Employer Flexible Reviews: Fill & Download for Free

This game was a bump right back down to Earth for the Blues. Having gone unbeaten in all competitions so far this year- Chelsea were pulled apart by the Lilywhites who stormed to a 3–1 victory.Pochettino’s side utilise an asymmetrical 4–2–3–1 where offensively Eriksen will be the nominal winger (but actually be situated in the halfspace), with Alli often complementing Kane centrally and Son floating between the wing and halfspace in tandem with the other three. This game was no different with Pochettino’s Positional Play structures on display and his side creating a glut of opportunities. Since Eriksen acted primarily in the left halfspace, Davies was a permanent presence on the left flank; however, Kane would subsequently make runs into the left channel and pull out Antonio Rudiger, leaving space in the centre for Son and Alli to penetrate. There are a series of wrinkles due to the asymmetry and dynamic movement of the side which alongside the positional superiority cause teams and this proved the case as the front four ran riot and could have scored more.The Tottenham side were also exceptional in their defensive stance. In terms of their defensive scheme, they employ flexible man orientations that provide access to the ball carrier without cause regimented, stifling positioning detrimental to stability and compactness. This game is a nice example of phases of the game affecting one another; the asymmetrical 4–2–3–1 can easily become a 4–narrow diamond-2 (as the midfield pivot staggers and Eriksen drops into the left halfspace, with Alli oriented towards Jorginho and Son accompanying Alli up front). This compact and narrow formation forced Chelsea wide many times; Tottenham’s response was to practically abandon the ball far side, compact the ball near halfspace and wing then subequently man mark ball near options to simultaneously prevent vertical and diagonal progression.The man orientations of Alli on Jorginho were crucial. As the metronome to Sarriball, shutting down the pivot upon which Sarri’s style is built played a vital role; it’s the same thing that Liverpool did to Fernandinho during the 4–3 win against the Citizens or that Leipzig for example had managed on Julian Weigl in the 16/17 season against Dortmund who also employed Positional Play. Furthermore, since Sarri’s side depends so heavily on collectivised press resistance and team structure- inhibiting the pivot (whose job is usually to make ball oriented movements and provide the connections required to manipulate the opposition) meant that much threat was nullified. In addition to this, man-to-man approach makes it harder to find the free man in attack or to be able to easily access spaces in between the lines- not least as the reactivity of man marking alters the defensive structure. Looking at the stats, Jorginho has a pass average of 97 in the EPL; in the 2–2 draw against United under Mourinho he managed 74 and yesterday a record low of 51. This is a problem Sarri faced at Napoli and took time to work out; thus, Sarri’s ‘three month warning’ should not be taken at surface level as with the foundations being laid down- results like this can occur against sides much further down the line of progression.Another issue for Chelsea was handling the transition. Unable to establish dominance in the final third, Chelsea would naturally struggle to impose a counterpressing style upon Spurs. However, Sarri’s use of a passing lane approach to stifle opposition attacks also presented issues. This game was particularly helpful for me when observing the different between man and option oriented defensive schemes; option schemes use cover shadows and man schemes require closer access and a goal-side approach. Now in offensive transition, an attack by intercepting the ball is more likely to succeed than an attack that comes about from a duel as one needs to bypass the defender. However, as Sarri’s side pressed and tried to squeeze Spurs in wide zones- they left large gaps behind them which Spurs frequently exploited. Moreover, as in the Community Shield, Chelsea would often press without sufficient staggering; whilst they may have succeeded in barring immediate access to deep and central zones, they suffered because Spurs were able to manipulate their way past the line of pressure and then access the spaces in behind.Without doubt Pochettino’s side managed a masterstroke of a performance and Sarri has work to do. What’s interesting for me more than anything is how the reaction to this game mirrors so similarly the criticism Guardiola received around the turn of the year during the 2016/17 season. This is particularly when looking at Sarri’s decision to play Kante in a box-to-box role rather than as the pivot in Chelsea’s 4–3–3. Now I can understand people’s bemusement up to a point; Kante has proved to be an exceptional destroyer and is heralded for a growing array of qualities physically, tactically and technically. And I am neither suggesting Chelsea should be exonerated for their performance yesterday nor that criticism is completely unjustified. But if anything this shows a desire to pigeonhole individualistic talents into simplistic, surface level structures rather than allow managers like Sarri and Guardiola to implement their philosophies (which particularly in the former’s case facilitate player and opponent specific adjustments) and look at the big picture.As Guardiola persisted with his philosophy and came out triumphant-Sarri will do the same. I agree that a better integration of Kante into the transition game would certainly help Chelsea- but Jorginho will still be the fulcrum of the side. This game and the reaction to the result showed such complex projects take time. Chelsea have made rapid progress (cite City’s 16/17 start to the season for comparison) but I eagerly anticipate the finished article and more will be yet to come.

Quest for second generation reformsEconomic reforms of 1990s dissociated Indian Economy from the trap of low growth rate and changed the world's perception towards India's potential. It initiated an era for Indian economy which led to the comparison with big economies like US,China etc. Impact of those reforms were largely felt across diverse domains from growth of private sector, stimulating service sector developing competitiveness, increasing efficiency leading high economic growth on one end to benefiting vulnerable section through welfare measure of the govt.India has a huge potential to grow. Presently it needs 10% annual growth consistently for atleast 20 years to join the league of upper middle income countries. Are reforms of 1990's still valid or we have reached an expiry and should head towards a second generation reforms? In order to tap the potential of Indian Economy we need to hasten the process of second generation reforms.These reforms are inevitable which would address multiple hinderances we observe in contemporary India dealing with- Employement: we have to head towards labour intensive growth which requires reformation of labour laws. Balance between employer's flexibility and labour safegaurd has to be maintained. Subsidies have to be rationalised by better targetting beneficiaries in order to ensure no person confirming the criteria is left behind, which would reduce burden on exchequer as well. Regional disparities has to be addressed with the help of public investment promoting development strategies.Increased expenditure in health and education should be promoted developing our future skill human capital which will be helping us in achieving our development goals.Manipulation in interest rate by RBI to maintain a balance between growth and inflation cannot serve as an alternative to the duly needed second generation reforms. Sticking to one policy without reviewing for long is making same mistake of policy stubborness which had led India to a crisis situation in 1980s. Reforms to address these challenges will open up rather than close windows of opportunities for India.

British police are armed. They just organize their armed response in a way different from other police services such as, say, those in the US. And their armed response units are far, far better trained than other services. Moreover, they operate tactically on a spectrum of options designed to contain the threat and then apply deadly force as an absolute last resort.This approach is highly effective. It provides flexibility to the first responders so that they may first deploy other methods of containment, provide threat assessments to the armed unit and establish access cordons to prevent injury to the public and, if at all possible, to the perpetrator.The system has proven itself highly effective. Moreover, it is much more efficient than tactics employed by other countries. Just review the statistics of police-involved killings in the UK versus those other countries. The figures speak for themselves. The British police stand head and shoulders above other countries in their capacity to save lives which, surely, should be the ultimate goal of any police service. I say this as an old Canadian copper who's worked closely with my British counterparts. I therefore speak with some qualification on the subject.