by Isabel SuttonI haven’t actually read the Booker prize short-listed novel Brick Lane but, having seen the film, I’m certain it deserves all the praise it receives. As to its recent adaptation for screen – I’m not so sure.
The tale is of a young Bangladeshi girl, Nazneen (Tannishta Chatterjee), who is fixed up in marriage with an unknown older man with whom she is sent to live. His home is in London, amongst the Bangladeshi community of Brick Lane, where they live in a council flat with two daughters. The film follows Nazneen as she dreams continually of life in Bangladesh, a vision which is fuelled by her sister’s letters. It is only when she becomes attached to Karim (Christopher Simpson) – a young man who runs a clothes business and sends the material to Nazneen to be sewn – that her perspective on life in Britain changes.

Brick Lane is a story full of interesting dimensions: the psychological struggle of Nazneen; the subtle dynamics between herself and her intriguing husband Chanu Ahmed (Satish Kaushik II); the nature of love; the social tensions which emerge after 9/11 and the reactions of Karim and the Muslim community. There is one significant problem, however – none of these are visual themes.
The beauty and colour of Bangladesh, which fills the screen at the opening of the film, becomes a faraway world which we occasionally glimpse through Nazneen’s imagination. In reality, her eyes stare out on the bleak landscape of council buildings and a grey British sky, and this is the backdrop that dominates the film. 

The focus of the story lies in Nazneen’s thoughts and emotions – the letters she receives from Bangladesh and the hopes she harbours of a return. But the film can only hint at this through a mood of suppressed tension and melancholy. Nazneen is a character silenced by the misery of her predicament, and it isn’t easy to penetrate her psychology on screen.

Once in a while there is an image which catches your attention: the vivid saris worn by the women in Bangladesh are still worn against the grim background of London streets: Nazneen’s figure stands out like a jewel against her concrete block of flats. Later we see the cloth of Nazneen’s sari unwind in a wave of colour, and witness her admiration for the sequined dresses in the market where Karin sells his clothes.

The film draws to a close with a dramatic chase through the streets of London: Nazneen’s teenage daughter, Shahana, runs out of the house in a fury at her father, closely followed by her panicked mother. The camera darts through the darkness, blinded by the city lights: Nazneen keeps on running and running until she finds Shahana collapsed on a station platform. Nazneen travels great distances through the strory – both physically and emotionally – and this becomes apparent in her desperate chase. With scenes like this one, the film adaptation doesn’t entirely fail in conveying the power of the narrative. 

by Connie HanThe plot of Solaris, such as it is, can be summed up in one faintly absurd sentence. Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, goes into space, and is haunted by his dead wife; confusion ensues.

There is more to Solaris than any summary or review can tell. It’s not a film you can dip into: it immerses you for almost three hours and leaves you astounded and breathless. It is a film both uncompromisingly beautiful and bleak. Even under the burden of Soviet censorship, Tarkovsky refused to bow to creative pressures, crafting his films to produce a unique and enduring vision. With Solaris, Tarkovsky hoped to transcend science fiction. He was disappointed that he had not succeeded and that Solaris was categorised and trapped within a narrow genre. Yet to describe Solaris as ‘sci-fi’ is like describing The Seventh Seal as a film about chess.

If general consensus means anything to you, Solaris is regarded as an astounding film. ‘An extraordinary film of great sensitivity and lyrical power…engrossing and gravely beautiful,’ gushes Newsweek. ‘In every way a majestic work of art…a masterpiece’ writes Mark leFanu in The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky. On the other hand, Stanislaw Lem, the author of the book on which Solaris was based, famously disliked it, feeling it concentrated too much on the relationship between Kelvin and his wife, and too little on the book’s main theme: the incomprehensibility and unrelatability of alien life. Yet many feel that the focus on the relationship enriched, not detracted, from the film’s alien atmosphere. ‘Man needs man,’ declares Snaut, one of the scientists. Later, Kelvin tells his wife; ‘you mean more to me than any scientific truth.’ Science and love, knowledge and delusion, humanity and the Cosmos; these are the themes juxtaposed continually in Solaris.

The performances are low-key and taut. Kelvin’s dead wife, Hari, is at once both eerily alien and more human than any of the scientists. She is played by then 18 year old Natalya Bondarchuk, who was catapulted to fame by her performance. The film has almost no musical score, proceedings being interrupted either by mechanical beeps and clicks or by strange, unsettling swells of sound. The only actual music is Bach, played during moments of intense emotion and unsettling beauty.
Solaris is about time, grief, perception, reality; guilt and memory; man’s quest for knowledge and the failure of science. It is also about a man adrift in space around an alien planet with his dead wife. Though at times it verges on pretension, it sails gracefully on where a lesser film would have lapsed into self indulgence. It is one of the films you need to see before you die. Make of it what you will.

by Aaron BorboraRarely does one find a curry house that combines excellent food with tasteful surroundings and top-notch service. 
But Chutney’s, located on St Michael’s Street, offers just that. From beginning to end, we had a thoroughly enjoyable dining experience, thanks to the polite and capable staff. Despite our last-minute booking, a table was found at peak time and on arrival we were promptly seated at a good table well away from the distractions of the door. This positive first impression was only reinforced by the contemporary décor and furnishings. While many Indian restaurants seem to go out of their way to emulate the interior of a cross-channel ferry, the styling at Chutney’s was refreshingly modern. 
The menu offered a truly extensive choice of mouthwatering dishes, meaning that one had difficulty in not ordering the whole lot. Bank managers and Yorkshiremen alike will be pleased with how reasonable the food is, with starters between £3 and £5 and mains £7-£11. Vegetarians are well catered for with a selection offering so much more than a generic ‘vegetable curry’; indeed, Chutney’s has won awards for the range and quality of its vegetarian offerings. Continuing the trend of offering much more than the average curry house, pescarians are able to choose from a selection of Bangladeshi fish including bhol (although rou, that king of fish, is a sad omission). A welcome feature of the menu is a brief description of each of the dishes, explaining their style and principle ingredients. Furthermore, many dishes can be chosen in mild/medium/hot variants, which makes it possible to try a new recipe free from the fear of destroying the buccal mucosa.

After an excellent starter of warm and crisp popadoms, which held no hint of oil and were accompanied by beautifully-flavoured dips, we were promptly served our meal. The Korai seafood dish was excellent, with plenty of succulent king prawns.  The vegetables and onions were very fresh and the spice made its presence felt without being too intrusive. The only criticism is that it was a little on the dry side. The generous portion of lamb Pathia contained tender morsels, (as opposed to the meat at many Indian restaurants which seems to have the consistency of British Rail pork pies), smothered in a sauce that was rather too sweet and lacking in lemon to hold true to the dish’s Persian ancestry.  For our side order we enjoyed Sag Paneer. This was truly excellent, with home-made cheese and fresh spinach. In contrast to many other establishments, the portions were all generous and there was no attempt made to cover up a stingy use of protein by an excessive amount of sauce or vegetables. Drinks, of the same reasonable prices as the food, were of a similarly high standard.
Throughout the meal service and presentation were first-rate. The well mannered staff paid attention to detail.  It was nice to see, in these days of ever tightening margins and falling service standards, that we were still bought warmed plates. The quality feel also extended to the speed of service, something ensured by having a higher ratio of waiters to diners and a ‘common-user’ approach to service, whereby any member of staff would attend. 

Overall, Chutney’s is a high-end establishment catering to those seeking something better than the flock-wallpaper and greasy food style of Indian restaurant. Surprisingly, for such an experience there is not a heavy financial premium, making this an ideal choice for a special or celebratory meal out. For those in a rush, they offer a take out service and an express lunch for only £7.50 during the week –  the prefect antidote to too much time in the Bod.

by Jennifer-Anne HillOne can’t help but feel that the quality of Union debates would be much improved if the debaters spent more time talking about the issues at hand and less time talking about each other.

Ex-President James Wise began the case for the proposition by confessing that his only qualification to take part in this debate came from the two weeks he’d once spent in Florida. This reporter was rather inclined to agree. His argument, when he got down to it, revolved around America’s foreign policy. That Wise ran so far over time without managing to actually say much of anything was a truly remarkable feat. Ex-Librarian Bim Afolami opened the case for the opposition by asserting that the Republican Party was not defined by the war in Iraq, and attacked Clinton’s “over-rated” time in office.

More in this vein would have made for a fair argument, but with a long analogy comparing Wise to Clinton and the current Union committee to Bush’s Republicans, the speech degenerated into Union politics.

With the haircut of an ageing Beatle, Simon Head told the audience of his time as an economic advisor for the Democratic Party and how the current move to the Left among the Democrats bodes well for America’s future. He talked about Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, and made  snide remarks about the Bush family’s relation by blood to incompetent Civil War presidents.

Tom “The Hammer” Delay, a former Congressman, was everything that Head was not. He vigorously attacked the proposition, dismissing Head with the remark that he had only ever worked “for losers.” He called the Republicans the “Party of Freedom”, reminding the audience that it was they who passed the Civil Rights Act. He got several indignant points of information from the audience when he claimed that “in America, no American is ever denied healthcare”. Speaking to him afterwards about the debate, I was surprised to find that Delay thought the students he had met to be very polite – although he later remarked on the flames in their eyes during his points on healthcare, an odd contrast this reporter was quick to jump on. “Polite flames in their eyes,” he said with a wink, “and you can write that down.”

A bit of history: Lingerie is a French word for all underwear, but through some extravagant translation it became, in the English language, a label for the highly sexually charged and visually appealing undergarments for women. Unsurprisingly, French men’s boxers qualify as lingerie too.  

Lingerie is no longer exclusively the preserve of French Burlesque shows, or the forbidden fruit of Vaseline-smeared soft-core ’70s porn. It is mainstream. You can’t walk down Broad street without the fear of drowning in the gigantically sized cleavage of the plus-sized Bravissimo model opposite Balliol. Now that we can talk about it freely and see it everywhere, can lingerie maintain its tantalising mystique? When Primark starts producing acres of identikit suspenders, is the thrill of indulging in a secretive, transgressive fantasy world necessarily lost? Has the value of lingerie been destroyed, the golden age of opium, poetry and lace-fuelled decadence vanishing, only to be replaced by the sordid world of mass produced, synthetic undergarments which demean the burlesque ideal?

Lingerie has a different role to play in today’s sexual politics. Some might claim that it panders to male fantasies in which a paradigm-accepting female swallows notions of what makes feminine sexual attractiveness. However, lingerie is not about a simpering female capitulating to some kitsch male notion of what makes back-alley kinky behaviour. Instead it establishes an atmosphere of protracted sexual pleasure. Not giving everything away immediately but titillating at a pace that suits the wearer; a form of female empowerment, in which a man who thinks of himself as in control can be brought to his knees with the brush of silk, the thrill of a hint of lace. Even the sight of lace-topped suspenders glimpsed under a dress at a restaurant can be enough to send a man into paroxysms of uncontrollable desire. The moment of consummation is prolonged, no longer reserved for the bedroom. The shared secret provides an excitement that titillates his imagination and puts her in control of what is to follow.
Few girls can live up to the sci-fi erotic fantasy of Princess Leia in her solid gold undergarments, especially without inflicting some pain on themselves or their partners. For the truly adventurous, see www.leiasmetalbikini.com to buy products like “Slave Leia merchandise.” But Mesdemoiselles, lingerie can be as sexy and attractive if you follow some of these golden rules: Nylon is sweaty, and chafing thighs are not the most attractive proposition; keep it simple, and remember it is not about dressing up, you can fulfil your man’s secret latex fantasy another day. It is about being and feeling erotic, the key concept behind this process is to embrace your sexual power. Remember the more he desires you, the more effort he will put into getting you into his bed and making you feel sexier than Scarlett Johanson. It isn’t a secret that it is every man’s dream to have Gisele Bundchen in bed in her Victoria’s Secret pants, but it is important to bear in mind that just because you aren’t six feet tall with endless legs and a 34D you are not as good as her; you are probably better… in bed.
That’s the best bit about lingerie: it makes a man think he is control. But actually girls, we know who wears the pants. Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external links.

A movement that has run its course? Laura Connell  questions the need for feminism in an increasingly equal society 
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission’s most recent publication on Gender Equality in the UK, over half of students enrolling in higher education in the UK are now women. The workforce in wholesale and retail is almost equally split between women and men, as is that in public administration and defence. Two-thirds of mothers with dependent children work and women hold two-fifths of all professional jobs, compared to about 10% in the 1970s. Change is still needed, but a lot of it is in the legislative pipeline.

In April of this year, the biggest change to sex equality legislation since the Sex Discrimination Act came into force: the Gender Equality Duty. The duty affects public bodies such as the police, local government, the NHS amongst a number of other organisations. It also impacts on private companies fulfilling “public functions”.
Under previous laws, action could only be taken against public bodies after they discriminated on grounds of sex. Now they must take steps to proactively promote equality between women and men. Public bodies must now take account of their different needs when making policies and providing services. The duty is changing the nature of the battle against inequality: it is no longer simply a reactive matter.

At this university, there is currently a Gender Equality Scheme running from 2007-2010 which does pretty much what it says on the tin: it aims to increase the number of women in academic posts and to continue research into the causes of the gender gap in final examination results in certain subjects. Other initiatives run by the University such as the ‘Women in Science’ summer course are encouraging more female applications in male-dominated subjects. We have women’s reps in each college and on most committees. The need for change has been recognised and is coming.

These facts aren’t intended to show that the battle has been ‘won’ but that adjustments necessary to obtaining women’s equality are being institutionalised in the UK. Change has been set in motion. The impact of the Women’s Liberation movement and third wave feminism are securing greater equality of opportunity for women in this country, in every area of the public sphere. It would be ridiculous for me to even attempt to deny the importance of feminism, but it is patently obvious that it no longer needs to be the benchmark of gender relations.

One can’t help but feel more than a little sorry for the boyfriend or date when the weight of expectation is against them. A lot of us are asking for camaraderie and pick-and-mixing in terms of old gender roles as we see fit. Is it any wonder there’s often an awkward pause when the bill comes?

There is a very strong case for taking what political scientists call masculism seriously. Now before you laugh me off as some deluded post-feminist or brand me naïve, it seems perfectly sensible to start looking at how young men, adult men, working men and fathers see themselves in this new society.

Feminism was about awakening society to the female perspective. Given the changing roles of both genders, it’s time we start taking the new male experience more seriously. The status quo in this respect, is untenable. It makes no sense for the female experience to continue to monopolise discussion surrounding gender relations, treating our primacy in the conversation as a god-given right.

We need to start dealing with some of spill-over effects of the gender-feminist movement- namely this residual sexist tone which infuses pretty much all, even the most light hearted of, conversations on the topic.
In recent debate over the position of OUSU VP for women, I couldn’t help but wonder: if there needs to be a woman on the committee to represent my interests, and another woman, in a position not dedicated solely to representing women, can’t do this, then it’s totally sensible, indeed necessary, for there to be a male representative irrespective of the number of other men on the committee. Given the fact we started by arguing that if the position wasn’t solely dedicated to representing gender, then that gender wasn’t being represented at all, clearly such a suggestion is justified? Either have both positions or have neither. 

Of course women are in the minority still, I can’t quibble with that; it’s a statement of fact. But surely numbers make no difference if we argue that we need gender-related representation. Isn’t it glaringly obvious that any other approach is sexist on a level which is only vindicated by a totally counter-productive ‘payback mentality’?
Germaine Greer, who is about as subtle as a spear through the head, underlines how far the gender feminist discussion is often steeped in sexist rhetoric. She writes most lucidly about the female orgasm and the obsession women nowadays have with it, suggesting that this obsession is the means by which the patriarchal society allows us to avoid ‘real’ challenges (I believe she refers to climbing Everest but I may have switched off around that point…). For amusement purposes, I feel I ought to mention the fact she argues that ‘crying is to women what masturbation is to men’. If that’s true then we definitely have drawn the short straw.

Now I’m not using Greer as a representative individual of the entire feminist movement as it stands. It’s also worth saying that having read her most recent book – ‘polemical bomb’ as the Guardian described it – ‘The Whole Woman’ isn’t all bad. But the manner in which she writes highlights a sentiment that has survived positive the move towards greater equality. She both extols the virtues of the woman while embarking upon a step by step demolition of what it is to be a ‘man’, presenting us to be in endless and draining opposition.

This kind of gender-feminism is obsolete in a society which is institutionalising gender equality. Pitching women against men only propounds the sense of divide and of ‘otherness’ which De Beauvoir wrote of, a ‘them or us but not both’ mentality which ignores a fundamental synergy between the sexes.

Demonizing the male race was critical in mobilising support for Women’s Lib. But a lot of the sexism that remains is the bitter-after taste of the movement. It helps no one now but is too readily justified by those who feel that to reject antagonism towards men would be to deny the feminist battle.

We must now recognise the fact that society has changed and is continuing to change in favour of greater equality for women. These changes are of course, positive, but they are also calling both gender roles back into question. The female experience is crucial to this conversation but the kind of gender-feminism which denies relevance to the male experience, is no longer contextually justified. There’s far too much fraternizing with the enemy for this to be a long term solution.

 
Melissa Wright  looks at the considerable challenges and prejudices Oxford women still face 
On paper, Oxford University seems to be doing a lot of things right for its female students. A comprehensive Gender Equality Scheme and numerous student organisations (think ‘Oxford Women in Politics’ or the ‘Women in Science’ initiative) have increased the number of female students at Oxford considerably over the years. The problems, it seems, begin once they get here.

On a day-to-day level within the student realm, in which the University as an authority seems to have pitifully little influence, it seems that female students, especially those particularly prominent in student politics or societies, still constantly come into contact with negative attitudes, sexism and even unashamed insolence. Such experiences are difficult to prove, and obtaining figures to gauge how widespread they are is next to impossible.
Moreover, that almost all of the women I talked to requested to remain anonymous in talking to me strongly suggests a communal fear of being judged for questioning the offensive behaviour of others, and an environment in which women do not feel safe or sufficiently supported to speak out. As the OUSU VP for Women Hannah Roe puts it, “Women don’t feel safe to confront other students or the student newspapers when they feel that they are being treated badly. In my time in Oxford several of my female friends have told me about behaviour or treatment which has really upset and shaken them. They’ve wanted to raise the matter with the individuals concerned, or report it to the University, but have been too scared of possible retribution…The University Code of Harassment doesn’t allow victimisation like that obviously, but women know how unwise it is in our society to be labelled a ‘complainer’ by their peers. It’s very easy for this to be used as a tacit reason to isolate you.

Sad as it may be, almost all female students will probably have experienced some form of unwelcome, inappropriate male attention at some point during their teenage years, be it a drunken comment at a bar or a wholly unamusing sexist joke. What is infinitely more worrying is when these attitudes emerge openly at JCR level, with female undergraduates being subjected to embarrassing scrutiny or inappropriate comments from within their own college. Consider, for example, that at one Oxford college this year the college family trees, which included a snapshot of each arriving fresher, were ‘altered’ to provide each female student with a mark out of ten, based on their anonymous adjudicator’s assessment of each girl’s attractiveness. In another college, undergraduates were treated to a JCR email which included a highly offensive sexual joke as an amusing post-script.

That such behaviour should be viewed as light-hearted and inoffensive enough to be acceptable enough is highly disturbing, given the lengths to which the University as an organisation seems to put itself to eradicate such anachronistic attitudes.

Moving from colleges to external student societies or institutions, it seems that the situation simply goes from bad to worse. Whilst sexism within JCRs might take a more general form, once women undergraduates begin to hold positions within well known student bodies they seem to become a target for far more personal abuse. “Women are a presence everywhere in Oxford, but often find themselves singled out both within institutions and within the student press”, said one female undergraduate. “I’ve had my body and my love-life discussed. It’s the ultimate way of picking on a girl”.  Perhaps most disturbing was the discovery that one female student last year found a photo of herself posted on an Internet site by fellow students, with an invitation underneath the image for all those interested to comment on her figure. Disappointingly, a considerable number of people felt compelled to post their thoughts on the photo, with over 200 comments in total.

The student press in Oxford, and indeed in universities across the country, proves no more forgiving than student societies and institutions. Student publications are, undeniably, supposed to be a source of entertainment for their over-worked, under-nourished readership, and gossip and speculation on well-known figures in the public eye must feature heavily in this ‘entertainment’. And yet despite being publications of near-professional standard, one still finds printed thinly veiled gossip focusing on individuals within the university, with student journalists even on occasion resorting to Facebook to ‘dig up dirt’ on their targets. Whilst gossip tends to be relatively harmless, and to target both men and women, there are numerous examples of gossip columns crossing the line between harmless and downright cruel, especially when targeting a female victim.
Felicity Burch, president of OxWip, found herself targeted when running for a position in her college – “I experienced sexual slurs in the gossip columns when I had the ‘audacity’ to run for JCR President. They’d never talked about me before and certainly had no reason to then.” Detailed descriptions of female students’ sex lives, or malicious comments on their weight and general appearance are published without hesitation. Given that a recent Cherwell survey suggested over 30% of students have suffered from eating disorders of some kind, the seriousness of such victimization cannot be underestimated. The constant use of images of nude or semi-naked female bodies to accompany articles is further proof of the insensitivity of Oxford student publications when it comes to its female readers. The student press, like any other, must consider the impact it will have on the lives of the individuals it targets.

Given the level of scrutiny and potentially vicious criticism prominent women within Oxford University expose themselves to, is it any real surprise that the number of women who run for, and are elected to, prominent positions is significantly lower than the number of men? The constant lack of female students in positions such JCR or GCR president can perhaps be attributed to the unsupportive atmosphere they are often confronted with, or to a fear of being on the receiving end of mockery or gossip.

OUSU is a case in point. Despite its inclusive stance and constant emphasis on student welfare and equal opportunities, the student union still fails to produce an equal number of male and female students standing for elections. Last year’s elections, for example, saw 30 men standing for positions, compared to 14 women, and even then this included 3 female students standing in women-only elections.

But the most worrying statistic of all remains, as ever, the number of female JCR Presidents, with last year producing a mere 9 female presidents out of a total 36 colleges. The number of female presidents rarely rises above 20% which, of course, includes St Hilda’s where, until 2008 at least, the chances of the elected president being a female were absolute. Incidentally, the number of female GCR presidents is no more encouraging.
Oxford University cannot possibly hope to see more women in prominent positions until there is a significant shift in the way that female students are treated, within JCRs, student societies and student publications. As long as explicitly personal criticism and thinly veiled sexist attitudes are tolerated, with a ‘look the other way’ approach, a considerable number of female students will, understandably, remain reluctant to put themselves in the public eye. And, in all honesty, who can blame them?

Worcester 2 – 0 Wadham WORCESTER raced to a surely insurmountable lead in the Premier Division with a 2-0 home victory over second place Wadham.  The win sees Worcester establish a seven point gap at the top of the table which, based on today’s performance, they look unlikely to surrender.
The importance of this match couldn’t be understated as newly-promoted Wadham represented the best chance of usurping the reigning champions. Their defeat on Wednesday, though, surely leaves Wadham’s title hopes in tatters. The visitors will rue a missed opportunity but might reflect that the scoreline was a just one in the face of a dynamic Worcester attack.
Worcester kicked off but were panicked into an immediate clearance as Wadham rapidly chased the ball down. As the half wore on, however, the home side settled into a rhythm of sorts, making some incisive breaks down the right hand side. Wadham, unable to cope with Worcester’s tenacious midfield and the strength of their central defence, resorted to long balls down the left flank which, as the final score suggests, failed to make an impact.
The first goal was the result of Worcester’s sustained and at times fluid attacks on Wadham’s defenders. Kunal Desai cut the visiting defence with a quick through ball, which striker Rich Adams latched onto. Making no mistake, his angled shot left the keeper flailing and put the first points on the scoreboard.
Wadham hit back with one of their best attacks of the half, putting together a slick sequence of passes, although the attack fizzled out tamely near the corner flag. Wadham’s inability to penetrate their host’s well-marshalled defence highlighted the impotence of their attacking play and as was so often the case their strikers were left bereft of any real chances.
The second half continued in similar vein. Although Worcester were evidently more dangerous with their incisive passing sequences, neither side were able to win outright dominance. That said, as play restarted Wadham seemed better co-ordinated, with their midfield retaining possession and showing more composure on the ball. Worcester, however, were soon back on the offensive.
An hour in, Matt Sinnett’s beautifully timed run and resulting header made it 2-0 and, with clear cut chances few and far between, the mood of home the crowd was confident. With the clock running down, Desai nearly added another goal as his free kick was narrowly tipped over. Wadham nearly grabbed a consolation goal, though, when midfielder Michael Edwards’ rifling free kick was cruelly kept out by the crossbar. 
Worcester’s continued dominance of this division is richly deserved.  An excellent defence is backed up by an attack boasting flair and skill in abundance. Special mention must go to Desai, Plaxton and Butts who all contributed with outstanding performances.
What made Worcester so impressive was the variety of attacking options available, with Desai’s able deliveries from set play and the searing pace of their wingers stretching Wadham’s defence.
The visitors do deserve plaudits for keeping Worcester out for so much of the game, and indeed their backline showed considerable composure against arguably the most potent team in the league. The more cynical observer might highlight the crunching tackles inflicted in particular on Desai and Plaxton, the former at one point having to leave the pitch.
That this Wadham team was best placed to halt Worcester, yet could not score against the table leaders, highlights the champions’ dominance within this division. With no obvious weaknesses in the team, their march to  another championship title seems almost inevitable.

Oxford 3 – 0 St Mary's A COMMANDING performance saw the Oxford Women’s Hockey team continue their glistening run of form, in the dark surroundings of Iffley Road. 
Having begun the BUSA season impressively, the Blues were eager to assert their dominance over a struggling St. Mary’s team, who had no points to their name coming into the game. The home side put pressure on their opponents immediately, forcing early errors from the St. Mary’s back four. Beth Wild was the first to make inroads, linking up with her team mate on the right hand side, before failing to get on to the end of an over-weighted through-ball. This began a frustrating period for the Oxford girls, who were unable to translate dominance into early goals. Despite a profusion of carefully rehearsed short corners, the Blues struggled to beat the resilient St. Mary’s keeper, who pulled off impressive saves to deny first Ravenscroft, and then Cook.
At the back, the Blues were well organised and communicative, despite struggling to contain their opposing captain, Lee. The midfielder demanded close attention from the Oxford players, who found it hard to cope with her physicality at times. In the 30th minute, she came close to putting her side ahead, having muscled her way in to the Blues’ area only to be denied by a good tackle from central defence.
Shortly afterwards, Oxford deservedly went ahead via Beth Wild, whose athletic run allowed her to beat her marker and nestle the ball into the corner of the goal. After this breakthrough, Oxford played more freely, penetrating the St. Mary’s defence with consummate ease, despite failing to add to their tally before half time.   
After the break, Oxford seized momentum again, causing problems for St. Mary’s on both flanks. Straight away, Ravenscroft was unfortunate not to get on the end of a forceful cross from the right, whilst Wild also came close to increasing her tally. At the other end, St. Mary’s were beginning to compete and the home side were fortunate to see Patterson’s deflection sail over the bar from a short corner.   
From the touchline, the Oxford coach referred to his players as ‘guys’, making no allowance for laziness or technical deficiencies. He displayed his demand for professionalism when he cursed a rare mistake by Sumpter in defence. St. Mary’s failed to capitalise on this uncharacteristic error, allowing the Blues to dispatch the dangerous loose ball to safety. Shortly afterwards, Alice Cooke increased Oxford’s lead, displaying impressive dribbling skills before tapping the ball past the St. Mary’s keeper to make it 2-0.
Surprisingly, it was the match officials that provided the most controversial dimension to a game that was hard-fought throughout. Both sides were bemused by the referee’s judgement when he awarded a number of dubious short corners, particularly as he was often behind the run of play. Whilst these mistakes might have balanced out over the game, Oxford were more capable of exploiting them; the assistant’s questionable decision to award the Blues a short corner allowed the home side to put the game beyond doubt at 3-0.  By this stage, there was little anger from the St. Mary’s bench, who had resigned themselves to the fact that they were fighting a losing cause against superior opposition.

Brookes 10 – 8 Greyhounds FREEZING cold conditions did nothing to deter players on either side from attacking with physicality, but Brookes’ staunch defending denied the Greyhounds a second victory to follow their more assured performance at Iffley just over a month ago.
From kick-off Oxford carried the ball through the forwards, which proved successful when they scored after just five minutes. A solid lineout gave them good ball from which the forwards could apply pressure on their opponents defence and a rolling maul tumbled over the line to put 5 points on the board.
Unlike at the home fixture, Brookes responded quickly to the Greyhounds’ attempt to control the match, and a late tackle on their fly-half put them in a good position. A smoothly executed move saw the ball passed deftly through the backs and put the Brookes full-back in the corner, where he dived over the line to draw his team level.
The ‘hounds pack worked hard to dominate up front, but without first-phase ball the backs struggled to link up, and handling errors prevented them from scoring on a few promising breaks. They were also restricted by very aggressive tackling, and the Brookes’ flanker was sent to the sin bin after a series of over-zealous tackles.
With the score drawn at 5-5, the game was punctuated with penalties as both teams were caught offside, with Oxford’s scrum-half eventually sent off for 10 minutes. But the winger salvaged three points just before half-time, when Brookes were blown up for pulling down a maul, and the ball sailed between the posts to give the visitors the advantage going into the second half.
In an unusual decision, the referee responded to claims against Brookes for foul play in the ruck with a yellow card for the Greyhounds. They then struggled in the scrum and the home side’s flanker burst out to make a break up the left wing and score. In the last quarter, the ‘hounds were unlucky not to score with the ball held-up over the line and a missed penalty, but their inability to convert late possession into chances was testament to the resiliance of the underdogs’ defence.

Loughborough 0 -5 Oxford AFTER a slow start to the season, Oxford’s decimated and rejuvenated Blues squash team have acquired a taste for victory against their weaker BUSA opponents. Having racked up convincing wins at Warwick and Nottingham in the preceding weeks, the team was all out to dominate an unsuspecting Loughborough side, and for the most part did not disappoint.
The event kicked off with crushing wins by the Oxford numbers four and five, Nick Douglas and Mark Blundell, both new additions to the team. Mark, who has cruised comfortably through each match since his Blues debut, stayed head-to-head with his opponent for the first few points, before pulling away to win in straight games 9-4, 9-1, 9-2. Despite a lack of quality in the racket department, and being paired against a hefty Loughborough man, Mark’s superior racket skills left his opponent without much hope from the start.
Nick Douglas’ blistering pace and infinite fitness has seen him gain a reputation for ‘Forrest Gumping’ his opposition off court. Though these skills were not necessary on this occasion, Nick had them at hand, dragging the rallies out with a few too many loose cross-courts and lofty drops. When his shots were firing though, his opponent had little to retaliate with, so Nick powered through to win 9-1, 9-2, 9-3.
At number three Matt Hall has gained a comparable reputation to Nick’s, forcing all who come against him to ‘witness the fitness’. Earlier in the season he broke a man from Warwick after fighting back from 2-0 down. This week, though, taken aback by the unexpected quality of his opponent and at times making hard work for himself, Matt put in a captain’s performance nevertheless, winning 9-6, 9-3, 9-6.
At number two, Tom Coode-Bate dropped 14 of the first 17 points, but going back to basics he clawed back to two games all. Things were looking grim at 6-1 down in the deciding game, but a quirk of fate found him finish on top: 3-9, 9-6, 4-9, 9-1, 9-7.
Number one seed, superstar fresher Nelson Fung, has stunned the Oxford squash scene this term, last week beating an ex-Pakistani international. This week was no exception, Nelson hit just one or two unforced errors in the entire match. His score-line, 9-0, 9-2, 9-0, was another promising result. Oxford will be relying on him to meet expectations set by former Tab-bashing Blues in this year’s Varsity.