “globalization!”, the other “modern technology!”, another “Food!” (perhaps I misheard the last one. The Czech is still a bit ropey). My ponytailed friend finished; “Our society is stupid. But in this country, there is a revolution every 20 years. So we’ll just sit here and wait for the next one”.
After a tram ride home that involved a drunk and disorderly skinhead football hooligan getting thrown out of the carriage by a driver who may as well apply for a role in the next Rocky, I had my own little ponder about deep and meaningful things. I then typed in the name of the pub into google. Not much came up; no star studded frequenters or any indication that it was once a hot spot for political dissent. In fact, it only opened a couple of years ago.
Oxford Professor Avi Shlaim discusses his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict with reporter Olivia Williams
Admittedly, I do feel that this was the least reprehensible of the three career-threatening fouls Arsenal have suffered in just four years. Shawcross was off balance and threw himself blindly at the ball which a superior player whipped away. So on this occasion I’m substantially more sympathetic than with Dan Smith’s horrible challenge on Diaby in 2006.
It was an act of stupidity, but that does not excuse the recklessness. There’s an argument for longer bans when the foul is this horrendous. Were Gallas to have been dismissed for his high, but by no means forceful tackle against Bolton he would be facing the same ban as Shawcross. Alex Song is now banned for only one less game for what looked to me a lot like shielding a football.
I don’t want to personally condemn Shawcross, but I do want to question that kind of tackle, so some serious points need dealing with. Firstly the ‘malice’ question. They’re never the type are they? I don’t think there was any ‘malice’ in the tackle, but unless Shawcross is a twisted psychopath there won’t be. If you want to defend him say it was a fucking stupid tackle, don’t give me all this shit about him being a wonderful family man, its irrelevant. The concept of intention isn’t really the point, and it certainly shouldn’t be an insurmountable defence. To be honest if intent was ever an issue he should be hauled in front of a magistrates court and banned from the game, but that’s obviously not the case.
The big question in the media today is why Arsenal? It seems a little much to blame the media for sides trying to kick them. Stereotypes don’t spring from nowhere; they do struggle under pressure. But the key word there is ‘pressure’, not force. Think back to the 2-2 draw with Everton last month, or the draw with Burnley in December. Those sides stymied the Gunners with hard work, not brute force. Apologists for Shawcross and any others who commit this sort of foul should acknowledge that it was more than just mistimed. Weaker sides will always try and beat better ones through effort, and even fouling in any league. Watch sides try and fail to hack at Messi, it’s no different.
There is though a gap between fouls, such as those committed repeatedly by Porto on Fabregas, and horror tackles. It’s fair to argue that this sort of foul is an unfortunate extension of sides trying to hold sronger teams by force. Diaby was injured at Sunderland, Eduardo at Birmingham and now Ramsey at Stoke. You can’t stop sides trying to win through effort, nor should you, but you must try to legislate against the type of tackle that takes that concept too far. Its not a question of intent, nor is it a question or the injury caused; most broken legs in football come from innocuous challenges. Any horrendous foul should mean far harsher punishments than those for professional fouls or even dissent. That is the only way possible to encourage a measure of restraint in such tackles. This is why tackling from behind was outlawed, to lessen the threat of such challenges.
You can’t rule against people trying dangerous challenges. Every fan loves it when they come off right. But that doesn’t mean you can’t punish people when it goes wrong. If you take the risk, you must be prepared to face the penalty.
This year, Varsity Swimming was back at home for Oxford, with the event taking place at the Rosenblatt Pool. After last year’s dramatic close encounter where it came down to the final relay, with Oxford winning by just one point overall, there was definitely a lot of anticipation for an exciting repeat and for the third Oxford victory in a row.
The team felt confident having put in an outstanding performance at the BUCS team event taking first place and easing through to the final. However, Cambridge also looked strong, winning the second division (where they were relegated to last year). So Oxford knew they had to bring out their best in order to take victory. With the lead changing hands after nearly every race of the match it was again a tight call – until it came down to the relays and 3 outstanding races from Oxford to take the win.
The Varsity swimming match is decided over seven individual events with each team entering two swimmers, and two relay events with one team entered in each. In the first event of the day, the women’s 200m Individual medley, points were tied with Oxford’s Alex Holderness and Katherine Rollins finishing second and third respectively. Oxford then took the lead after the men’s individual medley Will Allen-Mersh managing to touch out Cambridge in a rapid time of 2.08.64 and fresher James Holder taking third. Cambridge took one-two in the female backstroke giving them the lead at 16-14. In the men’s backstroke however, dominating swims from Davis Tarwater (a member of the USA World Championship team 2009) and Tom Booth (a Fresher who made an appearance in the junior Commonwealth team) gave Oxford the maximum 7 points and a new Oxford record from Davis of 54.36 (destroying the record set last year by Cambridge swimmer Tom Rootsey).
The women’s 200m free saw a close race with Oxford swimmer Nadja Danninger just being pipped to second behind Kat de Rome of Cambridge allowing the light blues to draw level. The men’s 200m was again a close affair but this time Oxford managed to pull through with Vice-Captain and previous light-blue swimmer Tom Close taking first and Joe Cruttwell taking third to give Oxford the lead once more. After the women’s 100m butterfly Cambridge were again ahead but in the men’s race a powerful swim from Jack Marriott, giving him a new Oxford record of 54.60 and a remarkable comeback from Oxford’s Kouji Urata in the final length gave Oxford a 41-39 lead at the interval.
The 400m freestyle, making its second appearance at the Varsity match, saw impressive swims from both Cambridge girls with their captain taking first place. The much anticipated men’s 400m followed, and after last year’s unexpected one-two from two very impressive Cambridge swims, Oxford were desperate to fight back. Another appearance of the World Class Davis Tarwater saw Oxford take first place with Davis cruising to a new record time of 3.56.45 (5 seconds faster than last year’s Cambridge win).
The next event was the 100m breaststroke, and the Oxford team were hopeful that fresher Katherine Rollins could destroy Cambridge’s record of wins in this event. It was a tight race but Cambridge did not concede defeat and took first place giving Oxford second and fourth. In the men’s race it was finger-biting stuff with all four swimmers even at half-way. In the last length however, Oxford’s James Soane managed to pull away from the line-up taking the victory and a new record, with Captain Ian Osband coming third. The women’s 100m freestyle saw a very gutsy performance from Nadja Danninger to steal the win and set an impressive record of 58.95 with fellow team member and ex-Wales international Alex Holderness taking third. The men’s race saw Tom Booth and Tom Close destroy the tabs with two outstanding swims of 51.13 and 51.57 respectively, both of which are substantially faster than the record set last year. At the end of the individual races the overall score was 73-67 to Oxford recreating the same situation as last year where just two wins from the four relays would seal Oxford the victory.
The first relay was the women’s 4x50m medley with Cambridge taking a demanding lead early on and never looking back. Oxford were confident in the men’s 4x100m medley relay however, after winning all four strokes earlier on and showed their strength coming home with a new Oxford record time. Now Oxford needed just one more win from the final two races to clinch the title.
After a motivational speech from Captain Ann Hyams, the girls took their places for the women’s 4x50m freestyle relay. In the first leg Alex Holderness battled it out with Kat de Rome of Cambridge before just touching her out. Katherine Rollins then took control and put Oxford in the clear lead with team mate Philippa Pettingill maintaining this and letting the final swimmer, Nadja, dive in with the advantage. With the home crowd exploding into rapturous cheers Oxford touched in first place giving Oxford victory once more.
With the outcome already decided the men’s team could afford to relax but by no means did they take it easy. The Oxford men, with Davis Tarwater on the anchor leg and being named the outstanding swimmer of the meet, brought home the 8th Club Record in a time of 3.29.91. The final score was 97-83 to Oxford, with Cambridge taking the women’s event but Oxford dominating in the men’s with a win of 58-32. With Oxford’s third victory in a row it looks like the Cambridge run has clearly ended and it’s the dark blues time to reign in the pool. And with much talent shown by the new freshers of the team it certainly looks good for the future.
