Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Full Cylinder


I’VE MENTIONED this before, but it bears repeating for the newer members of the readership of this blog. The genesis of In Play Lose came from two primary sources. The first was How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart, David Foster Wallace’s review of the Austin’s autobiography, in which he espouses frustration at being unable to glean any sort of insight into what made Austin such a successful tennis player. The second is a piece written for Grantland by Bill Simmons from 2012 in which he chronicles 35 years of incompetence by the Golden State Warriors. (And for a daily dose of this, and a reminder of just how comically awful the Warriors were, I highly recommend all Lose disciples follow the excellent This Day in Suck twitter account.) Simmons wrote the piece in the aftermath of one of the rock bottom, lowest points in the franchise’s history – a number retirement ceremony for Chris Mullin in 2012, during which the fans started mercilessly booing new Warriors owner Joe “Light Years” Lacob.

The reason this ceremony had become the boiling point for the fans was a recently completed trade with the Milwaukee Bucks. The Dubs had acquired Andrew Bogut, who was injured and out for the season. In exchange, the Dubs had traded away Monta Ellis, their best player and pretty much the only player worth watching in yet another lost season. The trade was a signal that a full-on tank job was imminent, with the Warriors intent upon sinking to the bottom of the standings in order to save themselves from yielding a Top-7 protected draft pick, a pick they’d stupidly promised to the Utah Jazz as part of another terrible trade for Marcus Williams. (“Who is he?” you ask. Exactly.) I hated that Ellis trade at the time as well, and had I been at Oracle Arena that night, I would’ve booed Buzz Light Years, too. Sure, the new Warriors ownership had been dealt a pretty terrible hand by previous owner Chris Cohan, an owner who made Vivek and Robert Sarver look comparatively competent, but this was just more of the same. More bad moves, more bad decisions, with more losses to follow and more frustration for the fans.

But there was also a pseudo-legitimate basketballing reason for making this deal. The Warriors moved Ellis, in part, because they wanted to free up more minutes for a rookie on the roster that they liked quite a bit, a 6’7” shooting guard from Washington State named Klay Thompson. Thompson took over Ellis’ spot in the starting lineup after Ellis was moved, and has held the spot ever since.

Ellis has gone on to a decent, if erratic, career since that trade, mostly with the Dallas Mavericks and now with the Indiana Pacers. Defense, however, has never been his forte. The Pacers were in town Monday night to play the Dubs at Oracle Arena, and Ellis attempted to guard Klay Thompson, the guy he was moved to make room for back in 2012. Suffice to say, it didn’t go so well for the Pacers, as Thompson put on one of the most ridiculous performances in NBA history. That trade has come full circle, as Ellis got a birdseye view of Klay filling up the cylinder.

That trade, and the reasons for it, have come to look pretty smart in the rearview mirror. Thompson has developed into the ultimate catch-and-shoot guy, and quite possibly the greatest catch-and-shoot guy the league has ever seen with his mix of off-ball movement, great footwork, impeccable technique and a lightning-quick release. Thompson scored 60 points in only 29 minutes last night, while only taking 33 shots from the floor and only touching the ball 52 times. He had the ball in his hands for a total of 88.4 seconds and only took 11 dribbles on his 21 made field goals. No one in the NBA is as combustible as Klay, the guy who scored 37 points in a quarter and single-handedly shot the Warriors back into the playoffs last year in Game 6 against Oklahoma City.

The ‘hot hand’ notion has been debated by stat gurus for a while now, but I believe it exists – in part because the ‘hot hand’ is a product of great team play, as a team finds a matchup that is working and then goes about continuing to exploit it. The Pacers chose to have Ellis chase Klay around and not bother to switch, which was an incredibly dumb idea, and Klay promptly ran Ellis off one screen after another and found himself open for threes, for mid-rangers, and also for a whole bunch of layups, while the other Dubs made a point of constantly getting Klay the ball and fanning the flames. The Warriors assisted on 20 of Klay’s 21 field goals, and neither Steph Curry nor Draymond Green really had much interest in shooting after a while, the both of them content to continually feed the ball to Klay, who put on one of the more amazing offensive displays I’ve ever seen.

Oh, and by the way, Klay is arguably the fourth-best player on this team, with the top three being the guys combining to do this:


The Warriors are just ridiculous. It’s not a stretch of suggest that this is the greatest offense in the history of the NBA. In Monday night’s merciless 142:106 beatdown of the Indiana Pacers, the Warriors notched 45 assists – a total few teams ever reach, but it’s the second time they’ve reached that number of assists in the last two weeks. They had 35 assists by the end of the third quarter and had only committed four turnovers. They also decided to play some defense just for the fun of it, limiting the Pacers to a small number of threes while blocking 24% of the Pacers’ twos in the first half as they ran out to a 30-point halftime lead. The first three quarters of this game were a master class.

And it seems hard to believe, when you’re talking about a team whose offense is off the charts – they are presently scoring 2.7 points per 100 possessions more than any team in NBA history – but the Warriors still haven’t reached their full potential. The endgame sets are still something of a mess, in part because they’ve had so few scenarios in which to practice them. The offense went stagnant at the end of their most recent loss, a 132:127 2OT defeat to the Houston Rockets, whose win was much deserved. But it should be noted that the Warriors’ three worst shooting performances of the season coincided with their three defeats, suggesting that the only real chance anyone has to beat them is to hope that they miss. And losing just seems to piss them off, which doesn’t bode well for the next opponent. Steph goes 0-for-10 from three in a loss to Lakers, then comes back the next game and hits 13 threes against New Orleans, breaking the NBA record. It’s absolutely preposterous what they are doing. They scored 138 on Saturday against the Suns and seemed almost bored while doing it.

And speaking of being bored …

Earth to J.R., come in J.R.

The Cleveland Cavaliers have also been spectacular to watch so far this season as well, using their open post offensive sets consisting of LeBron and four other shooters spacing the floor – but unlike the Warriors, who’ve been attempting to integrate Durant and a bunch of new faces into the mix, continuity and familiarity have been the order of the day in Cleveland. Without a whole lot to work on, and with no legitimate challengers in the East, the Cavs have quickly gotten bored. Really bored, as symbolized by J.R. Smith meandering off the court in the middle of the play during last week’s 20-point hammering of the Cavs by the Milwaukee Bucks, the first in a 3-game losing streak which saw them then get walloped by the Clippers at home and then get outplayed by the Bulls. Lack of focus and intensity was on display in all three games, as the Cavs missed assignments and threw the ball all over the gym. It’s almost like they had to go out and invent a 3-game losing streak for themselves in order to invent some urgency.

The Cavs righted the ship on Monday night in Toronto, a 116:112 win over the Raptors in which LeBron scored 35 and had his best game of the season – a fact which flew under the radar in the light of Klay going for 60. Monday’s NBA slate was remarkable, with buzzer beaters and OT games and 2OT games, with LeBron going for 35 and Lou Williams going for 38 points on only 55 touches, with Marc Gasol putting up a triple-double and Russell Westbrook putting up a triple-double for the sixth straight game – and pretty much all of that got shoved aside because Klay scored 60 points in 29 minutes.

NBA punditry is filled with ex-players from the 1990s who insist that the game was better back when they were still playing – which is natural, I suppose, but which is also completely, utterly wrong. The NBA game is better than it’s ever been. The SSOL Phoenix Suns were considered radical in their day for their frenzied pace of play; so far this season, half of the teams in the league are playing that fast or faster. But along with that pace has also come complexity on both ends of the floor. Not only is the game bigger, faster, and more agile, but it’s also more cerebral and geometric. Not only do you have to move fast and react fast, but you also have to think fast.

And somewhat paradoxically, you need to be able to think fast so that you don’t have to think fast. Steve Kerr has said that early in the season, he had to actually call plays for the Warriors while they were going about getting acclimated, in contrast to the free-flowing, organic sort of basketball they’ve played for the past couple of seasons. The game is less rigid and structured, so the complex pattern recognition needs to become instinctive and almost second nature. And whatever you do out there on the floor, do it fast!


OK, maybe not you, Dwight Howard. Slow it down there, big fella.

The league is blessed right now with extraordinary young talents, huge guys whose range is no longer limited to in and around the basket, guys like Towns and Davis and Porzingis who feel comfortable playing all over the floor and can also stroke it from deep. But there is one player whom I am absolutely loving right now who truly has the potential to be transcendent with his size, agility, and versatility – and, as we saw last week against the Cavs, also with his competitiveness. I don’t remember the last time I saw a guy look at a matchup with LeBron, decide he didn’t give a goddamn who LeBron is and just take it right at him quite like I saw from Milwaukee’s Giannis Antetokuonmpo, aka Greek Freak. (At some point, I’ll figure out how to spell his surname right, so for now we’ll just use his first name.) Giannis torched LeBron and whomever else tried to guard him, scoring 34 points as the Bucks trampled Cleveland. He is a 6’11” point guard, crazy long and lean and limber. He is probably the single-most terrifying transition player in the NBA.



He still doesn’t have much of an outside shot, and for the sake of the rest of the league, they’d better hope he doesn’t develop one, because if he does he’ll wind up making Kevin Durant look comparatively guardable. At 22 years of age, having only played the game since 2007, Giannis is still only scratching the surface of his potential. The Bucks are still a work in progress, currently on the fringe of being a playoff team, but Giannis with the ball in his hands is must-see viewing.

Giannis was the 15th pick in the 2013 NBA draft, and I can say without any hesitation that I would have him on my team sooner than any of the 14 guys picked ahead of him. There are some good players there, to be sure: I love me some Steven Adams (#12), of course, and I love me some C.J. McCollum (#10). But otherwise? Well …

The top pick in the 2013 draft was Anthony Bennett, who is presently playing for the Nets: the Long Island Nets of the D-League, that is, having bombed out and ate himself out of the NBA. The second pick, Victor Oladipo, was meh in Orlando and is slightly less meh running alongside Russell Westbrook in OKC. #3 pick Otto Porter has been one of the few bright spots in the appalling mess that is the Buzzards early this season, so that one isn’t all that terrible. But the rest of this crew of guys picked before Giannis are players who are, at best, role players and who are, at worst, useless: Cody Zeller, Alex Len, Nerlens Noel, Ben McLemore, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Trey Burke, Michael Carter-Williams, Kelly Olynyk, and Shabazz Muhammad.

Hindsight is always 20/20, of course, and you really never know just what you’re going to get when you draft a player – maybe they get injured or whatnot – so you can’t say for sure that, had any of the 14 teams picking before the Bucks in 2013 drafted Giannis that he would have become the play that he is today (and threatening to become in the future). But at the same time, it shouldn’t be a surprise that some of the usual bottom-dwellers in the NBA were passing up Giannis and wound up looking   like dunces: Orlando, Phoenix, New Orleans, Sacramento, Minnesota and also Philadelphia, who were just entering the Sam Hinkie reign of error and making a splash by drafting Michael Carter-Williams, a point guard who can’t shoot, and also trading with the Pelicans to acquire Noel, who was hurt and missed the whole season. All of the franchises that I just mentioned are some degree of perpetually terrible, and this draft is an example of why: they draft poorly, and then develop what they draft even worse.

Like I mentioned earlier, the Dubs scored 138 on Phoenix last Saturday without having to work particularly hard to do it. The Phoenix Suns are a mess. The Suns have three recent Top 10 draft picks on their team who are all about 7’0” tall and none of whom seem to have any idea how to play NBA basketball, and the Suns would trot one or sometimes two of those guys out on the court and none of them looked like they even knew where they were supposed to be. Oh, they are “raw” and they are “green” or what have you, but the Suns don't need “raw” and “green.” They need guys that can actually play.

That is three really bad misses in the draft by a team who seems to whiff all the time. If you’re perpetually in the lottery, year after year, either you have no eye for talent whatsoever or your coaching staff sucks. Part of why the Kings are in such dire shape is that they’ve whiffed so badly in the draft time and again. This list verges on criminal negligence. Thomas Robinson? Quincy Doubey? McLemore? Sauce Castillo? Huh?

Giannis was the 15th pick in the NBA draft, and think about some of the game’s other great performers at the moment and where they were selected. Klay Thompson was the 11th pick in 2011, drafted after the likes of Jan Veselý and Jimmer Ferdette. Also going in that 2011 draft were Kawhi Leonard at #22, Jimmy Butler at #30, and Isaiah Thomas at #60. Draymond Green was a 2nd round pick, as was Paul Millsap. You can find great players in a lot of places. There are guys who can fit a need, guys who you can develop, guys who can fit your system and excel. The principle tenet of Hinkieism was that the best chance to be successful is to have a superstar player, and the best way to acquire a superstar player is through the draft. But there is an intellectual dishonesty and laziness to that, in that you can be terrible and maybe a magic NBA lottery ping pong ball will bounce your way, but it doesn’t mean that you know anything about how to use that pick in the right way, it doesn’t say anything about your ability to develop that player, and it says nothing about your ability to put in place a functioning set of complimentary pieces around that player. Of course picking Anthony Davis was a no-brainer for the Pelicans, but what is he now surrounded with? You don’t just draft a guy and, suddenly, everything is copacetic. It’s not that simple.

This is why I’m not one of these people who obsesses about the draft. It’s an exciting moment, of course, a day sort of like Christmas in all American sports with the promise of potential wrapped up nicely in a package dressed in a bow tie and a nice suit, but the draft is an activity in which far too many of the usual actors go about making the usual mistakes. If you’re bad enough to be picking in the lottery in the first place, it’s likely that the guy(s) who drove you into the ditch aren’t likely to be the guy(s) capable of hoisting you out of it. And sure, everyone whiffs on a pick from time to time, or takes a flyer on a guy who doesn’t pan out, but making the same mistakes, again and again, is an unforgivable sin.

The Warriors have committed many unforgivable sins over the years when it comes to player acquisition, but I came to forgive Light Years Lacob and the Warriors for trading Monta Ellis long ago. Yeah, in hindsight, that was a pretty good deal for the Warriors. But under no circumstances could I have ever foreseen the heights to which this franchise has gone ever since that point. Part of what makes the Warriors so enticing, so engaging, is that their success seemingly came out of nowhere. Cleveland’s success is a bit more understandable, seeing as how landed LeBron and they managed to win the draft lottery four times, but even they whiffed pretty badly – they drafted Anthony Bennett, after all. The Warriors have cobbled it together from a host of unlikely sources – free agents, trades, drafts, 2nd round picks – with some shrewd moves, some good luck, and some great timing (and maybe just a little bit of sneaky stuff when it came to Andre Iguodola, although George Karl is probably just frothing a bit in that article, as he is wont to do). The Warriors ascent to the summit seems somewhat magical, in part because it makes no sense. But wherever it all came from, it’s magical to watch, and when guys are doing stuff like Klay was doing the other night, you just don’t ever want it to see it end.

When do we get to play the Pacers again? Can we play them again? Please? Pretty please?

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Cruelty

“The secret to poetry is cruelty.”
– Jon Anderson


IT’S EARLY on Saturday morning and I’m up to watch El Classico, which is nothing short of the single-greatest regularly scheduled sporting event in the world. (If the NFL could contrive some way for the Seahawks and the Patriots to play every season, I’d be all for that.) F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid possess between them the most dazzling array of soccer talent that you could assemble, and the game is worth watching simply to watch the artists at work, even if their work ultimately doesn’t result in the ball going in the back of the net. Soccer is nuance and subtlety, it’s chess on grass, with the beauty of the game displayed through quick moments and snippets here and there. I watch simply to enjoy these small moments of brilliance here and there, which were frequently on display at the Nou Camp this morning in what was, by El Classico standards, a generally disappointing affair: a moment of ingenious hold-up play from Suárez where he posts up a larger defender and traps a downward flying ball with his left thigh and drops it to his right foot, knowing exactly where his next pass is going to go before the ball has even hit the ground; a deft turn and spin from Busquets just above the 18, clearing the danger in the Barca defense and starting the play the other way; Iniesta, the world’s greatest passer, firing a laser beam of a pass through three defenders onto the foot of Messi and creating a chance; all of these crosses from the Real wings weighted perfectly, seemingly destined to find a teammate’s head that just hang there, drifting into the box and striking more fear into the Nou Camp faithful with every passing moment. All of these moments are beautiful, elegant and graceful while, at the same time, taking place within an activity which is feisty and tense, combative and fiercely competitive. There is no greater rivalry than El Classico given the history and national identity connected to the sides and given the talent at both sides’ disposal. I sit back and soak in all of these little moments in the game and enjoy them for what they are regardless of the outcome. It really is a beautiful game, an elegant game. The game is poetry in motion.

But for all of that maneuvering of the pieces around the chess board during the course of 90 minutes, for all of those individual moments of brilliance, you still need to get a result – and god damn it, it’s hard to do that.

And, naturally, this game turned on a mistake, as a 90th minute set piece from Real Madrid turned into something more resembling a jail break. Barca’s defense got it all wrong and Sergio Ramos equalized with a header – and if he hadn’t gotten to it, someone else would have, as there were five Real players open in the center of the box to meet the cross. It was a piece of abject and amateurish defending at the worst possible time from Barca which wound up costing them, as Real snuck out of the Nou Camp with a 1:1 draw. For all of the individual moments of brilliance, for all of the great build up play and link up play from Barca through the center of pitch, the second goal Barca needed to put the game away didn’t come, and then that one moment occurs and you shut it off upstairs and you don’t communicate and the ball is in the back of your net, the points Barca needing in the table to stay in contention for the title being wasted and going awry. Barca were the better team, but the better team didn’t win.

But this is what always happens in soccer. Barca were six points adrift of Real Madrid in La Liga when, if there was anything just about this stupid game, they would have been seven after last week, as they had traveled to San Sebastián and got positively bossed by Real Sociedad. The Txuriurdin were all over Barca, but they somehow managed to miss the target time and again (seriously how did they not score more?), and then Messi does one of his Messi things and Sociedad hit the woodwork twice and have a goal strangely called back and it ends a 1:1 draw, earning a point for Barca they most certainly did not deserve. And for Real Sociedad, a small club with a proud tradition that has often gone toe-to-toe with the Madrids and Barcelonas and more than held their own, this draw is a bitter disappointment. They deserved to win the match.

But soccer has little to nothing to do with what you deserve, in the end. Over the course of the season, the teams that finish at the top of the table steal these points here and there which often come to make the difference. They get draws when they deserve to lose, they get wins when they deserve to draw. The margins in the game are so thin that the difference is often one single moment of brilliance, one moment of defensive lapse, or even some ridiculous own goal. The bigger clubs with the deeper pockets will wind up necessarily moving towards the top of the table by the end, using those resources to stock up on players capable of creating those moments of brilliance and competent enough to lessen the potential for disastrous errors, thus tilting the balance of power in their favor, enabling them to steal points in those 50-50 situations. And you can understand how, over time, this apparatus works. You can see how, during the course of a 40-game season, this will play out, but in the moment, of course, when one single match comes undone and the result winds up feeling unjust, the beautiful game feels incredibly cruel. Soccer is a game that, one way or another, always seems to find a way to break your heart.

* * *

So the results can be unjust, but we can deduce that the best teams win out, at season’s end, partially through the amassing of many unjust results in their favor. But at the same time, the unjust results can seemingly go against even the bigger clubs: witness Saturday’s El Classico where, in my opinion, mighty Barca were the better team and the better team didn’t win. I’m always amused by the idea that the bigger clubs in Europe float from time to time of forming some sort of Super League in Europe where the best clubs would play each other all of the time? Wouldn’t that be great?

Well, sure, it would, at first, but then the novelty would wear off really quickly for a number of those clubs and their supporters, and would do so for a very good reason: they would start to lose. Sports are a zero-sum game, after all. Someone would necessarily lose, and necessarily finish last. The structure of the game is fundamentally unfair, a self-perpetuating cycle in which winning begets you bigger prizes and purses, which you can then turn around and spend on better players and better coaches and the like. With those spoils, over time, have come a galling sense of entitlement among the game’s élite, a level of condescension implying that simply by the name on your jersey, you should just be able to show up and garner the spoils.

UEFA has constantly kissed the big club’s asses in the rejigging of the Champions League, a cash-cow of a cup competition which, to put it bluntly, isn’t really all that good, as it’s a bunch of extra games stuffed into midweeks during a season that’s already long and draining. For all of the pomp and ceremony and self-importance of the competition, the games are often dreadful. We’ve been told we’re supposed to care about it, but none of the Champions League Finals that I’ve watched have been particularly memorable. Most of the time, in fact, the better team doesn’t seem to win. Indeed, the ‘winner’ of today’s 1:1 El Classico draw – Real Madrid – have won two of the past three Champions League Finals, winning both times against sworn enemy and crosstown rival Atletico Madrid while managing, over the course of the 90 minutes, to look second-best on both occasions, only to push the game into extra time on both occasions and then carve out a victory.

And we hate it when Real Madrid wins. The next best thing to seeing your team win is seeing your fiercest rival lose, and Real Madrid is a fierce rival to everyone, owing to their phenomenal success, their Franco-fascist roots, and their constant back room and board room drama. Of course, most of the discreet, ineffectual, leftist bourgeoisie who root for Barcelona choose to conveniently overlook their own team’s warts, be it getting nabbed for signing underage players or the fact that there have been a seemingly endless string of tax evasion charges dogging the club’s players. We cherry pick and choose the facts in order to suit our narratives. Most of it just comes down to jealousy, of course – the act of wishing that a team you support could be better than another who always seems to win all the time at your expense. And while there were plenty of blue and red stripes on display in my footballing-mad neighborhood this morning, while nary a white jersey could be seen, Real Madrid wouldn’t be the biggest club in the world if nobody liked them. Just as there are shy Tories, there are shy Madrileños out there as well, people who don’t want to admit it because liking Real isn’t cool.

But we love it when Real fails. (Though it doesn’t happen often.) We love it those bloated bombasts who always buy their way to the top of the table stumble and bumble and fall. There is seemingly no end to the schadenfreude in Britain right now for the comedic stylings of Manchester United, a club which has gone through three coaches and spent over $600 million on players in the past four seasons but who, at this moment, is currently looking up in the table at West Brom. A particular venom is reserved for the ‘new money’ clubs – clubs like Chelsea and Paris St. Germain and Manchester City who weren’t any good until they got infused with massive amounts of petrostate financing, and who are now élite powers of the game, or a club like RB Leipzig, who currently reside at the top of the Bundesliga and who didn’t even exist until seven years ago, when Red Bull up and decided to dump a tonne of euros into the act of inventing a championship-caliber German football club. The idea of coming in and winning at the game simply by throwing a whole bunch of money flies in the face of the traditional/stereotypical narrative of the game, which is that these great clubs were of small and modest means when they were founded and grew to become giants over time entirely owing to their brilliance on the pitch. The truth is, of course, much more complicated than that. Chelsea and Man City have been around for over a century: they just weren’t very good for long periods of time. The backstory of they came to be good doesn’t really matter that much, in the end, if they didn’t get the results between the lines. You can have all of the resources at your disposal that you wish, but if you don’t know what you’re doing, you wind up like Man U and go about pouring $600m down a rathole. And most of the football supporters who want to tout their club’s humble, modest roots only do so when it’s convenient, but their clubs time and again act out of their own self-interest when wider issues crop up, and do so at the expense of clubs whose roots are just as humble and modest and who are still humble and modest to this day. It’s an unfair game, one between the haves and have-nots in which the haves want to do everything to keep it that way.

But knowing all of that, I still root for Barcelona. I admit it. Like most fans, my footballing rooting interests are tiered and complicated and sometimes run in conflict: big teams that we like, but also smaller clubs as well. I like Barcelona because I’ve always liked the way they play. Among the large British clubs, my life ethos seems to align more with Liverpool than any of the others. My love of Norwich City is well-documented, of course, and it excites me that the latest incarnation of the team which first got me interested in soccer decades ago, the Seattle Sounders, will be playing for their first MLS Cup a week from now. With each club comes a different set of expectations, a different definition of success. But in each case, that sense of being wronged by the unjust result feels the same. You curse the stupid fucking game and wish that it didn’t hold your attention. How can you like something in which seemingly so often, you feel as if fate or the moon or the stars or the forces of evil or the goddamn refs or those moving goalposts all conspired to deny your team the result that it deserved? There is no justice in this game. The bad guys always win.

Except, of course, when they don’t.

* * *

We watch the biggest clubs because we want to see the game’s greatest stars. I thought I would get the chance in person to do that this past summer, during the Copa América Centenario, as some good fortune in the draws had brought those of us here in the Bay Area a really great slate of games to take place down in Santa Clara at The Pants. Alas, it turned out to be something of a disappointment on the star front: neither Lionel Messi not Luis Suárez played, as both of them were still injured; James scored and ran the game for Colombia and generally made Klinsmann’s USA FC look stupid for an hour, but then he injured a shoulder and had to leave the game.

The one great star turn that I did get to see, however, was that of Alexis Sánchez, when Chile took on Mexico in the Quarterfinals. The Chileans moved Alexis to the left side, in order to attack a weak right flank of the Mexican defense, and after Alexis roasted the Mexican right back on his very first touch, making him look like he was standing in cement, the Chileans then took to running the entirety of their offense through Alexis. Every attack begin with a ball to Alexis down the left. And Alexis was brilliant. He was absolutely brilliant. I don’t think I’ve ever seen, in person, someone play a better game of soccer. His touches, his movement, his passes were all elegant and effortless and perfect. His name doesn’t appear on the scoresheet enough to suggest how dominant he really was. Alexis essentially set up five goals all by himself while his grateful teammates went about divvying up the spoils.

The final score of the game was ridiculous, in the end – Chile 7:0 Mexico. The mass of El Tri fans assembled at The Pants went, over the course of 90 minutes, from loving their team to hating their team to a sense of something akin to begrudging gratitude, coming to realize that they were present for a master class in the game because Chile were so good that nothing the Mexicans wanted to do would have even made a dent.

And part of what made it so surprising, of course, is that it was Chile doing this. Chile are now the 2-time defending champions of the Copa America after this summer, despite the fact that, in comparison to other South American sides, they have considerably less talent at their disposal. Not no talent, mind you. I was explaining to one of my friends, at the start, who their best players were and saying stuff like “that guy plays for Arsenal, and that guy plays for Bayern Munich, and that guy plays for Barcelona,” and the name-dropping of such clubs certainly resonated with a soccer-viewing neophyte. It’s just that their roster pales in comparison to that of Argentina and Brazil and even Colombia. But the Chileans are a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts – something born through experience, as the core of their team have been playing together in national team settings for more than a decade. 

And long before Alexis was living in London and playing for Arsenal and winning a pair of Copa Americas, he and some of his future Chilean national teammates were plying their trade in a place about as far removed from the bright lights as you can possibly get – at Club de Deportes Cobreloa in the city of Calama, a mining town in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. Cobreloa are a small club but also a proud one, having won five Chilean titles, and its also a club with a propensity for developing surprisingly good players over the years. But when you’re a small club, whatever successes you achieve can be difficult to sustain, if not impossible. Bigger clubs come calling when they know you have great players, curious if you’d like to sell – and how can you not sell, seeing how a big transfer fee can prop up your budget for the entire year?

And the other reason you should sell is that the player will most likely want to go. In the case of Alexis Sánchez, he was sold from Cobreloa to the Italian club Udinese – another modest club known to have a keen eye for talent. Udinese loaned him out twice, first to Colo Colo, the biggest club in Chile, and then to River Plate in Buenos Aires, who are one of the biggest clubs in South America. He then played three years with Udinese in Italy, was sold to Barcelona after three seasons, and sold to Arsenal after that. This sort of meandering journey isn’t uncommon among even great players. In fact, it’s pretty normal. You bounce around, you move from club to club, there are ups and there are downs – and sometimes the downs can seem like down-and-outs. Jamie Vardy was playing in England’s 5th Division and working in a factory. Dmitri Payet was selling shoes. How on earth is it possible that someone who can do stuff like this was selling shoes?

Just stop it already, Dmitri
OK, now you are just showing off

Payet now plays for London’s West Ham United, a club with bigger aspirations than they are presently capable of pulling off. In the endless strata of soccer, which stretches from the glitzy and glamorous clubs at the top of the pyramid down through endless divisions and state leagues and regional leagues, clubs of all sizes eventually sort themselves out and find their own comfort level. And the fans of the club come to adjust over time, of course. The fans at every level of the game come to understand the limits of their favorite club’s exploits. It doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily like it, of course – most every conversation I have with Norwich City faithful inevitably harkens back to the club’s golden age, which stretched from the mid-1980s until they were relegated from the EPL in 1995, during which time they were one of England’s best clubs. But we members of the Yellow Army all have come to understand that such a terrific run, in this big-money day and age, is nearly impossible. Norwich doesn’t have the means to compete. It’s not a big club. You come to measure success in different ways: maybe it’s in the 1-off match against a bigger club where you get the better of them; maybe it comes from seeing a former player go on to do great things, knowing that your club contributed to the advancement of his career.

But that’s all big picture shit. In the moment, the fact is that I dragged my ass out of bed 38 times during the 2015-2016 EPL season for kickoffs at 4:45 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. and fuck-its-early-a.m. and had to keep myself from cursing aloud, lest I wake up the Official Swansea Fan of In Play Lose, who was wisely sleeping in while I was seething at 38 games of general Norwich City incompetence. “Jesus christ, could you mark the damn center back on the corner!” “How could you miss that? It was a sitter, god damn it!” *grumble grumble bitch moan seethe* 

Small club? Modest means? Fuck that. I want to win, damn it.

Sure, it’s nice to see Norwich City guys excelling at other clubs, or see two of them teaming up for a great goal in the Euros, and I suspect the could will sort out their current problems and find their way out of Div. 2 and back into the EPL eventually. But at that point, they’ll probably get smacked back down again, because this is how it goes. There isn’t really any point in having expectations of success, of having delusions of grandeur, since those sorts of fairy tales never come true ...


* * *

After El Classico ends, I flip through some highlights of Saturday’s games in the EPL, one of which is taking place at the wonderfully majestically named Stadium of Light in Sunderland. Sunderland won today, which for them is sort of amazing. They’ve been abjectly terrible for the past few seasons, pulling off a Houdini act each successive spring to avoid being relegated. The club is now for sale, yours for the taking for a cool £170 million. A deceptively low figure for a Premier League club, since one of the things you’ll be assuming, should you decide to buy, is the club’s £140 million in debts: a consequence of trying to compete at the game’s highest level for years, and failing rather miserably at it.

There are basically three tiers-within-the-tier that is the top flite of English football. There are five clubs on top owing to pedigree and bank balance: Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool. There is a second tier full of hopefuls from the big cities striving to compete with their rivals across town: Tottenham, Everton, West Ham, Crystal Palace. And then there is everyone else, whose best hope is to break into the Top 10 and maybe land a Europa league spot. Sunderland are most definitely in the ‘everyone else’ category, as were their opponents today, a modest club from a smaller city doing what they usually do, which is hover right around the drop zone at the bottom of the table.

Except unlike the usual assortment of modest clubs from smaller cities hovering right around the drop zone, this particular opponent’s struggles of late – including losing 2:1 today at Sunderland – are worth noting, because the losing club today at the Stadium of Light was Leicester City.

What’s happened to Leicester? Quite simply, after beating the 5,000-to-1 odds to win the EPL title a season ago, the Foxes have regressed to the mean. When you win the Premier League, all of your tactics and technique get dissected and scrutinized over the summer and, as such, the Foxes tactics no longer hold the element of surprise. Factory-worker-turned-England-striker Vardy, after scoring goals for fun a year ago, has suddenly lost his Midas touch and seemingly can’t hit the ocean from a boat. And then N’Golo Kanté, the Foxes’ most important defensive player, was promptly sold to Chelsea for £32 million. A shrewd business move, of course – they’d paid €8 million to pry Kanté away from his French club – but one which reinforced a hard truth about the Premier League, which is that in spite of the big infusion of cash that comes from winning the EPL and doing well so far in the Champions League, clubs like Chelsea will always have more of it. Leicester still is, for all intents and purposes, just another small club from a small city.

And bless them for that, along with Norwich City and Udinese and Real Sociedad and Club de Deportes Cobreloa and all of the others, because it’s the small clubs which are the heart and the soul of the game of soccer. The small clubs don’t have the luxury of throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars or euros or sterling or any other currency. The small clubs beat the bushes and comb the back roads for players, they buy low and sell high, they develop and promote from within. You cut your teeth at the small clubs, you learn the realities of the game there. Small clubs develop young players and grant second chances to those who fall from grace. The small club’s fans are patient, supportive, and passionate about the club – a far cry from the assortment of bandwagon jumpers flocking to the flavors of the month at the tops of the table. Small clubs are ingenious, imaginative, resourceful and tenacious, doing more with less and, every now and then, getting a good result here and there.

Or, in the case of Leicester City, you pull off the impossible. Dreams can, in fact, come true. Leicester’s EPL title this past spring was a triumph for the game as a whole. It brought back the romance, it decreased the cynicism, it shook things up and shook out some of the cobwebs, bringing some freshness to a game which had ultimately become rather predictable and stale with the same small group of clubs winning everything all the time and constantly going about remaking the rules in their favor. Leicester has captured the imagination of fans across the globe.

How are Leicester doing this season? Who cares? Everything they might accomplish this season is an extra helping of gravy. Leicester carved out a place for themselves in the history of the game like none other. They don’t have to win 20 titles to be remembered. All they had to do was win one, in this era, under these circumstances, to remind people that it’s possible for a small club to do. It is unlikely? Absolutely.  Is it hard to do? Absolutely.

And if we’re being honest here, the same sort of critique I offered previously about Real Madrid applies to Leicester as well. If winning titles in soccer is ultimately determined by stealing a good number of points that you don’t necessarily deserve, then a title winner with Leicester written on the jersey is just as likely to benefit as one with Bayern or Barca or Real. I can think of two such unjust results in their favor off the top of my head – both the games with Norwich. The Foxes took all six points from those two games, which was about five points more than they deserved. After taking the league by storm in the first half of the season with a wild, open, attacking style, the Foxes had a seemingly endless string of 1:0 wins and come-from-behind draws after Christmas. Now, when you’re a bunch of nobodies, it’s easy to call this ‘riding your luck,’ but it’s no different than what Real and Barca and Bayern and the like do with regularity. What we see on the fronts of the jerseys changes our opinions of the performance when, in fact, what Leicester did, day to day, was no different than what any other league winner does from day to day. It’s still a cruel game, and Leicester knows plenty about the cruelty of it (most notably this madcap ending to a Div. 2 playoff against Watford in 2013) but for a season, at least, cruelty felt fit to rear its ugly head in some other city.

And it’s interesting to see how quickly this has changed the consciousness of the footballing fan. Instead of looking at a small club punching above it’s weight as a fly by night, you start to think, “could this be the next Leicester?” On Saturday in Italy’s Serie A, perpetual champion Juventus defeated Atalanta 3:1, but the fact that Juventus had to actually take Atalanta seriously was actually the story of the day. Who the hell is Atalanta? They’re a smaller club from Bergamo that have been rampaging along in Serie A of late, moving within striking distance of the European places with a roster composed mostly of young players that appears to be coming good. But how good? Good enough that you can’t help but wonder if Atalanta is … dare we say it … the Italian Leicester in the making?

And now small clubs everywhere want to think of themselves as the next Leicester, and you know what? Good for them. If Leicester can make some history, then why can’t they do it? Leicester have set the bar impossibly high, of course, accomplishing what seemed to be unthinkable, but for the next club that reaches those heights – a question of when, in my mind, rather than if – it will have been a most remarkable and exhilarating of journeys.

***

I hadn’t given Atalanta Bergamo any thought at all until I noticed, not too long ago, that they were high in the Serie A standings. When you follow the international game, you will occasionally take a glance at the tables in the other leagues, curious as to who is doing well (or, in my case, who is doing really badly, since this is In Play Lose, after all). I’ll look at the table in all the big European leagues, and maybe also in some of the lesser ones as well, just so I can get a sense of what is going on. When you do that, of course, you usually see an assortment of familiar names at the top of the table. It’s a lot of the same old same sold. Sporting or Benfica or Porto are winning in Portugal, Ajax or PSV or Feyenoord are winning in Holland, blah blah blah and there’s nothing much to see here. What occasionally piques my interest is the name of some weird team that I’ve never heard of, but usually there’s a reason that I’ve never heard of the weird teams: they aren’t very good, and usually they’re trawling about the dregs and on the verge of disappearing once again into Division 2 oblivion.

And I was looking through the table a week ago for Brazil’s Serie A, a league I only casually pay attention to, and I came across a name of a team which I’d never heard of: Chapecoense AF. Who on earth are these guys? Whomever they are, they appear to be having a nice season: 52 points, in 9th place in the table, slotted high above quite a number of the Brazilian teams that I do actually know something about, but Chapecoense were a club I knew nothing about at all.

Well now I do, and given the way that knowledge came to pass, I’m wishing very much that I didn’t, because on Monday, the plane which was carrying the members of the team, the team’s staffers and executives, and a number of Brazilian football journalists to the first leg of Chapecoense's Copa Sudamerica final against Atletico Nacional, crashed in the mountains outside Medellin, Colombia, killing 71 persons.



And it was after the crash that the story of Associaçáo Chapecoense de Futebol came to be known to the footballing and sporting public outside of South America: Chapecoense were, in many ways, the Leicester City of Brazil.  It’s a small club from a small city, Chapéco, a blue-collar city of meat packing and prospecting with 200,000 residents located near to the Argentine border in the south of the country. As recently as 2009, Chapecoense found themselves in Brazil’s Fourth Division, but they’d made a steady and stunning rise into the top flite of Brazilian football, being promoted to Serie A in 2014 and continuing their climb ever since, making their way into the top half of the table while battling it out with some of Brazil’s most legendary clubs. And as they were doing that, they were also competing in the Copa Sudamerica, CONMEBOL’s equivalent to the Europa League, and continuing to progress through the tournament, beating two Argentine clubs in the quarters and the semis to reach the Cup final. It’s a remarkable run, a fairy tale run from a club that no one could see coming.

And in the cesspool that is Brazilian domestic football – the game so awash in corruption and rot that the fans have stopped going to games and the players all flee to other parts of the world as soon as possible – the rise of Chapecoense was a breath of fresh air. Like many small clubs thrust onto big stages, they make friends wherever they go. Chapecoense were admired for their tenacity and resourcefulness, for doing more with less whereas so much of the game’s resources have been squandered within the nation over the years. Their rise piqued the imagination, proving that even the little guy could have their day in the sun and get their just deserts. And with a small town club comes a small town atmosphere. Instead of the typical sort of big city disconnect, where players keep to themselves and disappear behind fences and walls, all accounts seem to indicate that Chapecoense’s players felt a comfort in the city of Chapéco, whose residents weren’t just fans of the club, but had come to be seen as friends.

And now, it’s all gone.

#forcachape

You’ve really done it this time, footballing gods. Yours is a cruel, cruel sport, one to which many people dutifully enslave themselves regardless, but this is your cruelest trick of all. Damn you.

I’ve struggled to come to terms with this tragedy, not wanting to write yet another obituary in a year that seems particularly cursed, one in which so many of the people who’ve made an impact in my life have passed away. And yet, I felt compelled to say something, say anything, even though what I’m saying might make no sense at all. Football lost some of its greatest friends on Monday. Sport lost some of its greatest friends. Indeed, life itself lost some of its greatest friends.

We want to think of sport as being separate from life. We want it to be a diversion and a distraction, a chance to lose ourselves for a little while. But sport is not separate from real life. It is a part of real life. No game ever created more mirrors real life than soccer, a game in which the results are often unjust and sometimes the best that you can hope for is to scrape out a draw and come out even. It is a simple game which is complex and nuanced, laden with gray areas. The games if financed by, and profited from, capitalists with enormous wealth and little connection to the common man, while its labor pool are culled mostly from the poor and the immigrants and the working classes – commoners, ultimately, much like the commoners who follow the game with fervor. Soccer is life, in fact, and much like the rest of life, you want to see the good guys get ahead and win a little bit from time to time.

The investigation will take months, but early indications are that the aircraft, stretched to the outer reaches of its range, ran out of fuel. If so, it makes it all the more senseless and needless, bringing an outrageous negligence into play. This didn’t have to happen. This didn’t need to occur.

And I don’t know what to say about this. I’m at a loss for words. The words I know are useless, they know they are useless and they just give up and wander away.

The most heartbreaking image of all was that of the remaining Chapacoense players – those who were injured and couldn’t travel – sitting in the locker room at their home grounds where, a week earlier, there were scenes of wild jubilation after the club had qualified for the Cup final. Three players in total, looking lost in an empty room, having just been told that their teammates, their coaches, their bosses and everyone associated with the club were now gone in an instant.

And what’s struck me the most personally about this is the loss of those journalists traveling to cover the game. I get very upset when journalists are killed while during the course of during their jobs, because I’ve been a journalist for most of my professional life. These are my brothers in arms who have fallen. I take their loss personally. It’s been incredible to listen to numerous reports about the tragedy presented to the world by Brazilian sports journalists, all of whom have lost a friend or a colleague, yet all of whom are doing their jobs and their duty of reporting the news in a situation where most anyone else would want to run away and hide and not talk to anyone. It crushes me to hear their voices. It breaks my heart.

What do you say about this? What are the right words? I ask this because, in the ensuing few paragraphs, I will speak to the future of the club. This in no way is intended to be cold or dismissive of the suffering of the families who lost loved ones. We must control that which we can control, and there is no controlling what has just occurred. I’m not sure how to speak to the grief, the suffering of those affected. I really can’t find the words.

It takes decades to recover from something like this, if you ever really recover at all. Torino F.C. were the greatest team in Italy, if not Europe, in the late 1940s, winning five consecutive league titles and employing the bulk of the Italian national team. The entire team was killed in a plane crash in 1949, an incident which so shook Italian football that the national team chose to take a boat to the 1950 World Cup in Brazil, and Torino F.C. have never been quite the same since, winning on a single Serie A title in the 67 years since. More recently, in 1993, a plane carrying the Zambian National Team crashed off the coast of Libreville, Gabon, on its way to a World Cup qualifier in Dakar. The Chipolopolo were a rising force in African football at the time, having called attention to themselves by crushing Italy 4:0 during the Olympic games, but the national side vanished into obscurity for the next 19 years before pulling off a stunning win in the final of the CAF African Cup of Nations in 2012 – a game which took place in Libreville, Gabon, mere yards from where their compatriots’ plane had crashed 19 years earlier. Chapacoense will regroup and will go on from here. Whether they have any success at all is hard to say – but then again, success is never a guarantee regardless of circumstances.

And in times of tragedy, you often find that you have more friends than you may have realized. The outpouring of support from around the game worldwide continues. It’s a huge game that spans the globe, and yet its still inherently a small and tight-knit community. Most every Brazilian playing abroad speaks with a heavy heart, knowing of someone who was lost in the tragedy. In South America itself, Atletico Nacional, who were favored to beat Chapacoense in the Copa Sudamericana, have said they want no part of it, urging CONMEBOL to award the trophy to their fallen Brazilian opponents as a way to honor their legacy. Whether this will be done or not remains to be seen, but it feels like the right thing to do. (Update: Chapacoense will apparently receive the title.) Other Brazilian clubs have offered to loan players to Chapacoense, and there is talk of exempting the club from possibly being relegated for the next three years as it attempts to put itself back together. And amid all of this, Chapacoense still have one game left to play in the Brazilian season, a home match against Atletico Miniero of Belo Horizonte, even though the club has nothing left save for a handful of grieving players left behind. It doesn’t have a coach, it doesn’t have much of a training staff, there is nothing left.

But they should play. They should play, and they should give the fans in their grieving city a chance to gather, to honor the fallen, and to celebrate their memories. No player would ever want a game to be cancelled on their accord. The game should go on. In order to play the match, Chapacoense will have to cobble together a side, fielding youth team players and loanees along with those who were left behind, but who really cares who plays and what the final score will be? The result itself won’t matter.

They should play the game because it is still a beautiful game, one filled with beautiful moments here and there which, when stitched together, can be magical and memorable. It’s football which had brought all of these people together in the first place, and football will be what brings them together again. And for 90 minutes against Atletico Miniero, those gathered in the stands who have been grieving can instead focus their attention on what’s going on in between the lines, bemoaning a missed defensive assignment leading to a goal or a squandered opportunity on the offensive end – all of those little things which mean nothing in life’s broader context but, during those 90 minutes, come to mean absolutely everything. And when Chapacoense rebuilds, the club’s future will undoubtedly include quite a few matches in which they outplay the opposition, only to have to settle for a draw or maybe even be saddled with a loss. Unjust results in a cruel, cruel game? Perhaps you might come to see it that way. Or perhaps you’ll come to see the results as inconsequential, with the fact that the games are taking place at all, and coming to mean so much again to the players and the people, representing something more akin to an unbreakable winning streak.

#forcachape!

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Your NBA Losability Update


A FIFTH of the way into the NBA season seems like a good time to revisit the In Play Lose Losability rankings. Remember, the point of Losability rankings is what is interesting to me at the moment, not necessarily whether or not anyone is good or bad. You’ll notice the bad teams moving up in the rankings, of course, as the inevitable post-New Year tankathon shall soon commence and some of these bad teams will suddenly get really bad. But I’ve got some NBA story lines brewing and percolating in my head at the moment, and so I’m keeping a close eye on a few different things. So here’s what’s interesting me about the NBA at the moment:

30. Charlotte (-2): because you are doing just fine, Buzz City, so carry on.
29. San Antonio (-9): because nothing to see here, just move along (and, oh yeah, Pop is god and you should not forget it.)
28. Utah (-6): because I am reserving all judgment about this team until they finally get healthy.
27. Cleveland (-17): because a supersoft opening schedule with a heavy amount of home cooking hasn’t given them a whole lot of challenges yet, which means they can go out and show off and have some fun here at the start of the season – which is something that they’ve certainly earned the right to do.
26. Brooklyn (-13): because the Nets are just bad. They’ve been a fun bad so far, but still bad.
25. Detroit (0): because this offense is a cure for insomnia; because SVG would fit in well with any sort of political commentary that I do after his post-election rant in Phoenix.
24. Toronto (+2): because I should write a post about how I think instant replay in sports, as presently constructed, is nonsense, and use this ridiculous Raps game in Sacramento as one of many examples; because this team desperately needs a stretch four, but may not have the guts to pull the trigger on a deal; because I love DeRozen and his old school game; because otherwise, all is well in the North so carry on.
23. Atlanta (-8): because in spite of a couple of klunkers here recently, this team has been pretty good; because it’s amazing what happens when you have a coach who understands, first and foremost, that you have to adjust the scheme to the personnel like Mike Budenholzer has done with Dwight Howard, who has suddenly looked quite useful in the center of the Atlanta defense.
22. Memphis (-4): because this team is actually pretty good when everyone is healthy; because how long will the run of good health last?
21. Dallas (+2): because the Mavericks are having that sort of lost season which can happen to a mid-level veteran team where the injuries pile up and nothing goes right and everyone suddenly looks old and slow; because after 16 straight winning seasons, this is one team which has certainly earned a mulligan and a disastrous season like this one won’t count against anyone; because holy shit, Harrison Barnes has actually been good; because Andrew Bogut has been mediocre, just as he was in Golden State, but everyone around here talks about how much they miss Bogut’s rim protection, which is weird to me, as it would appear Bogut is the type of player who is really good in everyone’s minds when he isn’t actually playing.
20. Miami (-6): because this team is the most prime candidate for a full-on tank job and a rebuild; because until that happens, they are simply unwatchable.
19. Milwaukee (+8): because Greek Freak and Jabari Parker and Co. have a few really good moments and a few really bad quarters of an hour; because you can see the potential there, especially with Greek Freak at the point, but there’s just not enough focus nor consistency, and they still can’t shoot; because they’re probably not good enough to make the playoffs, but not bad enough to get a good pick in the draft, and that’s not really an ideal place to be.
18. L.A. Lakers (-6): because as expected, this team is bringing back the fun and Luke Walton is doing a great job with his young players; because at some point, teams will start to figure them out and all of that youthful enthusiasm stops working, and you have to actually act like you know what you’re doing out there on the court; because this team will probably keep getting super amped up for big games against big teams, but it’s all of the games against the league’s middle class – playoff level teams who don’t take the night off – that will be ugly.
17. Denver (+12): because this is a weird team; because you’d think that, if you’re going to turn over the keys to one guy and expect him to run the show, you’d do it with someone unlike Emmanuel Mudiay – i.e., someone who actually knows how to play NBA basketball.
16. Orlando (+8): because this is one of the ugliest offensive teams I’ve seen in the NBA in a long time; because their offseason moves would indicate they had aspirations of being a playoff team; because that’s about the only thing their offseason moves indicate, since the roster is so misfitting that I have no idea what they honestly thought they would accomplish.
15. Indiana (+6): because this is one of the many Prometheus Bound NBA franchises at the moment, a nightly act of Greek Tragedy in which the hero is chained to a bad roster and forced to move boulders all by himself in order to be successful – in this case Paul George, who has to do everything on both ends on the floor; because George’s burden is especially large on the defensive end, given that the rest of the Pacers can’t guard the floor they are standing on.
14. Houston (-6): because this is Prometheus Bound, Act II, with James Harden putting up some ridiculous numbers far and beyond anything else his teammates are doing; because unlike the others franchises of this type, the Rockets are actually halfway decent; because the offense hasn’t been as good as I hoped, and the defense hasn’t been as bad as I hoped, which means they’re sort of meh at the moment.
13. Philadelphia (-8): because I love me some Sixers, of course, and I have felt their pain, and the Sixers have been frisky and feisty here of late and I always appreciate them playing hard; because I enjoy watching Embiid and think he is a special talent, but I still don’t think I’ve ever seen him throw a pass; because the offense is still a claustrophobic mess and, even with the unforeseen quasi-revival of Sauce Castillo’s career, this team still needs to improve its guard play; because now that they’re not tanking and simply bad, they’re not nearly as interesting.
12. L.A. Clippers (-5): because they’ve been impressive at both ends of the floor so far this season and have been refreshingly drama free; because there is something to be said for continuity in an ADD league where the tendency is to gravitate towards fads and shiny objects; because having said that, they still need a three, and Mbah a Moute making a bunch of unmissable shots because he’s so wide open doesn’t change that; because I’ll be curious to see how they handle this first game coming up against the Dubs next week, since the Dubs have had their number and that was even before KD arrives, whom the Clips don’t really have an answer for. Speaking of which …
11. Golden State (-10): because welcome to the fish bowl, where every single thing that ever even slightly goes wrong gets magnified and blown out of proportion; because this is what’s bound to happen when you sign KD; because jesus, KD is even better than I thought, which is saying something, because I already thought he was one of the 5 players in the league; because nothing else matters between now and April, anyway, so just sit back and enjoy some beautiful basketball.
10. Chicago (-6): because maybe this team is better than we thought they would be; because I suppose it makes sense they would get off to a good start, given that we’ve got here some seasoned vets and old pros and title winners on this team who do, in fact, know what they’re doing; because I’m still somewhat skeptical, seeing as how D-Wade is suddenly nailing threes off the dribble; because I’m not at all skeptical about Jimmy Butler.
9. Phoenix (+2): because I have no idea what this team is trying to do; because while it may make sense to draft a raw talent like Dragan Bender and bring him along slowly, or draft a raw talent like Marquese Chriss and bring him along slowly, it doesn’t make sense to have two of those guys on your roster at the same time and playing the same position; because the guard rotation doesn’t make much sense, either; because this team would be smart to move Bledsoe and Knight at the deadline, build around Booker and TJ Warren and give up on this season completely, but the words “smart” and “Suns” are rarely uttered in the same sentence.
8. New York (-2): because in a shocking development, the Knicks have more or less junked the Zen Master’s triangle offense and started running more stuff through Porzingis and, lo and behold, they actually look like a competent basketball team; because that terrible contract they gave to Joachim Noah looks worse every time he steps on the floor; because so long as you have Phil Jackson around to pop off and say something stupid, there is always high potential for needless drama.
7. Boston (+2): because I wouldn’t read much of anything into their so-so start to the season, given the injury problems at the outset; because at 9-7 as of this writing, they’re in pretty good shape and should get better; because this is still the most interesting team in the league by far in terms of their possibility to make a move and add players, and how likely they are to make a big move may depend as much as what they see taking place in Brooklyn as anything they’re doing, since every Nets win makes that #1 pick the Celtics hold in the 2017 draft potentially less valuable, and so it is something of a tricky balancing act trying to figure out if/when to buy/sell.
6. Washington (+24): because this is our big mover in these rankings, all the way up from 30th, which is where I had them because I figured they’d be a boring .500 team that went nowhere; because instead they are a mess, and their two best players don’t like each other, one of whom – John Wall – feels he’s underpaid now and the other of whom – Bradley Beal – got a max contract despite being made of glass; because oh yeah, the bench sucks; because the Buzzards sunk $35 million into Scotty Brooks as a coach, when it seemed to me that the entirety of Brooks’ success in OKC was predicated on having KD and Russ and James Harden on his team.
5. Portland (+14): because I hated their offseason moves, and this is one of the perils of the NBA, whereby having money to spend one season translates into sunk costs the next, and it’s impossible to look at Evan Turner and Alan Crabbe and Festus Ezeli as anything other than sunk costs at this point; because the defense sucks, which makes for wildly entertaining games but doesn’t translate into wins; because regressing to the mean is a bitch, and because another peril of the NBA is overachieving, as the expectations rise further upward than you may be able to deliver.
4. Minnesota (+12): because I hate the way this team is being coached, as you’ve already got Thibs overplaying his starters and refusing to go small and saddling his lineup with a point guard in Rubio who can’t shoot and a four-man in Dieng who just seems to get in everyone else’s way; because Thibs is also the president of the club, and I don’t think anyone should have both of those jobs; because all of those moments of individual brilliance don’t add up to anything remotely resembling a cohesive unit.
3. Oklahoma City (0): because Prometheus Bound, Act III; because for all of his hellfire and fury, Russell Westbrook alone cannot possibly win enough games through reckless abandon and sheer determination; because it’s amusing to watch him try, since what else is he going to do?; because can anyone on this team make a shot?; because with so few shooting options on this team, defenses are just packed in, which means that Adams and Kanter, OKC’s two excellent bigs, have no room to operate on the glass and turn the ball over too much when they do actually get the ball; because are we sure that Billy Donovan can actually coach an NBA team?
2. Sacramento (0): because Prometheus Bound, Act IV; because the NBA’s most delusional franchise will likely not do what they should, which is to trade Boogie Cousins before the deadline, because they still think a) he’ll re-sign with them, and b) they can still make the playoffs; because Rudy Gay has looked decent so far this season in a “hey, he’s a decent player and maybe we should trade for him” sort of way; because how bad did the in-fighting within the Memphis organization have to be in order to make Dave Joerger think that taking the Kings coaching job was an upgrade?
1. New Orleans (+16): because Prometheus Bound, Act V; because the idea that Anthony Davis is going to spend the prime of his career with this abject and utterly hopeless franchise is depressing.

Monday, November 21, 2016

We Can Do Better Than This


IT’S BEEN a tough couple of weeks here in America, one which has shown deep divisions within our country. But I do think there is one thing that Americans of all persuasions can come together on in complete agreement.

Jürgen Klinsmann sucks as a coach.

Klinsmann’s response to criticism, in the aftermath of USA FC’s appalling two-step misstep – first losing to El Tri in Columbus, followed by a 4:0 pasting at Costa Rica – was to tell reporters that his critics don’t know anything about the game.

“The fact is, we lost two games. There is a lot of talk from people who don't understand soccer or the team. What you need to do is stick to the facts. Soccer is emotional, and a lot of people make conclusions without knowing anything about the inside of the team or the sport.”

Which is interesting, of course, because it plays upon the whole “idiot American” complex that U.S. soccer has spent most of the past 26 years trying to rid itself of. That’s right, we here in the United States don’t know anything about the game and how it’s supposed to work. Never mind that, you know, the professional league in the U.S. has the 6th highest attendance of any league in the world – higher than Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Russia, or what have you. Never mind that the one World Cup held here is the most attended and widely considered the most successful of such tournaments of all time. Never mind that the Copa América, when held in the U.S., drew more than double the attendance of the previous rendition of the tourney in Chile in 2015. For a country that doesn’t know anything about the game of soccer, we sure do seem to like it.

And we obviously don’t know anything about soccer here, because the fact of the matter is that in any nation on earth where they do take the game seriously, Jürgen Klinsmann would’ve gotten himself fired by now. That he hasn’t speaks to the level of patience and the relatively modest set of American expectations. Hell, Dunga got fired last summer about 10 minutes after Brazil lost to Peru and got ousted from the Copa América Centenario. Mexico went through four coaches during their traumatic and dysfunctional qualification campaign for the 2014 World Cup. In places where they “know about soccer,” they also tend to be knee-jerk and pessimistic and believe that the sky is falling after every bad result. Jürgen Klinsmann has had it easy for most of his tenure, working dual roles as both the head coach of USA FC and the technical director of the national federation. He’s been given far more time than anyone else, in any other high-profile footballing nation, could ever expect to receive given the results that he has produced.

Well, the time is up. After last week’s World Cup qualifying debacle, which saw the U.S. lose its first two games of the CONCACAF Hexagonal, Sunil Gulati and the rest of the USSF had finally seen enough. Klinsmann is out, having been fired today from both positions.

And you have to put these two games in proper context here. These are two games against the two best teams in this part of the hemisphere. In the U.S., you are judged by how you stack up against Mexico and against Costa Rica. You play El Tri in Columbus, where you have dominated them in the past. Just totally, completely dominated them. “Dos a cero” has become a rallying cry for the U.S. soccer faithful because of this. Columbus is every bit the house of horrors for El Tri that their home grounds, the Estadio Azteca, has been for the Americans. You have the mental edge and confidence and swagger on your side – factors which should never be discounted – and what does Klinsmann do with this?

Oh hey, let’s play a back three! Sure, we’ve never played this before, and we have no idea whether or not it would work, but what could be better timing for going into some experimental art house period with the team than when they’re playing their biggest rival in a World Cup qualifier?

What the actual fuck?

But Klinsmann does this sort of shit all the time. He plays guys out of position, he switches things up for no apparent reason and you never have any idea what the team is going to look like. It’s all a big mystery, and it shouldn’t be a surprise when it doesn’t work – which it often doesn’t, and which often shows itself to be a problem right at the start of the game.

Somewhat predictably, this shift to a 3-5-2 3-4-3 3-4-1-2 3-in-the-back formation against Mexico in Columbus was a complete, utter mess. The U.S. was down a goal after 20 minutes, but it easily could have been 2-0 or even 3-0. And not only are you losing here, but you’ve now ceded the mental edge you had, at the start of the game, and your team has lost all of that confidence and all of that swagger, because El Tri has figured out that you don’t know what you’re doing and are running rampant. It was all so pointless, so unnecessary.

And here is where something very, very important comes into play which people haven’t really thought enough about. During a break in the action, Michael Bradley and Jermaine Jones – two of the senior players on the team, one of whom is the captain – go over to the sidelines and tell Klinsmann that this cheeky new 3-in-the-back formation doesn’t work worth a damn, at which point the formation gets changed to their usual 4-4-2 and then, lo and behold, the U.S. suddenly starts playing well! How about that!

The U.S. equalizes and controls play for most of the second half, only to lose on a header from Rafa Marquez late on a corner – a combination of a brilliant finish, terrible man marking from the U.S., lack of communication among the defense and a set-up which made no sense, as the U.S. had no one marking the posts on the corner. This is a sloppy, disorganized mess of a play – but as I say, it still took a pretty great finish from Rafa Marquez to result in a goal. But this is what happens in soccer. Scoring is often a mixture of both the ridiculous and the sublime.

The bigger issue here, of course, is the fact that the U.S. basically conceded the first 20’ of the game to their opponent, got themselves in a hole and were thus chasing the game, and why were they doing this? Because Klinsmann decided to be cute with his tactics. And when asked about it after the game, Klinsmann said basically that it didn’t work because Bradley and Jones – the two guys who said “get this back three nonsense out of here” – didn’t play it right. He goes and throws two of his vets, including his captain, under the bus in the press. It’s true that Bradley didn’t play worth a damn, but you don’t go throwing the captain under the bus, outing him in the press like that. Players take their cue from the captain. That’s a pretty good way to get yourself in trouble as a coach. It was at that very moment that I knew the Costa Rica game was likely to be a disaster.

Which it was, as the U.S. got crushed and deserved to get crushed. Honestly, they looked like they were trying to get Klinsmann fired. Another guy Klinsmann felt free to throw under the bus after the Mexico game, John Brooks – who was, without question, the best player on the pitch for the U.S. in the Copa América – perhaps unsurprisingly made a whole series of comedic errors in the central defense which led to easy goals for the Ticos. But he wasn’t alone, of course. The entire back line was a shambles, the central midfield was a turnover machine, and the U.S. created one good scoring chance in the entire match. Once this game got to 2-0 early in the second half, the players quit on Klinsmann. They flat-out quit on him, and quite honestly, you cannot blame them for doing that. You look to the guy on the bench for guidance, for leadership and for decision-making, and instead you’ve got this guy slagging you in the press and calling you out while showing himself to have a tin ear for tactics. Who needs that?

Klinsmann had clearly lost the locker room, and when that happens, you can’t go back and put it back together. And unlike club football, where the solution is always just to throw money at the problem, you don’t have that option on the international level. You cannot go out and buy another center back or central midfielder (even though nations have certainly tried). You have to dance with what you brung.

And if you’re a player, why would you want to play for this guy? Remember, international soccer is something which players do on their off time. They play professionally for nine months, and they shoehorn in a couple of weeks here and there, when a lot of their teammates essentially get in-season vacations to rest and heal up, and they go jetting across the globe to play for their country, often for very little compensation if they even get compensated at all. (Time and again, most often in Africa, you hear stories of federations not paying players for their international duty and creating needless strife.) Guys do this out of loyalty and because it’s a huge honor to be capped by your country. They take it very seriously. But if your coach shows himself to be arrogant, selfish, and a tactical amateur, then why do you want to go through with that? Why do you want to put yourself through more games, risking more chances of injury? At that point, it isn’t worth it.

Gulati really had no choice but to fire Klinsmann, at this point. At zero points and -5 spread, all of the margin of error for USA FC is gone. CONCACAF has 3½ places in the World Cup, with whomever finishing fourth in The Hex having to play a logistical nightmare of a playoff series against an Asian team in order to reach Russia in 2018. The apologist could say “oh, it’s fine, just win the four remaining home matches and there is 12 points right there, which would at least get you into the playoff, and then scrounge up some draws here and there on the road,” but given how generally bad this team has played in the past couple of years, I wouldn’t make that assumption. This team lost to Jamaica at home in a Gold Cup semifinal. This team lost to Guatemala earlier this year. This team shouldn’t lose to Guatemala ever under any circumstance. And like I say, the margin for error is gone. You lose the next game at home to Honduras in March and you’re toast. There was no more room for “wait and see” here, since there was no guarantee Klinsmann could rally any enthusiasm at all from the players he would have at his disposal.

Thus concludes a frustrating, stop-and-start tenure for Klinsmann, who came in talking big about how he was going to transform American soccer and make it proactive and attacking and exciting, but whose successes mostly stemmed from the time-tested American footballing ethos of pragmatism and mental toughness. Don’t go promising one thing and then getting your nose bent out of joint when people complain that you’ve failed to deliver on it.

And guess what? There is nothing wrong with pragmatism and mental toughness. I’m totally cool with that. It’s a results-oriented business, in the end. Ask the Portuguese which means more to them: all of the beautiful football they’ve played in the past 20 years which amounted to nothing, or the tenacious and resourceful approach which brought them a championship at Euro 2016? And you can still be exciting even in that context. I watched the better part of all 64 games of the World Cup in 2014, and the two most exciting games of the entire tournament involved the U.S. – the 2:2 draw with Portugal and the loss in OT to the Belgians in the Round of 16 which was one of the nuttiest, craziest, wackiest World Cup matches I’ve ever seen.

God damn it, Wondo ...

But one of the things about that particular match with the Belgians, which I wondered about at the time, was that I felt like, when it came to tactics, Klinsmann got it wrong. His team turned into a donut, with a big gaping hole in the middle of the pitch through which the Belgians sent one rampaging attack after another. Wondo’s missing of a sitter in stoppage time cost them a victory, to be sure, but this game could have been 8-0 if Tim Howard hadn’t put in the most heroic goalkeeping performance I’ve ever seen. Klinsmann got brutally out coached in that game by Marc Wilmots, of all people, whose lack of tactical prowess on the Belgian bench got him fired this summer after they looked completely confused and clueless in the Euros.

And this happened time and again. It’s hard enough for the U.S. to match up with teams who have superior talent, but it’s made even harder when you get out coached. Klinsmann got out coached by a temp last October in the CONCACAF playoff with El Tri, his team unable to adjust to a very simple ploy from the Mexicans of bunching three center forwards and having them interplay with one-another. Boom, quick goal for Mexico, you’re down 1-0 and you’re chasing the game. I went to their match with Colombia this summer at The Pants in Santa Clara, when Los Cafeteros scored so fast that I’d not even reached my seat. Boom, quick goal, you’re down 1-0 and you’re chasing the game again, and no point, in the rest of that match, did I nor any of the others who had made the trip with me down the peninsula think that the U.S. was going to figure out how to get back in the game. They never did. His idea for combatting Argentina was to run out a bunch of tired old retreads in a lineup that screamed “we’re parking the bus and playing for penalties.” Boom, quick Argentina goal, you’re down 1-0 and you’re chasing the game again, this time with a team on the field that is incapable of even getting a shot off, much less scoring. I’ve seen this movie and I know how it ends.

Klinsmann apologists like to point out that they lost games to the Belgiums and the Mexicos and the Argentinas of the world because they didn’t have the talent – which is true, I suppose, but the U.S. didn’t have the talent in 2010 and 2002, either, and did a whole lot better in the World Cups in both cases. If anything, Klinsmann can’t use the ‘lack of talent’ excuse, since as technical director, his role is supposedly to develop that talent. He has, in fact, done a really good job beating the bushes for players overseas and finding Germans and Mexicans and Icelandics with American lineage who are eligible to play. Some knuckleheads may have a problem with this, but if the rules say you’re an American then, by God, you’re an American. The U.S. talent pool presently has players plying their trade right now with clubs in the Premiere League, the English Championship, the Bundesliga, the Eredivisie, Serie A, Liga MX, etc., etc. He has more talent as his disposal than any American coach in history, and he’s trotting out a team that’s losing to Guatemala.

In the end, this team has not improved. Three years ago, this was the best team in the region. Given the recent spate of results, that is clearly no longer the case. The team is stagnant at best, and regressing at worst. And you can’t come in making promises and raising expectations, and then recoil when those expectations haven’t been met. Personally, I wanted him gone in 2015 after that disastrous Gold Cup, when the U.S. finished fourth and even the victories were shaky and unimpressive, and that 3:2 loss to El Tri in the playoff at the Rose Bowl was appalling for just how needlessly incoherent the U.S. were while playing a Mexican team with a stop-gap coach that seemed almost as rudderless and directionless as the U.S. was before the game. I had no confidence going forward from there, and this team has failed to meet even my meager expectations since then. I was supportive of the hire of Klinsmann when it first happened, as I felt Bob Bradley’s tenure had gotten stale, and since Klinsmann had done a good job contributing to the ‘Das Reboot’ of German football in the early 2000s, but I’m tired of all of the promises which are unkept, and I’m tired of substandard results.

But then again, I’m an American, so what do I know?

And where does the USSF go from here? The obvious candidate at the moment is Bruce Arena, who led USA FC to the quarterfinals of the World Cup in 2002 and has won all sorts of silverware with the L.A. Galaxy in MLS. I’m not really crazy about this idea, since I’d like to see some new blood and new ideas, but Arena does represent a safe pair of hands, and a compelling argument could be made here for some stability. Arena spouting off last year about how he believes all USA FC players should be American-born doesn’t help matters either – he needs all hands on deck at this point, and the fact is that in the present a whole bunch of his best players happen to have been born abroad, and the future holds the same sort of quandary (eight of the members of the U-23 squad are foreign born). Another name that’s been floated is Peter Vermes, who presently coaches at Sporting Kansas City, and he doesn’t excite me either although I admit there may be some recency bias here, since all I ever seem to hear about him is his whining about officials all of the time, which I’m tired of.

I’d like to see the USSF take a broader look here and see what sorts of candidates are out there, as there may be more good ones than they realize. Because this is a good job. Lots of resources, a stable federation, a generally patient and supportive fan base, a relatively easy region in which you play – what’s not to like about that? My ideal possible candidate who they’ll never, ever hire is former El Tri coach Miguel Herrera: the guy knows CONCACAF, he knows American soccer very well from coaching at Tijuana, and anyone who can keep getting great results with the Xolos clearly knows what the hell he is doing. He won’t get the job, of course, because of his off-field behavior, but the point is that the USSF should be looking for something more than just a run-of-the-mill MLS guy. We need some new ideas, but my suspicion is that the USSF won’t be willing to take that kind of a risk.

US Soccer finds itself in a strange place at the moment. The demand for MLS is growing, as there are cities lined up clamoring for franchises. The product on the field, meanwhile, continues to be somewhat muddled as the league still can’t figure out what it wants to be. Some of the most recent forays into big name foreign signings – guys like Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard – have proven to be massive wastes of money, but few clubs seem to be putting in due diligence in regards to figuring out the right sorts of players to be signing. The USSF also has a big mess on its hands in dealing with the Women’s National Team, who are now threatening to strike over equal pay and understandably so, seeing as how its they, and not the men, who are the brightest stars of the American game.

But then again, U.S. soccer has always been in a strange place. FIFA doesn’t like the U.S., but know they can’t get by without it, at this point. At a moment’s notice, FIFA knows they could move any tournament in the world to the U.S., hold the event there and have it be a massive success. And what other nation on earth serves as a de facto home field for another nation the way the U.S. does for Mexico, who pretty much exclusively play their home friendlies stateside? It’s a strange, strange place to be.

But I personally have always liked the fact that, on the world scale, the U.S. is an underdog in soccer. I like the fact that we’ve had to win people over, both on and off the pitch, and generally done so, be it through overachieving or through our loyal, enthusiastic, positive followers in the stands. I liked all of that, but you can still keep all of those characteristics while also improving on the pitch. I wanted to see USA FC get better and the bottom line is that it isn’t. And Klinsmann trivialized a lot of what has made American soccer good over the years. He demeaned it and belittled it, but in the end, wound up no better off than any of his predecessors. I don’t like seeing anyone lose their job, but that performance against Costa Rica was as abject as any I’ve seen from an American side in the last 30 years. We can do better than this.