#All of which were 100% true i failed at team sports equally as much as i thrived in karate/dance

[freebooter4ever]

Lol grandma mailed me more old photos so here's proof that i was clearly always a hipster with my terribly 80s patterned red dress and leggings (also the caption written on the back of this photo is 'laura with curled hair' because my stick straight hair being curled was a big deal). And on the right a shot of me in yellow with the white headband to hold back said straight hair looking taller than everyone else at that age in basketball. My dad's in the back probably looking on disapprovingly because I have the ball and am probably about to pass it instead of shoot it (the other girls liked shooting much more than me so i let them).

[a-crimson-lion]

Parallels, Parallels, Parallels

[We got a double hitter, fellas. For the sake of courtesy, you may want to leave if you don't like Bakugo bashing. Just a fair warning.]

Part 1: Kacchan and Deku

Like it or not, Horikoshi made it his mission to make sure that his protagonist Izuku and Katsuki had heaps of parallels.

For the most part, it's really prominent.

Katsuki acts as a foil for Izuku. He was born with a powerful quirk, Izuku was quirkless. He's loudmouthed and abrasive, Izuku's softspoken and understanding. He has no inate will to help people by default, Izuku will leap to the defense of an innocent person before he can think. The list goes on.

The best way it's highlighted is during the U.A. Entrance Exam: Katsuki gets in on only Villain Points. Izuku gets in on only Rescue Points.

On another note, Izuku and Katsuki both represent various aspects of luck and work. All Might once said something along the lines of "There are those who gain power through luck, and those who work to earn power. Know the difference." This fits some of the more prominent characteristics of Izuku and Katsuki.

Katsuki's Explosion quirk is essentially a very big play of luck. That's not to say he doesn't work hard, but the work he does accomplish is more for maintaining his high position, and less about going further beyond. Izuku is different. Getting One for All was incredibly lucky, but the work Izuku had to put in to obtain and control the quirk was definitely not just luck. He cleaned and entire beach just to get the quirk, and as of now, he only recently learned to control 8% of OFA, as well as 20% in short bursts and 100% without reprocussions when a small child is connected to him and actively reversing the damage. And said small child's quirk is a freak mutation, so someone has to stop her quirk to make sure Izuku isn't erased from existance when he isn't actively on the bone hurting juice.

Which brings me to my next point: going beyond.

There are only three major instances where we see Katsuki seriously push his limits (no, Howitzer Impact doesn't count because:

It's a super move.

By itself, it doesn't really result in major reprocussions.)

The first time we ever see something close to Katsuki reaching his limit is during the infamous Katsuki vs Ochako fight at the Sports Festival. Katsuki manages to pull off a gigantic explosion seemingly out of his ass, defeating Ochako and her well thought out plan at the cost of his arms starting to experience strain. The second instance is during the final exams, where Katsuki is trying (and failing) to take down All Might, even blasting past his gauntlets' safety precautions and going so far as to try and bite All Might's hand when he's out of stamina. The third notable occasion is at I-Island, where he pushes past his already reached limits in order to help take down the powered up Wolfram.

With the potential exception of the third example, there's nothing all that special about him pushing past his limits.

His motivation is just that he wants to win, end of story. He wanted to beat Ochako? BOOM, big explosion. He wanted to beat All Might? BOOM, big explosions, but he still fails (remember that the only reason he passed is because Izuku is selfless and came back for his sorry behind). I-Island is more of the same, but in that instance he's working towards a team goal, AND he's rooting for All Might, so admittably the circumstances are different.

So how does Izuku going beyond differ from Katsuki?

Well, unlike most shonen anime, when Izuku goes beyond, there are actual consequences. Izuku tries to save Katsuki from the sludge villain? Izuku gets scolded for being reckless (even though the Pros were just standing there, using quirks as an excuse while Katsuki was going trigger happy trying to free himself, and yet he gets praise). Izuku saves Ochako from the Zero Pointer? He breaks his legs and an arm, though he thankfully avoids being turned into a bloody pulp. Izuku tries to save Shoto from himself? He ends up permanently disfiguring his hand after he decides to go all out against Shoto, and eventually gets the incentive to learn what would later become Full Cowl. He wants to save Kota from Muscular? He screws his arms up so bad that he can no longer use them at full power unless he wants them to stop working altogether. The thing about Izuku going beyond is, aside from gaining consequences, he also gains something from the experience.

He got All Might's attention during the Sludge Villain Incident. Ochako saved him after saving her from the Zero Pointer, allowing both of them to pass and eventually leading up to Ochako becoming a close friend of Izuku. Shoto accepted his fire side, and Izuku eventually learned Full Cowl in order to stop breaking his bones as frequently. Kota stops hating heroes, and Izuku eventually teaches himself Shoot Style.

What does Katsuki get from his experiences? "Be stronger."

Which is terrible advice for someone in his position; the proper advice would be to "Be smarter." He should have lost his fight with Ochako and realized that big explosions won't always fix his problems. He should have fought All Might and realized halfway that defeating him would have been impossible, and thus (even reluctantly) decide to cooperate with Izuku. The I-Island incident is the only exception I'll give him, simply because his reasons for going beyond were slightly more noble than normal. And before you bring up Katsuki's quirk's limitations, remember that we didn't see those again until he was fighting ALL MIGHT, WITH HIS GEAR ON. He would have been toast sooner if he didn't have his gauntlets.

But hey, that's my personal opinion. What do I know?

Part 2: King Explosion Murder and Endeavor

Stop me if you've heard this one before: If Izuku equals All Might, then Katsuki equals Endeavor.

Unfortunately, that comparison isn't too far off.

Both of them are egotistical manics looking to surpass All Might (and in Katsuki's case, also Izuku) with powerful quirks and prominent positions of power. They also both have a tendency to use people to meet their own ends. Katsuki didn't give a crap about his fellow teammates during the Cavalry Battle, going off on his own multiple times and not even bothering to recall their names. In the manga, Mina even stated that Katsuki only picked her to counter Shoto's ice when the Cavalry Battle is over, and its been stated that Eijiro only got aboard Katsuki's team because he brought up "taking down Midoriya." This sounds awfully similar to Endeavor (or Enji Todoroki) using his wife Rei in order to "create" a perfect heir (Shoto) in order to surpass All Might.

They're also both sore winners. Shoto lost to Katsuki in the final round of the Sports Festival, and Katsuki has to be chained up because he refuses to accept the victory. Meanwhile, later in the series, Endeavor rages when he's given the position of Number One Hero because he's seen All Might's true form, and suddenly everything he's worked for is for naught, at least in his eyes. Katsuki and Enjialso tendend to be assholes to certain people in particular. Katsuki was (and still is) an asshole to Izuku because he was quirkless and therefore useless (and maybe to some extent, Katsuki feared Izuku's innate heroic nature, so he tried knocking him down to avoid future competition, even if, by Katsuki's words, Izuku wouldn't be competition because he didn't even have a crappy quirk). Endeavor was an asshole to Shoto, sending him through brutal training that no four year old should be subjected to, isolating him from the rest of his family, and driving his mother to insanity, leading to his iconic burn mark on his left side.

What really gets me infuriated about the both of them is how Horikoshi tries to parallel them with actually decent human beings, usually through their redemption arcs.

Katsuki has been compared to Izuku by All Might himself, stating that the two of them are both sides to the same coin: the saving hero, and the winning hero. This comparison would be fair IF Izuku wasn't already learning to be a winning hero (and being a saving hero by default) while Katsuki has yet to show a desire to save beyond his desire to win.

Meanwhile, Endeavor gets parallels to Shoto. "Earlyroki," as Shoto was often referred to by his peers after he opened up, was an ironic reflection of his father, only relying on his ice power in a nearly condescending manner, and also adopting his father's lone wolf attitude. Then there's the whole deal with Endeavor getting a scar on his left side to match Shoto. There's no being subtle with the symbolism.

Although, and this is an unpopular opinion, I do like some aspects of Katsuki and Enji's redemption arcs. For Enji, we're shown that even if he's seemingly willing to change his ways, not every person has to accept his attempt at reconnection. A bad person can turn a new leaf and people are allowed to still not trust them. We don't see this in Katsuki's redemption arc, since everyone is somehow in unanimous agreement that Katsuki didn't do anything seriously wrong. Even though he did. And that's infuriating, specifically for me. What Katsuki's arc IS doing right, is that he actually has the potential to change. He may have abused Izuku for well over a decade, but he's still a kid; he still has time to change, and the changes are starting to form, however subtle they may be. I wish they were less flip floppy in progress and that people in the fandom and in the series weren't exaggerating it so much, but we can't have everything. At least he's better than episode one Katsuki by a notable margin. Meanwhile, Endeavor's been stuck in his ways since he married Rei. He can still change, but his habits will be harder to remove since he didn't learn early on enough that his actions weren't exactly moral.

Well, that's my two cents. If you read it, hope you enjoyed.

-Crimson Lion (13 August 2019)

[caws5749]

This took SO LONG thanks @natthisback

1: Name Madison

2: Age 21

3: 3 fears spiders, not becoming a doctor, becoming like my parents

4: 3 things i love marvel movies, my blanket (whoops), and scrunchies

5: 4 turn ons compliment me, be chivalrous, (idk if this means sex turn on too or not but) moaning my n- ANYWHO uh and the last one definitely like showing you want me

6: 4 turn offs someone who only talks about themselves, being like wishy washy, being arrogant/cocky, complaining about the same things

7: my best friend that would be shea @cloversofshea

8: sexual orientation lesbian

9: my best first date okay SO this like isn’t a first date but it was my first like nicer dinner date so I’m gonna count it. It was just this past weekend actually and i just i loved it so much it was amazing

10: how tall am i 5’2

11: what do i miss honestly, feeling like i was good at things

12: what time were i born 11:14am

13: favorite color purple, although it’s slowly been turning to like a baby light pink

14: do i have a crush yes yes i do and i likes her a lot

15: favorite quote “Truth is a matter of circumstance. It’s not all things to all people all the time. And neither am I.”

16: favorite place Chicago or New York City

17: favorite food SALMON

18: do i use sarcasm yes, but i feel like i don’t use it as much as i used to

19: what am i listening to right now Christmas pop playlist on Spotify

20: first thing i notice in new person whether they only talk about themselves

21: shoe size 8 or 8.5

22: eye color blue

23: hair color right now, it’s a brown that goes to blond at my ends

24: favorite style of clothing so if this means like fav style to wear daily, definitely athleisure. If it means in general, i love love love preppy looks? But not super preppy.

25: ever done a prank call? Absolutely, many times

27: meaning behind my url i explain this in my about me page (linked in bio!)

28: favorite movie captain America winter soldier

29: favorite song i don’t really have favorite songs but rn it’s prob December night by Michael buble

30: favorite band i don’t really have fav bands

31: how i feel right now it’s really hot in here, so warm. I feel okay

32: someone i love i love lots of people but ill stick with @cloversofshea

33: my current relationship status I’ve answered this so many times literally just look at the ask game tag

34: my relationship with my parents um yikes

35: favorite holiday Halloween

36: tattoos and piercing i have i have 6 tattoos! “Breathe” on my right inner ankle, a heart on left shoulder, heart w equal sign in it behind right ear, basically an ecg on my left inner ankle, Aquarius symbol on right bicep, and caws 5749 on my left side. And my ears are pierced.

37: tattoos and piercing i want definitely the black widow symbol in the same place Scarlett got her og6 tattoo, an amino acid tattoo that spells out “wah” , definitely more little tattoos! And maybe more ear piercings idk

38: the reason i joined tumblr so, I’ve had a tumblr for many many years. I originally joined bc my best friends at the time had them, and i was like sure! Ive deleted that personal blog since, and started my new personal blog a few years ago. I also have a studyblr that i started i think back in high school, and i just started this blog back in the end of July!

39: do i and my last ex hate each other no, I’d say far from it bc i likes her a lot

40: do i ever get “good morning” or “good night” texts yes from her and i fucking love it, it used to be a bigger thing almost every day and i loved it

41: have i ever kissed the last person i texted lmao no and for those who were wondering it is @cloversofshea

42: when did i last hold hands LMAO WITH @michelinaamour WHEN I WAS STUMBLING HOME DRUNK IN HIGH HEELS

43: how long does it take me to get ready in the morning it depends, anywhere from ten minutes to an hour and a half

44: have you shaved your legs in the past three days no! I am super lucky and have really light colored hairs on my legs and so i dont’ have to shave very often. Also i just want to say that i personally love shaving my legs and it is my choice to do so.. girls, you do not need to shave!!

45: where am i right now so i started answering this in the research lab, but i am currently sitting at one of the dining places on campus finishing it

46: if i were drunk and can’t stand, who’s taking care of me LMAO DEFINITELY @michelinaamour because she’s done it ALREADY FOR ME MULTIPLE TIMES

47: do i like my music loud or at a reasonable level it depends, in car trips, definitely blast it. But just driving around or listening in doors, definitely reasonable level

48: do i live with my mom and dad nope i live with @michelinaamour

49: am i excited for anything yes, I’m excited for lots of things. I get excited easily

50: do i have someone of the opposite sex i can tell everything to no. I used to

51: how often do i wear a fake smile this is a really interesting question. I don’t consider smiles i give to random people like ordering food or something to be fake, so i would say fake smiles are when I’m not okay and trying to hide it. Which happens less often now bc I’m just much happier of a person

52: when was the last time i hugged someone I think it was @michelinaamour two days ago but i think i hugged @cloversofshea that day too so

53: what if the last person i kissed was kissing someone else right in front of me I’d be heartbroken tbh

54: is there anyone i trust even though i should not yes, certain adults in my life

55: what is something i disliked about today my hair won’t do what i want it to :(

56: if i could meet anyone on this earth who would it be probably Chris Evans or Scarlett Johansson

57: what do i think about the most tumblr and everything with that, or probably her or school stuff definitely

58: what’s my strangest talent i don’t think i have any lol

59: do i have any strange phobias yes definitely haha, I’m terrified of stepping on worms

60: do i prefer to be behind the camera or in front of it i think a few years ago i would have said behind, but honestly I think I’d love to be in front of the camera now

61: what was the last lie i told i actually don’t know. Maybe this past weekend as to like the fact that i was going out on a date instead of just going out with a friend

62: do i prefer talking on the phone or video chatting online I’d say talking on the phone bc then they cant’ see me lmao

63: do I believe in ghosts? How about aliens? Yes and yes

64: do i believe in magic? Yes, or at least, that’s what i tell myself

65: do i believe in luck yes

66: what’s the weather like right now snowy!

67: what was the last book I’ve ever read The Butchering Art, it’s about the history of surgery

68: do i like the smell of gasoline omg yes yes yes yes yes yes

69: do i have any nicknames yes, madz, madi, girl who lives by the kitchen, queen (a new one) and clown (also a new one) thanks @natthisback

70: what was the worst injury I’ve ever had back in freshman year of college, i did something stupid and my foot swelled up like hell and hurt so bad. There were no fractures detected but the swelling stayed for a really long time, as well as the bruising and pain, and it never returned to normal

71: do i spent my money or save it SPEND IT BABY

72: can i touch my nose w my tongue no I’m not that talented

73: is there anything pink in 10 ft from me. Hmm part of my backpack? And my rings are pinkish bc they are rose gold. Oh and my scrunchie is pink, as well as my iPad

74: favorite animal cat

75: what was i doing last night at 12am i was still at work In the emergency room!

76: what do i think satan’s last name is uh honestly Jim lmao (it’s demons Jim! @cloversofshea )

77: what’s a song that always makes me happy when i hear it so good by dove Cameron

78: how can you win my heart suggest we watch a marvel movie, and I’m prob straight up in love. There are other things too but they’re pretty general, like compliment me, show you want me ya know

79: what would i want to be written on my tombstone haha, as a joke, “so realy its very thing. Just to keep everyone guessing.” But idk something funny

80: what is my favorite word i have no idea, maybe like sophisticated or something like that or aesthetic , champagne is a good one too

81: my top 5 blogs on tumblr ooh! Okay so @markiplier @lesbian-deadpool @americasass-romanoff @lesbianmariahilll @shining-rey-of-sunshine but i love so so so so so many more, and i have a lot of top blogs

82: if the whole world were listening to me right now what would i say fuck trump also I’m gay as hell and I’m growing tired of hiding it from people

83: do i have any relatives in jail not that i know of

84: i accidentally eat some radioactive vegatables. They were good, and what’s even cooler is that they endow me with the super power of my choice! What is that power lmao this question is great. Prob same powers as Wanda

85: what would be a question I’d be afraid to tell the truth on any weird fetis- JUST KIDDING. Do you still think about them?

86: what is my current desktop picture so on my laptop, it’s fall flowers. But since that’s broken af, i use my iPad and that background is one of the apple ones. It’s just a beach idk why but I’ve never changed it

87: had sex WHY IS THIS IN EVERY SINGLE ASK GAME WTF

88: bought condoms nope i am gay as hell bye

89: gotten pregnant nope i am gay as hell bye

90: failed a class nope, definitely come close though

91: kissed a boy yes

92: kissed a girl yes

93: have i ever kissed somebody in th rain honestly, probably at some point, but I’ve never had one of those romantic kisses in the rain. I really really want to though and i think about it a lot

94: had job yeah, I’ve had three true jobs

95: left the house without my wallet probably

96: bullied someone on the internet no bc I’m not a fucking douche

97: had sex in public not yet

98: played on a sports team yeah, played softball and basketball in middle school

99: smoked weed yeah, but i didn’t get high

100: did drugs nope

101: smoked cigarettes nope, i think i asked drunk once if i could smoke, but my friend was like “really?” And i was like uhhhhhh just kidding haha

102: drank alcohol lmao i drink fucking all the time i mean. I literally have drunk writing nights , I’m drinking tonight too

103: am i a vegetarian/vegan i was a vegetarian for a while, and then an aspiring vegan, and then vegetarian, and then pescatarian now!

104: been overweight no

105: been underweight yes

106: been to a wedding yeah, but like not for a long time. I was like 4 and the flower girl. Oh WAIT. Does playing a wedding count? I played cello at a wedding so i was there???

107: been on the computer for 5 hours straight hell yeah, how would i function not doing this with class and relaxing

108: watched tv for 5 hours straight lmao definitely

109: been outside my home country yeah

110: gotten my heart broken yeah

111: been to a professional sports game yeah. I don’t really do sports though , so when i go it’s usually in suites and I’m just there for the food

112: broken a bone nope!

113: cut myself this is...a. Really deep question but bc i want to be able to speak about mental health on here, the answer is yes.

114: been to prom yes! I went to my junior and senior proms!

115: been in airplane too many times

116: fly by helicopter no, I’m not sure if i want to do this or not

117: what concerts have i been to I’ve been to lots. So first off, I’ve been to hundreds of classical concerts (and performed in them). As for pop, Bruno mars twice, maroon five like three times. Selena Gomez. Josh groban. American authors. Definitely others that i don’t remember

118: had a crush on someone of the same sex yes I’m fucking gay

119: learned another language so if this means fluent, no. I took a decent amount of French and am learning Russian right now!

120: wore make up absolutely. When i choose to wear makeup, its because i fuckign love makeup haha. Most days I’m lazy though and like to let my skin breathe and be natural

121: lost my virginity before I was 18 no

122: had oral sex yeah

123: dyed my hair many times

124: voted in a presidential election okay i think so but honestly can’t remember. But I’m pretty sure i did.

125: rode in an ambulance no and i never want to.

126: had a surgery no and i never want to haha. Well i cant say that. Depending on how my life plays out, I might freeze my eggs or something.

127: met someone famous yes, several I think, but probably Henry winkler was the one I remember most.

128: stalked someone on a social network yeah

129: peed outside nope don’t think so and definitely don’t want to

130: been fishing yes I have been ice fishing and regular fishing

131: helped w charity i have!

132: been rejected by a crush I’ve been not liked back but i don’t think I’ve ever made like a move on a crush and been rejected

133: broken a mirror ooh i don’t think i have actually

134: what do i want for birthday nothing bc i dont’ like my bday

[crystalracing]

My thoughts on the F1 Hybrid era 2014-present and a timeline of being a Kimi Raikkonen fanatic since 2002

My love-hate relationship with Formula 1 is very much at the Hate spectrum and it no longer feels fun. Those who read my social media accounts could easily mistake me for having the worldview of a 47 year old man, when in fact I’m 3 years short of 30. I see new school fans who only remember Raikkonen’s struggles and care little for his McLaren years, where even then misfortune lurked around the corner. There was one difference back then, however: Kimi was the new kid on the block. On any given Sunday, even after an average qualifying performance, the talismanic Finn could dazzle fans the world over. The vivid sound of a cacophonous V10 would scream in a global audience’s ears and a baby faced Finnish boy wonder from an impoverished Espoo countryside upbringing would leave a smile on millions of faces. F1 was in the midst of what seemed a never-ending Michael Schumacher/Ferrari led domination. Despite near-misses in 2003 and 2005, where the Finn took nine wins and two runners-up for the Woking-based squad in between numerous boozy nights and the beginning of a marriage to Jenni Dahlman, later doomed by the pair’s lack of commitment, bounty of love affairs and lack of mutual interests, the fans sang his praises. Fellow drivers such as Ralf Schumacher were left bemused by Kimi’s taciturn, carefree and single-minded demeanour, but the corporate sponsors found a sweet spot for the Finn: his apolitical attitude melded well to act as a figure of universal popularity- the shyness of a geek, the lackadaisical social standing of a class clown and the heart of a world class athlete. And I just couldn’t help but champion him.

The current hybrid engine formula for F1 is a mess: huge wings creating ridiculous amounts of dirty air, fat tyres, three DRS zones on a regular basis at most circuits, the fuel-saving and Pirelli’s SEVEN compounds of tyres- two of which will be not used meaningfully at all this year (Hard & SuperHard). In 2009, the teams followed a new formula with skinny wings, slick tyres and a banning of bodywork elements on the sidepods and places you wouldn’t expect an aerodynamic piece to hang off. Max Mosley also proposed a budget cap, which encourged Litespeed (Lotus/Caterham), Manor (Virgin/Marussia) and Campos (HRT) to join in 2010. Of course, in true F1 fashion, the FIA failed to follow up on such proposals to enforce budget caps and it’s only now with Liberty Media that an argument to enact a plan for cost cutting has been brought back. Sadly, the three 2010 teams were all gone by the end of 2012, 2014 and 2016 respectively. However, drivers moaned about the lack of driving challenge enforced and the subsequent bigger cars (followed by 2019 regs) begs the question: 

Does F1 have an identity anymore? Is it willing to stand up for a set of sporting and technical values? Because Jean Todt et al at FIA seem sidetracked and manipulated by the corporate bosses at FIAT, Daimler, OICA & Honda. 

In the decade of 2010s, only 11 drivers (Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Raikkonen, Bottas, Ricciardo, Verstappen, Maldonado, Webber, Rosberg & Button) have won a race despite 169 Grands Prix having taken place in this decade alone. That’s how truly uncompetitive the Pirelli era of F1 has been, especially compared to the 2000s, which had 17 different winners in 174 races. In fact, here’s a list of the past decades:

1950s- 24 different winners (87 races)/ 15 (77)* 1960s- 21 (100)/ 20 (99)* 1970s- 29 (144) 1980s- 21 (156) 1990s- 17 (162) 2000s- 17 (174) 2010s- 11 (169) (with 18 months still left to go!!!)**

*without Indianapolis 500

During 2014-16, Mercedes won 51 out of the 59 races. 2011-13 saw Red Bull win 32 out of 58 races. 

From 2010-18 (as of Belgium): Red Bull win 52 (out of 169 races). Mercedes win 72 (out of 169 races). Ferrari win 24 (out of 169 races). McLaren win 18 (out of 169 races). Lotus [now Renault] win 2 (out of 169 races). Williams win 1 (out of 169 races).

******

Now I find myself amongst insecure Sebastian Vettel fans, who I do feel genuinely sorry for: if Vettel wins with Kimi suffering issues, rival fans will point at possible favourable treatment. If Kimi gets close and threatens to beat Vettel, then rival fans will point at Vettel’s tendency to be just above-average in favourable conditions. After all, none of Sebastian’s 52 wins have never been won from outside the top 3 starting spots; whilst as recently as Hockenheim, title rival Hamilton finished on the top step of the rostrum from a P14 start. Much has been made of Vettel’s awful 2014 season, where his apparent inability to adjust to a car lacking rear-end downforce enforced by the new regulations (accompanied by the now-scorned new hybrids) was worsened by new team-mate Daniel Ricciardo outracing and outqualifying him. Once seen as invincible, despite Alonso’s best attempts in a clearly inferior Ferrari to interrupt his quadruple title-winning streak, Vettel had been well and truly humbled. Whilst he possesses a chirpy, charming personality, those nagging concerns over his tendency to crash out at crucial moments linger (2017 Singapore, 2018 France, 2018 Germany), whilst rival Lewis Hamilton (despite moaning more than Nick Kyrios in a tennis match) remains impervious under relentless pressure, having only lost in 2016 to his eternal rival Nico Rosberg (mostly thanks to struggling with a dodgy clutch biting point for race starts and that engine failure in Malaysia). Additionally, Kimi’s presence has reaffirmed a belief amongst rival fans that Vettel needs an obedient, passive number 2 alongside him, whilst Hamilton at the very least went head-to-head with two reigning world champs in Fernando Alonso and Jenson Button at McLaren and Rosberg, where equal number one status was mandated by Mercedes. Only twice Rosberg gave way to Hamilton: 2016 Monaco (partly due to brake issues, but possibly to atone for their first lap collision in the previous race in Spain) and 2013 Malaysia when Rosberg was told to hold station and let Hamilton take 3rd. However, it is arguable Mercedes’s sheer dominance between 2014-16 allowed them to enforce an equal driver policy with no serious threats from the opposition for either championships.

To further my claim, more bad news will come for Vettel fans when popular rookie Charles LeClerc joins Ferrari as his long-awaited team-mate: if Charles beats Seb, his time in F1 is likely to over before he turns 35 and his reputation smashed, whilst if Seb beats LeClerc, accusations of team-favoritism will re-emerge as quickly as they disappeared with Kimi’s retirement. It’s a lose-lose situation for Vettel fans, especially when you consider Fernando Alonso’s demise enforced by his own internal politics and poor career choices and Lewis Hamilton’s ability to exact the maximum out of a recalcitrant Mercedes, which has been de-crowned as F1′s fastest and best all-round chassis and engine package. To worsen matters, Kimi fans (including me) feel zero sympathy for anything that ever goes wrong for the German. Unfortunately, it does turn into hate and resentment, but only because we know what our Finnish man is capable of even in his declining years: fastest in FP1 and FP2 and fastest in Q1 and Q2 at Belgium 2018 with a record-breaking time of 1:41.501. Add to claims by Lewis Hamilton himself that Vettel has never beaten a team-mate in their “prime”: after outpacing journeymen Vitantonio Liuzzi and Sebastien Bourdais with ease, Mark Webber’s weight issues, advancing age, subsequent injuries and struggles with Pirellis handed the impetus to the Weltmeister. Followed by an infamous 2014 with the Honey Badger and a lengthy spell with a passive Raikkonen, it’s no wonder Vettel fans will easily attempt to deflect Ferrari's questionable treatment of Raikkonen to that of Mercedes’, Red Bull’s and even Toro Rosso’s treatment of Valtteri Bottas, Renault-bound Daniel Ricciardo and Brendon Hartley. 

Which is not to say they’re wrong, but their defensiveness is compounded by Ferrari’s historic preference for a hierarchal driver system (Schumacher & Barrichello at Austria 2002 & Alonso & Massa at Germany 2010 widely publicised), followed by recent events at Germany again this year (albeit with Jock Clear tentatively trying to make Kimi guess his cryptic message) is telling: they know Vettel has a peripheral place amongst the true greats of F1 thanks to years of Adrian Newey’s double diffuser Red Bull chassis and Renault’s V8 engine mapping system enabling Seb to play the role of the “Opening two laps” merchant. What I mean by that is his ability to create a gap of over one second within the first two laps in a standard 2010-13 race to stop the car in 2nd place from exploiting the DRS detection range against him, from which he then subsequently exploiting his car’s technical advantage to predictable perfection. Plus when you consider Lewis Hamilton’s misfortunes with McLaren, his existential crisis and a troubled relationship with ex Nicole Scherzinger and Raikkonen disappearing for two years to do WRC (and Kimi’s father slowly dying of alcoholism-related illness), it almost seemed 2010-13 was game, set and match for Seb despite occasional gremlins striking in 2010 and 2012.

I see F1 social media figures dismissing the suffering of Raikkonen fans, bemused at how thousands could be enchanted by an aloof old-school Finn, who regards journalists as vultures to be treated with well-justified caution. New school fans belittle Kimi fans, viewing them as holding a monotonous review of Raikkonen’s misfortunes and characterizing them as incapable of leaving the blame at the aging 2007 world champion’s feet, despite repeated strategy failures of a scarlet team saddled with an one-car team mentality. Bahrain saw Ferrari pit Vettel on a dangerous one stop strategy, where had it not been for a cautious Bottas, Vettel could’ve easily come 2nd, whilst Raikkonen would suffer the brunt of vicious social media abuse for stomping off to allow paramedics to tend to injured mechanic Francisco Cigarini after Ferrari failed to solve a crossthreaded wheelnut issue shared by sister team Haas; China saw Ferrari pit Vettel too late and resorting to exploiting Kimi as a road block; Baku saw the Scuderia bizarrely ignore Kimi’s dreadful pace on yellow soft compounds (yes, Kimi had indeed wrecked his last red supersofts in Q2), but then proceeded to place Vettel on the same yellow softs, which saw the German lose time to Bottas and forced Ferrari to resort to changing both cars to ultrasofts during an impromptu safety car period kicked off by the Red Bulls; whilst Hockenheim saw Ferrari absurdly miscalculate Kimi’s pace and end up with the Finn leading ahead of Vettel, followed by an awkward set of radio messages where the impatient Iceman forced the team to directly order him to let Vettel past. Subsequently, Ferrari’s shock at Vettel’s stadium crash and slowness to pit Kimi for new tyres (one lap too late!) during the SC period saw them lose a race they still could win with their “second” car, seemingly disheartened by Vettel’s blunder. Their gamble to split the strategy in Q3 for Belgium, leaving Kimi with less fuel than Vettel in the hope of quickly refuelling Kimi in the case of the rain easing (which it did) and you get the picture of a 38 year old left forlorn by a recalcitrant team hellbent on guessing their chess moves for car #7, but frightened into placing all their eggs in one basket for car #5. In a monotonous hybrid era filled with Pirelli control tyres, countless DRS zones that permit the top cars to overpower the midfielders and mindnumbing fuel saving, both Ferrari and Mercedes have isolated their Finnish wingmen to mere sideshows. 

In this social media age, I see a culture of outrage galore amongst the F1 community. With the fan base no longer proliferated over internet forums, instead it is centralised amongst Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Instagram, all of which provide more accessible platforms with user-friendly interfaces implemented, the need to find issues that don’t even exist is prevalent. The agonisingly rapid decline of F1′s spectacle has left fans increasingly tribalistic, with winning amongst those supporters of drivers in front-running cars the only source of satisfaction remaining. Unfortunately, I am now more Kimi-focused than I was in the mid-2000s: back then it wasn’t close to feeling like life and death if Kimi struggled (and boy, he had his bad moments then). I could easily applaud other drivers such as Jenson Button and Mark Webber when success came their way. I even supported Felipe Massa in his bid to win the 2008 World Championship, despite being at Kimi’s expense. But now seeing fans stirring up bile and provocation to humiliate reviled drivers leaves me feeling hollow. It makes me lust for the days when social media was not a thing; just myself sitting in the front of the couch watching ITV or BBC. But thanks to Sky and internet streaming, I find myself drawn to my laptop to avoid the increasingly jingoistic F1 TV presenters on Channel 4. The days of Jim Rosenthal, Tony Jardine, Steve Rider, the linguistically discombobulated Mark Blundell and Louise Goodman feel like another lifetime ago; the days before such partisan nonsense emerged with Lewis Hamilton. 

The trivialities have surpassed the main racing events, where transfer gossip and who-said-what is more entertaining. Salacious news about drivers’ private lives now seep through the paddock; asking drivers to sing silly songs and journalists wanting to be friends with the drivers and team personnel where everyone becomes too familiar. The loss of mystique and luster of a Grand Prix environment, where fans become too emotionally involved in events where they possess little power to truly influence and instead whine and cry when things inevitably fail. In the past, with no social media or mobile phones, you had to actively find local neighbours and tour race tracks to find your motor racing pals; now a “friend” is merely a follow button away on a major social media platform.

We now live in the era of “Trial by Social Media” where a truly overemotional or defamatory comment can be validated by a high number of likes, reposts, retweets and reactions.

To make matters worse, not only are tribal lines drawn along with teams and drivers, but debates such as Grid Girls and the Halo. Frankly, there are idiots on both sides of the debates for both issues, who believe they hold the moral high ground and act like they are holier than thou against those who disagree with them. So now only are the drivers, sponsors and teams competing against each other on the track, the press room and the pits, but the fans and journalists are competing against each other for social media brownie points! Strawman anyone with any ridiculous quote and you’ll win! (Of course Kimi Raikkonen fans too are susceptible to nonsense comments. Social media unleashes your emotional rambling at any given moment). But in lieu, one thing about Charles LeClerc’s accident at Belgium stuck out and that was the journalists going on rambling lectures about how the Halo certainly saved his life, despite a lack of any scientific research concluded to prove the Halo actually stopped the McLaren of Fernando Alonso even making the slightest contact with LeClerc’s helmet. The extreme moralistic beating dished out to the viewing audience over the Halo and Grid Girls is jarring. Plus constant gimmicky sideshow jokes from WTF1 and their obnoxious jokes of “That’s Radillon, actually,” which carry no punchline and have already been brow-beaten to death by its strange following. (I know, not entirely related, but I needed to fit a bit about that dogshite WTF1).

F1, along with other motorsport series, has banged about attracting millennials and Gen Zs, but honestly at this point it is literally about as far from cool or hip as you can get.

In addition, I fell out with one truly moronic member of Lewis’ fans: a man with the most conflicting and contradictory political views I’ve ever seen (he reacts to political events and what celebrities say on a whim) and an inability to judge drivers properly at all. A man who was distraught at the idiotic outrage at Lewis Hamilton’s “Boys Don’t Wear Dresses” joke, which was clearly showing Hamilton mocking old conservatives who would demand strict gender roles at all costs. I openly wrote a tweet defending Lewis and comforted his fan via a reply to one of their tweets. But when Raikkonen stormed off after his Bahrain pit stop debacle, this same Lewis fan joined in the outrage mob when everyone called Kimi something around the lines of being a crap human being. I had to block/unblock him simply to avoid verbally abusing him and having my account suspended, as he used his reasoning of excusing of Logan Paul (a bell-end who misused the Japanese’s accommodating nature to insult their culture and deliberately walk into a suicide forest for his own attention seeking sick nonsense and despite having a prejudicial view of East Asians, now has a Hapa girlfriend in Chloe Bennet) to justify roasting Kimi. I’m sorry, but just because you failed to understand the lack of morality in one certain vile human, so you then pick on a softer target who never intended to provoke controversy, is the act of a weak, cowardly and dumb individual.

It must be remembered how badly Kimi was treated in 2008, where Massa gained the upperhand for Ferrari in this article:

Why Kimi was not on top of his game in 2008 by wrcva

https://f1bias.com/2012/04/05/truth-about-kimi-ferrari-santander-2008/

But enough of that, I want to talk the glorious past in my rose-tinted glasses: how I began my life as a bonafide Formula 1 fan.

I started watching the sport in 2002 with a wide-eyed approach due to being 11 years old. Whilst it was in the midst of a Michael Schumacher/Ferrari dominated time span, I had hope his monopoly of victories and championships would end. Mika Hakkinen had retired and in his place came a fellow Finn, Kimi Raikkonen. I was unable to articulate what attracted me to become a Kimi fan, as I initially chose to support Ralf Schumacher, Giancarlo Fisichella & Alex Yoong (!). Whilst I came to cease my backing of Ralf and the hopeless Yoong, I struck by curiosity to the Iceman when I witnessed the 22 year old firmly plant his foot flat through the Kemmel Straight in Spa-Francorchamps, blinded by a heavy plume emitted by Olivier Panis’ stricken BAR-Honda (some things never change!) Through reading a 2002 ITV F1 Guide book, which now lies battered and almost shredded, its description was one of a rebel and a selfish Espoo native, who had lucked his way into the McLaren #4 seat at the expense of his supposedly more deserving Sauber team-mate Nick Heidfeld. That initally turned me against Kimi, believing he had a silver spoon in a figurative sense, but an astonishing drive to P2 in 2002 Belgian GP qualifying, followed by an outrageous rear end save on Sunday began to sway my stubbornness. It proved his storming drive in France to P2 (which he lost the lead in the later stages thanks to running on Allan McNish’s Toyota engine oil) earlier that year was no fluke in a season blighted by major reliability issues, which saw the Finn retire from 11 out of the 17 races held in 2002. That year saw Kimi pick up his maiden podium and fastest lap in Australia and four podiums, plus Raikkonen outqualified elder team-mate David Coulthard an impressive 10-7. Sadly, the mechanical failures would prove a harbinger of what overshadow Kimi’s time at Woking.

2003 would see Macca continue its MP4-17 chassis in a D specification, with plans to introduce the MP4-18 in Canada. A rapid change in FIA sporting regulations (plus a promised abandonment of traction control from Silverstone onwards) was enacted, as the sport’s owners unanimously agreed that F1′s appeal would fade if a certain scarlet team’s monotonous accumulation of wins was not at least curbed in the slightest. Melbourne qualifying, in its new one-lap shootout format with two sessions split between Friday and Saturday, ended with a predictable Ferrari one-two of Schumacher followed by obedient no.2 Rubens Barrichello (or Bwoahrrichello). The new qualifying regulations stipulated cars to carry the race fuel and tyres they’d start with throughout their Saturday qualifying single-lap run, which left the heavily fueled McLarens of DC & Kimi in P11 and P15. On race day, the heavens opened and the track was damp at the start. Raikkonen pitted for dries on the formation lap, so he had to encounter the early laps with caution as the field eventually copied the Finn’s switch to grooved tyres (remember those?) during the early laps of the race. Lap 17 saw the Iceman grab the lead, which he would hold until lap 32, where a drive-thru penalty was administered to the Finn for speeding in the pits. Later a wheel-to-wheel encounter between Schumacher and Raikkonen saw the German lose his bargeboards and Juan Pablo Montoya threw away an improbable 2nd career win on lap 48 with an inexplicable spin. Coulthard flew past for what would be a 13th & final career victory; Montoya took 2nd and Kimi clinched 3rd ahead of a frustrated Schumacher limping in 4th. The race craft was present in the Espoo native’s driving, but the consistency and legendary race pace would appear in the next race in Malaysia. Sepang saw Kimi start an average 7th, but drama at the start delivered the Finn a lucky break. Schumacher lunged at Jarno Trulli’s Renault in a mistimed maneuver and the Italian’s young team-mate Fernando Alonso led, albeit held up the field after taking a fortuitous pole in a Renault qualifying 1-2 abetted by a light fuel strategy. It was all the impressive as the Spaniard was carrying the flu, but after Raikkonen made light work of Heidfeld to grab second, McLaren’s tyre durability and heavy fuel strategy allowed the Finn to overtake Alonso in the pit stops and beat Barrichello’s 2002 all-conquering Ferrari by 39 seconds. Many participants had melted in the sweltering southeastern Asian humidity, but the Iceman had arrived and an impressionable 12 year old had found a new hero.

The 2003 saw Kimi miraculously remain active in a title fight in a two-year old chassis, which was never replaced due to the MP4-18′s dreadful manufacturing structure. Ferrari’s new F2003-GA was revealed in Barcelona, the fifth round of the championship, but Schu would only beat the Spanish local hero Alonso by 5.7 seconds. The youthful zest of Kimi saw him over-commit in turn 7 on his Saturday Q lap, sending him to the back of the grid. Pizzonia stalled on the grid for the start on raceday and Raikkonen hit him unsighted. Along with another spin in Canada Q2 and a subsequent puncture in the race, Kimi toiled to P6 and lost the championship lead to the mighty Red Baron, a lead he would never recover. The following Grand Prix saw Kimi, though, take his maiden pole position in Q2; despite not taking an overall fastest sector time on the Nurburgring circuit, the 23 year old Finn clocked a 1:31.523 with race fuel aboard; his Friday Q1 lap was a dazzling 1:29.989, just 0.08 slower than Montoya’s 2002 pole lap. Race day saw the Finn storm into a nine-second cushion over Ralf and everything went as planned in his scheduled pit stop on lap 16. In spite of having regained the lead, lap 25 disaster struck: a Mercedes-Benz engine failure. The sound of the V10s rang around the historic Rhineland venue from all cars but one: car no #6. For the first time in my twelve years, a sudden rage of anger engulfed me. 

The rest of season saw Raikkonen accumulate 2nd places regularly, but the aging MP4-17 and adequate Mercedes power unit lacking the potency Kimi required to challenge the emerging Williams-BMW FW25s, followed by a resurgent Schumacher, whose Ferrari had been limited by a batch of Bridgestone tyres which struggled mid-summer, as its French counterpart Michelin found a upper hand for the first time since its return to F1 in 2003. Hungary saw Michael humiliated as a gallant Alonso took pole and lapped the five-time world champion around the tight confines of a circuit colloquially referred to as “Monaco without the barriers”. After being stuck behind Mark Webber’s Jaguar before the initial pit stops, Raikkonen took a steady 2nd albeit 17 seconds behind Spain’s debut F1 race victor. 13 races down with 3 races left saw the championship reading Schumacher 1st with 72 points, Montoya 71 points and the young Kimster 70 points, somehow punching above his car’s weight despite losing further points in a first lap collision in Hockenheim in the previous round. Team-mate Coulthard, meanwhile, was floundering in 7th place with just 45 points in a season where many British commentators had declared 2003 as make-or-break for the Scotsman. But the scheming Maranello boys were working overtime to study the rulebook, where they found Michelin’s front tyres had expanded to 283mm rather than the stipulated 270mm. Whatever performance loss Michelin had suffered in remolding their compounds remains unknown to this day, but Monza came and McLaren had capitulated in their battle to get the MP4-18 into race trim. Schumacher won for the first time in front the raucous Tifosi since Canada, Montoya took 2nd and Barrichelllo nipped into 3rd. Kimi took 4th with a MP4-17D that was at the end of its development cycle. Despite heading to Indianapolis with a seven point deficit, Raikkonen took a valiant pole and took a solid lead until the rain came. Fellow championship contender Montoya screwed up massively by turfing Barrichello into the gravel trap at Turn 2 on lap 3 and his subsequent drive-through penalty brought his driver’s championship challenge prematurely. The Michelin wet compounds were no match for Ferrari’s Bridgestone wets, which had a decisive advantage, leaving Raikkonen struggling in fourth when the track dried and mathematically out of title contention.

Thankfully the Indy circuit dried swiftly when the downpour seized and Kimi stormed past Jenson Button’s BAR, which had been leading for 15 laps (!) and elder statesman Heinz-Harald Frentzen, who was driving his penultimate race for the fabled Sauber squad. 2nd was the end result for the Iceman, who headed to Suzuka on a nine-point deficit to a prospective sextuple world champion. Only a win for the McLaren driver and a failure to finish in the top 8 for the Red Baron would suffice in making Kimi what would have been then F1′s youngest world champion, just five days short of his 24th birthday. A late downpour left Schumacher down in 14th in Q2, whilst Raikkonen took a mediocre P8 with Coulthard alongside him. Race day saw Montoya (whose Williams team still had a chance for the constructors’ title) and Alonso launch into an early 1-2, only to retire as quickly as they had surged into those positions. Barrichello controlled the Japanese GP as if he had been Ferrari’s team leader, whilst Maranello’s contracted lead driver carved his way through midfield like he’d been staggering through a hangover after having drank a crate of beer, with collisions with brother Ralf et al. Dutiful team-mate Coulthard fell behind in the pit stops to allow Kimi to run in 2nd in the hopes of an unlikely mechanical failure to Rubens and Michael to stutter, but neither happened. Schumacher, frantically wiping his heavily oiled helmet and clearly unaccustomed to tackling midfield cars for position, somehow fought into P8 and won his record-breaking 6th world championship in the most uncharacteristically clumsy manner. 

Raikkonen lost the championship by just two points (91 to Michael’s 93), but the new points system of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 8 (instead of the top 6) proposed by guileless Irishman Eddie Jordan had aided the Finn’s unlikely challenge. Under the former 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, Schumacher would have won the title at Indy with a round to spare and Jordan would have take 5th in the constructors’ largely thanks to Fisichella’s unexpected win at Interlagos (where only the intermediate compound was taken due an idiotic new rule to limit teams to one wet weather tyre choice), but Eddie’s boys were left in 9th out of 10th. 2003 was a step towards the changing of the guard, although whilst the grandmaster held onto his crown by the tip of his tongue, the likes of BAR (later Honda, Brawn & now the mighty Mercedes), Renault, Jaguar (now Red Bull) & Toyota had taken major leaps forward and BMW impressed with their engine’s driveability and outright top end power, but let down by the Williams’ poor strategic planning and a mercurial driving duo of Ralf and JPM. Jordan, having won two races and finished 3rd in the constructors’ in 1999 and challenged for the drivers’ title with the now-retired Frentzen and a dynamite Mugen-Honda power unit, had slipped down 6 places the F1′s pecking order in just four years thanks to a lack of investment, as F1′s emerging manufacturer era was in a full swing.

2004 saw Schumacher and Ferrari regain their full-time dominance of F1. Mercedes’ reliability was tragic; Raikkonen retired from 5 of the first 7 races with engine maladies thanks to F1′s new engine rules which mandated power units lasted for an entire race weekend or force drivers to take a ten-grid place penalty, something the Finn became familiar with. Schumacher equaled Mansell’s record of 5 wins from the opening 5 races of a season, whilst Jenson Button emerged as a genuine contender, having taken his maiden podium at Sepang where he held off Barrichello in the closing laps. Elsewhere, Jarno Trulli was beating Fernando Alonso, who seemed rather erratic and possibly complacent after his promising 2003 season (sounds a lot like a young Dutchman in 2018, whose father drove his last season with the lowly Minardi team in a damp whimper). Trulli broke Schumi’s winning run with his sole career win at Monte Carlo, where Alonso crashed after running wide trying to pass Ralf’s misfiring Williams and the infamous collision between embittered enemies Schumacher and Montoya, both incidents occurring in the Tunnel section. However, Trulli’s Renault honeymoon would eruptively hit freefall, culminating in his embarrassing concession of the final podium spot at Magny-Cours where Alonso had taken pole and looked a likely victor until Ross Brawn’s ingenuous four-stop strategy for Schu’s car scuppered a second career win for the Spaniard. Michael proceeded to win 12 of 2004′s first 13 Grands Prix, whilst McLaren built a new B chassis. Then came Spa and the start of the King of Spa legend.

Raikkonen qualified an unimpressive P10 in mixed conditions. The two Renaults took 1-3 split by Schumacher, who was looking to take his 7th drivers’ crown. Race day arrived and despite Trulli/Alonso leading the first quarter of the race, engine troubles for Fernando and an early pit stop paved the way for Kimi to gain control of the race, after surviving the first lap carnage from the backmarkers.  Daily Express editor Bob McKenzie, who had pledged that he would run naked around Silverstone if McLaren won a race in 2004, honoured his deed at the following year’s British GP in front of cackling Raikkonen and a smug Ron Dennis. 

Jarno Trulli would later become the first of a long list of team-mates mysteriously screwed over by having Fernando Alonso as his driving partner (Fisichella, Piquet Jr, Massa, Raikkonen, Vandoorne spring to mind anyone?), whilst McLaren announced the arrival of Colombian firecracker Montoya to join icecool Kimbo for 2005. An early tennis (!) accident sidelined Monty and early setup issues meant the potential of the MP4-20 had been withheld in the flyaway openers, but Imola saw Kimi sprinting out of the gates. A dominant pole pointed towards to an emphatic Kimi win, but race day saw his CV joint fail after just 8 laps. Wins at Barcelona and Monaco brought the Iceman into title contention, but he lagged 22 points behind fast starting Alonso. Then Nurburgring came, the scene of heartbreak just a couple of years prior. Raikkonen, having come off a run of leading 160+ consecutive laps, look set for a third straight win but he flatspotted his tyre whilst lapping Jacques Villeneuve and a subsequent vibration saw the McLaren’s suspension explode on the very final lap. Alonso, driving at 70% his car’s potential clinched an easy win ahead of Nick Heidfeld (who would never win a F1 race), increased his lead to 32 points. Point blank no. 3 for Mr. Raikkonen of 2005, who was now 32 points down on the 23 year old Spaniard. With the engine regs tightened to a power unit life of two full weekends, predictably Mercedes would suffer issues in the practice sessions in France, Britain and Italy, the last of which Kimi astonishing set the fastest qualifying lap but was forced to start 10 places lower. Raikkonen took 19 points in those three weekends combined, whilst Alonso grabbed 26. Add in Montoya’s lack of concentration whilst lapping backmarkers (Monteiro in Turkey and Pizzonia in Belgium) and another mechanical failure at the Hockenheimring, it meant Kimi never could truly chip away at Alonso’s advantage, which remained sub-30 points. It set the Spaniard up to become F1′s then-youngest champion in Brazil, where McLaren didn’t even bother asking Montoya to concede the race lead to Raikkonen as it was so obvious Alonso would keep hold the 3rd place he required to be crowned in Interlagos. 

Suzuka 2005. Kimi’s greatest race. Started P17 after a washed-out qualifying. It was astonishing race in a season where only one compound of tyre was permitted for all drivers, culminating in the Indy-gate farce where all Michelin-shod cars withdrew due to safety fears of tyre exploding around the oval section at turn 13. However, despite Alonso and Schumacher joining the Finn near the back, there was still a constructor’s championship to be won for McLaren thanks to nine race wins thus far. The quality of overtakes was pure as there could be: Alonso’s ace manoeuvre on aging Schumacher at 130R is still highly-regarded by his own fans, but his victory chances was wrecked by race control ordering him to drop 13 seconds to let Christien Klien’s Red Bull after an illegal overtake under yellow flags. Montoya crashed out on lap one after a ludicrous entanglement with another aging fart, this time Jacques Villeneuve in an underfunded Sauber. Giancarlo Fisichella led the race comfortably after Ralf Schumacher pitted absurdly early for fuel in a blatant publicity stunt by Toyota to grab headlines of a home pole position for media value. However, despite a 20 second gap having been built him and Raikkonen, the Finn relentlessly decimated the midfield runners with no DRS or gizmo nonsense (traction control aside) and with five laps to go, Kimi peered into Fisi’s mirrors. On every approach to the Casino chicane in the final lap, the beleaguered Renault driver kept resorting to holding a tight line, leaving his exit compromised and gradually more vulnerable to Raikkonen closing up on him to size up a move into Turn 1. This was possible despite Kimi having to ease off the throttle in 130R due to oppressive dirty air turbulence of the mid-2000s chassis; but yet come the penultimate lap, the impossible had become the inevitable. Fisichella inexplicably, possibly wilting due to an inability to pump consistently fast lap times which were became sadly more common in his later decline, again took a tight inside line into Casino Sqaure chicane despite being a tough spot for cars in behind to lunge forwards to make an overtake. His Renault squirmed with his tyres burning out from his overly-defensive driving and Kimi pounced. Giancarlo wiggled to the inside line across the start-finish straight (and almost touched the pit wall!), but was powerless to stop Kimi overtaking around the outside of Turn 1 on the final lap.

2006 was Kimi’s final year at McLaren. With Schumacher revitalised in his hunt for title no.8, BMW having taken ownership of Sauber, Williams now an independent team, Red Bull very much a thing, Jordan having become a second-hand shed for billionaire investors to pump-and-dump at whim until Vijay Mallya saved them at the end of 2007 and BAR fully sold into the Honda’s shares thanks to the European Union banning of tobacco sponsorship- something which has starved racing teams and youngsters of much-needed funding- F1 was changing again. Michael Schumacher was now 37 and Felipe Massa had replaced Rubens Barrichello as his right-hand man. Raikkonen had now grown tired and appeared increasingly soporific with McLaren’s reliability being worse than any other down the pitlane. With the joint worst retirement and reliability record with equally luckless Mark Webber, Maranello had seen a wonderful opportunity to snap a disgruntled Finn, who had been declared “Ferrari’s next world champion” in a F1 Racing Magazine in 2001. Luca di Montezemelo laid an ultimatum with Schumacher: the German would have to drive alongside Kimi Raikkonen as Ferrari team-mate in 2007 or retire. Michael chose the latter option in an emotional post-race reception at Monza and the rest they say is history.

*****

Despite of all this, seeing Kimi’s heartbreak in the hybrid era and his changed attitude as a father-of-two has endeared me to him far more than I ever did in my teenage years. I can see he is more focused than ever and he’s a better man than he was ten years ago. If I saw lose then, I wasn’t as bothered as much then as I am now (and yes, the passion of being a hardcore Kimi fan boy is burning me out).

[junker-town]

A Champions League guide for Americans who don’t watch soccer

The Champions League final has more intrigue than ever for American fans.

The biggest sporting event in the world this year is on Saturday. I know what you’re thinking: That’s impossible, the Super Bowl is in February, you idiot!

Look, I know what you mean. The Super Bowl IS a really big deal, especially in the United States where about 100 million people tune in. Worldwide, that number is usually about 150 million, which is definitely A LOT of people.

No, I’m actually talking about the Champions League Final, the biggest annual event in global sports. While the U.S. audience for Europe’s annual club soccer championship game is only about 3-4 million between English and Spanish coverage, worldwide that audience balloons to closer to 400 million (which is actually about 100 million fewer people than tune in for the World Cup final every four years).

I bring this up not to convince you that soccer is actually really cool, but more of a way to give you some ammunition to impress your friends at the next tailgate.

And if you’re the kind of person who’s into that sort of thing, you may be even more interested in this Champions League final than normal. That’s because there are some legitimate reasons American sports fans should care.

Here’s everything you’ll need to know:

Who’s playing?

Two of the richest and most valuable teams in the world: Manchester City and Chelsea. Both play their domestic games in the English Premier League and are considered “new money” clubs. In England where basically every team is more than 100 years old, that just means they’ve played in the lower leagues — that’s due to the whole promotion and relegation thing you’ve probably heard about at some point — recently enough that some of their fans actually remember it. Insanely rich people have since bought the clubs and turned them into wealthy behemoths.

Forbes ranked City the 13th ($4 billion) and Chelsea the 25th ($3.2B) most valuable sports clubs in the world, right there with the biggest NFL, NBA and MLB teams.

Both teams supposedly spent nearly $400 million on salaries in the 2020-21 season and the estimated market value of their rosters is right around $1 billion each.

How can anyone afford that?

The wealth of their ownerships is hard to overstate. Chelsea is owned by Russian oil oligarch Roman Abramovich, whose net worth is estimated at about $15 billion.

He’s actually the less well-heeled of the two. City is owned Sheikh Mansour, who is effectively a stand-in for the United Arab Emirates. His family’s estimated net worth is more than $1 trillion.

Wow, that’s so much money! They must dominate this sport, right?

Eh, not really. While Chelsea previously won the Champions League in 2011-12, this is only their third-ever trip to the final and their first since winning it. They just barely finished fourth in the EPL this year, which means they qualified for next year’s tournament by skin of their teeth. Although City is coming off their third EPL title in four years, this is the first time they’ve ever qualified for the Champions League final. When Mansour bought City in 2008, it was with the express goal of winning Champions League, and after several notable flops the club is now on the precipice.

All that money must buy them some exciting players.

It’s true, both teams have plenty of talent but neither has the sort of worldwide superstar that the casual sports fan probably knows. Leading the line for City are players like İlkay Gündoğan, Raheem Sterling and Kevin De Bruyne. Chelsea’s top scorers are Jorginho, Mason Mount, Timo Werner and Tammy Abraham. All exceptionally good players, but even your buddy from college who started following Barcelona after his semester abroad in Spain probably can’t give you much of a scouting report on any of them.

Can you, uh, give me a scouting report?

This is not meant to be a technical column but I see you’re now getting invested, so here goes: Chelsea actually fired their coach — genuine club legend Frank Lampard — earlier this year after spending an ungodly amount on transfers for new players. Almost all that money was spent on attacking players, but their defense is really why they’re here. The Blues have only given up four goals during their entire Champions League campaign, an average of .33 per game. They allowed the second fewest goals in Premier League play, too.

The player who probably best encapsulates Chelsea is Timo Werner, one of those expensive offseason transfers. He’s extremely fast and has moments of absolute brilliance, but also has a rather hilarious penchant for missing seemingly easy shots.

City is a bit more free-flowing, albeit with an equally stout defense. Pep Guardiola is considered one of soccer’s technical geniuses and while they don’t have one big scorer, De Bruyne is one of the smoothest players in the world and a playmaking dynamo. He’s got 10 goals and 18 assists in all his games this year. City led the EPL in scoring, averaged more than two goals a game in Champions League and have outscored their opponents by 90 goals across all competitions this year.

In case you haven’t gathered, City are definitely the favorites to win this, even if Chelsea has won two of three previous meetings this year.

Any notable Americans involved?

Actually, both teams have one! Zack Steffen is a backup goalkeeper for City and even made seven starts across the various competitions this year, including one in Champions League. He’s probably the USMNT’s starting goalkeeper for the foreseeable future.

Chelsea has arguably the best American player in Christian Pulisic, who has six goals and four assists across all competitions this year. Pulisic had a goal and an assist in the Champions League semifinals, becoming the first American to do either that late in the tournament.

One of them will become the first-ever American to win Champions League.

Wait, aren’t Americans bad at soccer?

I get it, the last time you heard about U.S. Soccer it was probably because they failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup ... or maybe it was earlier this year when they missed out on the upcoming Olympics. But we’re actually in the midst of what’s either promising to be a golden generation for American soccer players or the start of the long-promised era of global competence.

That belief is mostly grounded in Americans’ success in European clubs. Steffen was the first American to earn a Premier League medal and combined with Pulisic marks the first time two USMNT players both finished in the top 4. There were six USMNT players who played in the Premier League this year, the most ever (h/t @paulcarr).

Beyond England, Americans were starting for some of the world’s biggest clubs like Barcelona and Juventus; won four league titles; claimed six domestic cups; and every team in the Bundesliga seems to have at least one player repping the red, white and blue. That friend of yours who won’t shut up about his semester abroad is probably going to become even more insufferable, but now you might at least know what he’s talking about.

OK, when is the game?

It’s scheduled to kick off at 3 p.m. ET, on Saturday.

How can I watch it?

CBS just acquired the English-language rights and will be airing it on broadcast channels. It can also be streamed through Paramount+ or on FuboTV. If you’re more interested in hearing the Spanish call, TUDN will have that.

Anything notable about the broadcast?

Well, if you know anything about American soccer, you probably know about Clint Dempsey. He was the first legitimate American attacking star to play in England, tied Landon Donovan for the most goals scored for the United States men’s national team and then retired in 2018. He kinda fell off the face of the earth after retiring to North Carolina, but recently surfaced for a lengthy podcast interview with some former teammates. About a week later, it was announced he’d be one of the studio analysts for this game. He’s always had a reputation for being someone who doesn’t really care what others think of him, so this definitely has the potential to be interesting.

Who should I root for?

Good question, here’s our bloggers’ pitches:

Crowning achievement for City: “Manchester City is worth rooting for because you are someone who appreciates greatness. We are witnessing one of the greatest managers of all time re-invent himself at City. From the centurion Premier League champs (they claimed 100 points in 2018-19) to being the first side to win all four domestic cups, Pep Guardiola has done nearly all at City. The only thing missing is a UCL trophy. This UCL Final is the culmination of a dream from fans, Pep, the players and ownership. Root for greatness.” - Saul Garcia, Bitter and Blue

Because somehow Chelsea are the lovable underdogs: “Chelsea are the underdogs here, even if we did deny City one trophy already this season in the FA Cup. We also have the most adorable footballer in the world, N’Golo Kanté, who happens to be one of the very best as well. And why would you ever want to root against him?” - David Pasztor, We Ain’t Got No History

[terriblesportsimagines]

Hello! I just found your blog and I have binged read so much of your work lol. They are really good! And boy am I glad you do ES21, may I have relationship HC with kakei, hiruma, shin, and takeru with smol SO?

Kakei Shun

I did relationship headcanons for him waaaay back Here , however,I will do a few more, accounting for the smol

Would probably love you if you were not so smol, and indeed,there are times when you being so tiny was a little bit of a hindrance – ie whenhe loses you a crowd. 

The height difference is legit ridiculous, since he iscanonically one of the tallest in the series.  At 6’3 there are timespeople mistake you for his little sister, which never fails to make you break downinto a fit of giggles.

While he could totally abuse the size differential, hedoesn’t.  He doesn’t pick you up needlessly or move you around, trustingyou to do that yourself.  He’s always there to grab things from a highplace for you, but that’s about it. 

He does like it when you sit in his lap or drape yourselfacross him if the two of you are lying somewhere though.  It’s hisfavorite way to watch tv, if he has to do so.  He stretches out across thecouch and then pulls you down on top of him so that you are resting on hischest and he can run his fingers through your hair.

Hiruma Youichi

Your size means little to him, except as a means to make iteasier to manipulate or tease you

He enjoys looking down on you, which spikes yourfury, which of course, in turn, makes him do it more.  He likes it bestwhen you try to fight with him.  Thinks it is hella adorable and way tooentertaining.

God help the person who isn’t him that comments on your sizethough.  This kid is 100% ready to fight if anyone looks down or insultsyou.  Threat book activate!

Your being pretty small is kind of helpful though, becauseit means you don’t get in the way when he does things.  He can have you inhis lap and still do whatever he wants to and that’s a bonus in his book,because despite the fact that his tongue would burn to say so, he likes havingyou with him and in reach at all times.

As a boyfriend he can be pretty frustrating, because hishobbies (read: football) are all encompassing on his attention.  Plus, he neverreveals his true feelings and wears a mask 100% of the time.  You betterget good at reading between the lines and seeing beyond the kekekes.

But he’s unexpectedly sweet in his own way.  He looksout for you, makes sure you have everything you need.  His attention todetail is insane so he always knows, sometimes before you do.  Youare always somewhere in his mind, even if he’s focused on other things.

Don’t think you’re going to be immune to his threats orteasing though.  He will make you crazy, and on purpose. Being with Hiruma is like an adventure ride, a spontaneous, insane one whereyou never know what he’ll do.

Not big on PDA, like at all.  Don’t even try, or you’llend up hurt, because he will be cold and will push you away.  Butif you are alone, he will kiss you all you like, as long as he’s not busy, andhis mouth can do terrible and wonderful things to you.

Shin Seijuro

Let’s face it, you’re going to have to put like 90% of theeffort into this relationship.  Not because he doesn’t care about you, hereally does, it’s just he gets hyper focused on football, to the exclusion ofliterally everything else.  If you are busy, there are days when Sakurabahas to remind him that he has a s/o and that he might want to contact them.

Despite this, he is strangely possessive.  Like if heactually lets himself think about it, he’s a little insecure about yourrelationship, mostly because he doesn’t really know how to be a good boyfriendand messes up constantly.  So when other guys (and it’s guys specifically)hover around you, he gets irritated.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t reallyrealize why.

He seems bigger than he is somehow, but really, he’sactually not that tall, so secretly appreciates how small you are.  He’sworked hard to dominate in his sport, but always thinks he can be betterconditioned.  He’s big in other ways than height thought – breadth forinstance, because there isn’t an inch of him that isn’t covered in thicklycorded muscle.  Thus, he still dwarfs you.

Other than the convenience of it, he doesn’t even see yoursize.  You are you, and he loves you, regardless of your size.  Hesees everything through movement and body shape, and yours signifies you

Since he makes only minor attempt to be current as far asthings other people his age are into and breaks any technology he touches,you’re the one that has to push into his life and attention.  It’sexhausting at first and there’s probably been more than once you thought aboutgiving up, but then he actually smiles at you, and you forget all that. The one day you didn’t meet him, just to see if he’d noticed, he spent nearlyan hour searching for you and complained so adorably you never did it again.

Is very good at kissing you.  Puts his wholeattention into it, and sees it as a skill to train just like physical training

Yamato Takeru

Take all sorts of delight in your being small.  Prettymuch picks you up whenever he feels like it, which is a lot.  Just swingsyou into his arms, sometimes to cuddle you, other times to carry you aroundbridal style.  Hope you aren’t embarrassed easily reader-chan, because hehas zero shame.

Likes being manly for you – getting things off high placeswhen you can’t reach, lifting things you can’t carry, just generally doingthings for you that your size prevents you from doing.  Fills him withpride, and he never fails to look at you with his heart in his eyes

It tickles him pink how small your hand is compared to hisand he could literally hold it all day, and does. 

No matter how busy the football team gets, he alwaysmakes time for you.  Will pick you up and walk you home every chance hegets.  Actually, anything to do with you he does if he can – studying,dates, just generally taking up your space.

Is an enthusiastic boyfriend.  Laughs at all yourjokes, probably thinks you are the most beautiful, amazing person in the wholeworld.

Anything you want to do, he does, but he’s not adoormat.  Will debate with you and challenge if he disagrees, but realfights?  Unheard of.  Honestly, who could stay mad at someone likeYamato?

He’s just so happy to be with you, and this fact getsthrough to you so easily.  Even when he can’t be with you, he sends youcheesy, but adorable, texts.  Doesn’t it during practice too and makesHojo crazy.  His teammates can always tell, even if he tries to bestealthy though, because he laughs way more.

He’s laughing at his own jokes.

Mostly though, he cherishes you, treating you like an equal,but also like a blessing to his life.

[casino123aft]

Making a Guaranteed Sure Bet Profit From Soccer

If we want to find guaranteed profitable sports bets then soccer is a great sports to start with.

Soccer matches are priced up by all the big bookmakers and some nice guaranteed profitable bets are available if you know when and where to look. Sports bookmakers never miss a trick when thinking up new ways to extract your money from you and there are many inventive bets on offer.

Soccer can in many ways be about timing. The earlier the price appears the more likely there will be a sure-bet or arbitrage opportunity (arb).

Bookmakers clearly do a lot of research as soccer has now become a big earner for them. They need to do this as they are only too aware that the serious punters are becoming much shrewder unibet in this market and will exploit any snippets of news that could give them an edge. They advertise heavily in the tabloids.

Whereas in some minor sports there may be only one odds compiler working for the bookmaker soccer is too lucrative for this any many odds compilers will work feverishly setting prices for the big bookmakers. Any European bookmaker worth its salt will offer odds on soccer, its a high revenue turnover sport.

Such is their turnover on the ever increasing soccer betting market that Ladbrokes and other such big bookmakers are willing to take a 'big' bet on the outcome of a match. This is clearly great news for the arb maker. This means that the maximum bets they will accept on a bet are a lot higher.

There are many types of soccer bets. Firstly there is the match winner. This is split into 3 results, win, lose or draw. Then there are the first goal scorer and the precise match score. The less obvious bets are half-time, full-time results, total corners, total throw-ins, total numbers of yellow and red cards and so on. In fact anything where odds can be set to will offer a betting opportunity.

So which are the best soccer bets to look for? Firstly forget about predicting the match score, there are too many outcomes. The first goal scorer is a waste of time too. Both these types of bets are heavily advertised but are for mug punters only, the odds consistently being offered are poor, the bookmakers regularly taking over 15% profit on the book. These bets have far too many possible outcomes. We are looking for bets with ideally 2 or 3 possible outcomes.

Other types of bet can throw up the odd arb but the main source of arbs is on the match result over 90 minutes. This is where we should concentrate most of our efforts. Clearly this falls into 3 results, win, lose or draw.

Here is an example:

Team A versus Team B.

Team A Draw Team B Bet365 3/1 SpotingOdds 9/4 Victor Chandler 11/10

The way to play the soccer market is to open accounts with European bookmakers as the difference in opinion between UK and European bookmakers is a good source of sure bets. They both have strong opinions on this sport. They will price up the sport in their own country and the matches in foreign countries. Anything to make a profit.

Italy, for example is even more soccer crazy than the UK, with newspapers dedicated to the sport. Everyone thinks they know best on this subject and egos get in the way of sensible pricing. This is great news for us. The European bookmakers can be opinionated and where as they may well have greater detailed knowledge of the comings and goings in their own countries they are relying on third parties to collate information on their foreign counterparts.

One good starting point is in midweek games between teams of different nationalities. There is a tendency in punters to get patriotic when it comes to events where the opposition are 'foreign'. The chances of the home team get talked up and the odds could get skewed in their favour as the weight of money is overly wagered in their direction.

Having said that the big bookmakers offer an early price, they will often advertise it in the national papers and by and large stick to it. This means that a bench mark has been set and subsequent bookmakers may take a different opinion or try to tempt money in their direction by offering different odds. If this were to happen the arb may be available for a considerable amount of time.

There are always discrepancies in odds but clearly bookmakers tend to stick around the same price. They figure there is safety in numbers. But remember they are 'guessing' what the odds should be just like you and me. They are basing their opinion on past experience and they might utilise statistical formulae but they still need to form an opinion on the likely outcome.

They can get it wrong and other firms can take a totally different view of the outcome of a game. A totally different view will only result in a slight variation in the odds but this can be enough to offer a sure bet profit.

Another approach is to start with the more obscure games in eg. the Spanish, Italian or Norweigen lower divisions. They can have quite lucrative discrepancies. They will be covered by a number of different bookmakers all over Europe. This does however add a complication. Although quite easy for finding arbs, the mere fact that you concentrate on these obscure matches will throw up the possibility that you are going to get spotted by the bookmakers if you concentrate your action here.

Also they are going to be reluctant to accept high maximum bets on matches where they have done little research. On the other hand it is a training ground for arb spotting and may gain you valuable experience. You need to weigh up the pros and cons of this strategy.

This is a fairly obscure area of betting and if someone was to check your account over a number of months and found solely these obscure foreign matches on your account it could ring alarm bells. The motto here is to dilute the bets by betting on as many different type of sport and events as possible so that your accounts have varied bets on them. This shouldn't be a problem as many different sports are great for sure bets.

The more prominent European ties will also produce arbs and they are less likely to attract attention to you and the maximum bets will be higher.

As before you cannot control whether the individual bets win or lose but soccer is a 3 way result and so 2 losing bets to one winning one can be useful on your account. The point here is that not many people are interested in the lower European divisions and it may become clear that the betting pattern is a little unusual. This is especially true if your bets towards the maximum permitted.

Injury news can be a lucrative area in soccer. Think about it. If a player fails a late fitness test on a Saturday and he is the teams star striker then this will greatly affect their chances. Recently Alan Shearer turned up to play a premiership game for Newcastle but was declared unfit to play at the last minute. Newcastle were soundly beaten. I am not saying this wouldn't have happened, I don't know. But the odds on the game clearly changed the minute this news broke.

Some bookmakers were alert to this and altered prices as the money poured in for the opposition. Some were slow to react or would not have reacted at all. Either way arbs were available. This type of last minute frantic activity is particularly keen on the betting exchanges like Betfair where you can act as the punter or the bookmaker (lay bets).

You can find injury news through one of the many soccer web sites. Alternatively satellite television channels always have comprehensive news coverage of all the games and are quick to offer any 'off the press' news. Slowly the bookmakers' prices will all change, but not all at the same time, only one by one so creating sure bets.

In this scenario where prices are changing bet on the old price first. The new price is the one that wont change the old price is the one that is about to and so may be lost if you are not quick.

To re-emphasise, arb hunting can be all about timing. When the odds are first produced or have reason to change then the arbs are much more likely to appear.

Recently the English referees have become more lenient in the issuing of yellow cards. This had an effect on the prices for the total number of bookings in a game. Some of the bookmakers adjusted their prices accordingly and others did not. This will affect the bet ranges applied for total bookings.

Let's look at the red and yellow card market. If you didn't know the yellow and red cards bet is calculated as 10 points for a yellow card and 25 points for a red. A player can get a maximum of 35 points in a match (10 + 25).

The betting here is normally split into 3 ranges. Under 11 points at say odds of 100/30, 11 to 30 points, at 6/4 and over 30 points, the most likely outcome, at about 11/10. This doesn't vary much unless there is a history of animosity between the teams in which case the odds are adjusted accordingly.

Here is an example:

Team A versus Team B - Total points for red and yellow cards during the match.

Less than 11 points 11 to 30 points Over 30 points Ladbrokes 100/30 William Hill 6/4 Victor Chandler 11/10

Usually this type of bet will not figure strongly in your plans. Also it is unusual to find information being issued that will affect the total bookings bet. But a simple piece of news like the policy for issuing cards has just changed can affect prices and lead to one or more arb. The conclusion is not to expect too much sure betting activity from the issuing of red and yellow cards but it simple enough to check the odds.

Soccer and the English football league is the basis of a lot of arb opportunities. A Saturday morning is a very hectic time in the soccer season and if you only allocate 3 hours on each Saturday morning, up to half a dozen arbs could appear every week. Equally spending the same time researching prices when they are first issued earlier in the week can equally be rewarding. Have a game plan and concentrate on how you are going to organise your trading activity.

The obscure British matches are more likely to offer an arb than one of the premiership games. This is because there is less information available on team selection and injuries. Bookmakers will spend a lot of time gathering information on the likely result of the premiership games because they are high profile but are less likely to research the more minor games. They tend to try the 'safety in numbers' approach and all give a similar price for the games where they have little or no current information on the outcome.

This can lead to some more informed bookmakers, who have a stronger opinion, seeking out the money by offering differing prices. This inevitably leads to arbs appearing. Injury news is clearly a news event that will change a team's chances, so keep informed of the injury news by looking at one of the many soccer websites that are running.

As mentioned previously foreign games produce arbs on a regular basis. Whether it's the fundamental difference of opinion between the British and continental bookmakers or just the fact that the foreign ones are going to be better informed about their own matches matters not. Variations in prices occur regularly.

Here are some recent UEFA cup examples:

Celtic versus FK Teplice (Note the odds are in the decimal format).

Celtic Win(1) Draw(X) FK Teplice Lose(2) Sportwetten 1.45 Canbet 5.50 Canbet 13.00

Here are the odds translated to percentages:

Celtic Win(1) Draw(X) FK Teplice Lose(2) Sportwetten 68.97 Canbet 18.18 Canbet 7.69

This resulted in an arb of about 5%. If our total stake was £1,000 we would have bet about £690 on Celtic, £182 on the draw and £77 on FK Teplice.

The interesting thing here was that Canbet make up two sides of this arb. Their thoughts were that Celtic were overwhelming favourites to win this tie and priced the match accordingly. Sportwetten, along with other bookmakers, had the Celtic win at 1.45, favourites yes, but not as much as Canbet had thought. Maybe Canbet were trying to attract a lot of money. They were certainly offering what appeared to be generous prices on FK Treplice.

Another example: Benfica versus Rosenborg:

Benfica Win(1) Draw(X) Benfica Lose(2) Canbet 1.95 SportOdds 3.50 SportOdds 5.50

Here are the odds translated to percentages:

Benfica Win(1) Draw(X) Benfica Lose(2) Canbet 51.28 SportOdds 28.57 SportOdds 18.18

This resulted in an arb of 2.0%. If our total stake was £1,000 we would have bet about £513 on Benfica, £288 on the draw and £182 on Rosenborg.

Not as lucrative as the previous arb but again one bookmaker, SportOdds, making all the running in terms of two generous prices and Canbet being the make weight in the bet.

These days, the major clubs have big squads and participate in at least three different competitions. Tactical switches of personnel are more common and unpredictable than injury news which is normally known a day or two in advance of a match and will focus on only one player. Be wary of personnel changes, weaker teams being fielded to save the best players for the big games.

As always, the rule is the earlier you can get a price, hopefully by phoning up before the prices are on-line, the more likely a price differential will appear. Also the period before a match results in frantic trading and can lead to price movements. With so many bookmakers offering prices they will not all move as one.

There are so many bookmakers catering for soccer that you are spoilt for choice. Terrestrial and satellite TV. This is fast becoming the best place to pick up to the minute news on injuries and team selections. Satellite TV stations literally show wall to wall coverage of soccer on Saturdays and this can be invaluable when looking for sure bets.

[the-nysh]

Bnha episode 37 commentary

“Bakugou Katsuki: Origin”   

HOOOOOOOOO BOIIIII, I’ve been highly anticipating this episode for a long while (manga reader here), and JUST finished watching it once – completely tense, transfixed, and holding my breath the entire time while internally screaming. :O Just…holy shit, I need to watch it AGAIN, IMMEDIATELY (probably countless times aha). So I can actually pause and break down all the glorious meta within. I’M PERFECTLY CALM! 8D (no I’m not) Hours later, I end up just under 3000 words, as there is a LOT to talk about. So HERE WE GO: my in-depth commentary on probably my most awaited bnha episode:  

Alright, so first up, the anime reformatted the manga’s final exam battles to happen consecutively instead of concurrently, to save the best for last uninterrupted (THIS fight, Deku and Kacchan vs All Might). So anime-onlys missed this bus ride scene of them going to the test site (ch61), with awkward Dad Might trying (and failing) to diffuse the nervous tension between them. :’) 

Now, the anime immediately starts where the last ep left off: right inside the gate without any of All Might’s pre-battle briefing. (Yup, in the manga he explained all the rules right there before they began.) With a brief recap reminding us just how tense and coiled Bakugou’s irritation has been since before the exam even started.

A big thing to note is that before this point in the story, most watchers/readers alike still hadn’t seen the full picture behind Bakugou’s actions or understood the reasons for his way of thinking. Because the story is presented in Deku’s pov, we’ve only been allowed scattered pieces of Bakugou’s pov to put together so far, so a big part of THIS episode’s purpose is finally revealing what it is that drives his character to push so hard. To be a hero (and definitely not a villain). Just like the episode’s title states, this is about his origin point. His past, present and future; his turning point from here on out as well!  

So, the thoughts he recollects at the start of the ep are the set up: comparing their internships where he felt he wasted his time while Deku improved faster than him (rubbing that fact in while mimicking his moves on top of that!), the sports festival where he felt his ‘win’ was hollowly earned since Todoroki essentially gave up the final match to him. AND! Not mentioned, but his loss to Deku at the heroes vs villains exercise back in season one. This WHOLE TIME, Bakugou has not achieved any worthwhile results or milestones that he holds to the standard of his self-imposed perfectionism. Which has made him incredibly insecure in his position/progress and on edge to push himself (masked by outward anger, aggression and irritation). So right now, this final exam is where he’s hinging it all to finally prove himself as the indisputable best. He knows that position is what he should be, so he can’t afford to lose, idle by, or achieve a half-assed win again. So! He marches forward headfirst and resolute, right into the arena ahead of Deku’s hesitance and indecision. 

Meanwhile, Deku knows this is supposed to be a team exercise, so he has to get through to him somehow and communicate how they need to work together to win. …So he runs up to him and info-dumps everything Bakugou already knows (not the best approach). Visibly, it’s incredibly tense to see how hard Bakugou is holding back just tolerating his jabbering. Deku’s demanding him to wait and listen, yet Bakugou warns him to stop. Deku tries to reason they should run (that they’re no match against All Might), yet Bakugou has already decided they have no choice but to face All Might. Remember, Bakugou is one of the smartest and strongest of their class, so this is not just hot air speaking here, despite how it may appear. Unfortunately, Deku misreads this and further exclaims, “who do you think All might is?!” (uhoh, Bakugou knows precisely who he is; he’s his idol too) And even a further low blow against his drive, “you can’t win against him!” RIGHT at Bakugou’s sore spot.

*braces myself* OH GAWD. Yeah, the backswipe to the face. It’s horrible and painful to watch, yes. (I think the manga’s direct impact panel felt harsher tho) But it’s important to understand it did not come out of nowhere. Bakugou warned him to stop, yet Deku kept on pushing. And while reacting with violence should never be condoned or be a proper response to anger, it’s also important to note that this marks the first time Bakugou has actually raised a hand against him (outside of battle), since before their middle school days.

That’s right: this is the only time Bakugou has been shown to hit him like this in the story’s present narrative. Which is also remarkably consistent with his behavior: Bakugou will not actively instigate confrontations against Deku unless Deku pushes him, shoves in his space, or gets in his way first. Most often, Bakugou will stay in his lane, despite how it may appear the opposite. This is consistently within Bakugou’s way of telling Deku to ‘stay down, back in his place’ and to stop bothering him. (His words: “Don’t say another word. Just because things are going better for you doesn’t mean you should talk. It’s pissing me off.”) Because to Bakugou, Deku’s genuine persistence and concern for him read as overblown arrogance/conceit while condescendingly looking down on him and his established strengths, which Bakugou cannot stand (cuz to have such a similar assuredness thrown back at him by someone he deems to be the weakest is absolutely not tolerated). As the audience, we know this misread intent from Deku is not true, plus as we all know, Deku can’t stop following him; he’ll always get back up (to fight if he must), regardless of Bakugou’s attempts to push him back.

Whew, ok. Now that I got that elephant out of the room, I can continue with the main threat: All Might, who plays his part as the villain spectacularly. (I love how both their thoughts perfectly synchronize on assessing All Might’s intimidation!) Despite how Deku’s first instinct is to run, he can’t leave Bakugou (Kacchan) behind either, who immediately engages the target. Note Bakugou’s words, “your power isn’t needed to pass.” So he’s determined to push himself until he proves just that: using his own power to win without having to rely on Deku. Even All Might notes his tenacity when Bakugou doesn’t even back down from getting grabbed in the face. Bakugou’s SERIOUS, but still cautious with his opening moves against him. Again, All Might is his idol too, so Bakugou’s calculating what moves he can use to effectively stun him and draw him out. Not fast or strong enough though, as All Might quickly overpowers him.    

All Might shifts to Deku (who’s been staring like a deer in the headlights), and even goads him with the insinuation that Deku would run and leave his teammate behind. Ohh!! Flashback to Stain, a battle with mortal peril where it may have been wiser to pick everyone up and run. And…Deku’s similarly intimidated to do just that! But…his leap backwards collides with Bakugou’s incoming next assault. :’) Man, I actually really like how Bakugou delivers his warning before impact, with genuine shock? Worry? Damn it’s a good reaction. 

Recovery Girl’s commentary on Deku’s admiration for All Might is spot-on. He sees him as that of a god: all-powerful, invincible, and the bearer of his own quirk, One for All. Admiring him too much such that Deku can’t even fathom how he could ever fight against him and win; against All Might would be a hopeless struggle. So Deku’s not even trying to oppose him. However…he’s not alone against him here either. ;) Neither Recovery Girl nor All Might (and at this point, most of the audience too) know what really drives Bakugou. Yet here we see a glimpse of it: to him, to win is what it means to be a hero.

THIS incites Deku’s memories of their childhood, when they BOTH equally looked up to All Might. To young Deku, All Might is the coolest hero because he saves everyone with a smile, but to young Kacchan, All Might is the coolest hero because he always wins. Even when overpowered or outnumbered. No matter what. (note how little Deku would rather watch Kacchan, instead of the All Might video) 

But shit, before they can make their next move, All Might blitzes them both: a guard rail trapping Deku’s insistence to run, and a brutal punch of reality so hard it blows Bakugou’s guts out (yeah I had to brace myself for this too). Damn, Deku’s cry over his peril is so gooood. He knows Bakugou is a jerk, but…he can’t help admiring him because Bakugou has always tried his hardest to win, and always ensured his victories by walking the talk. Ever since they were young.

But WAIT?! All Might’s reprimand to him and his anger is not what Bakugou needs to hear right now. Because he already knows this. Right now, Bakugou is coiled so tightly against his own insecurities and expectations (against himself), that he’s unrealistically pressured himself into achieving an impossible goal: he MUST win against All Might on his own. An imperative all-or-nothing, 0 or 100, option. Because as he sees it now, if he relents in any way by using the power of another (Deku), it would be admitting to himself he’s not strong enough to win with his own power. Acknowledging weakness, while simultaneously forced to use underhanded, half-assed, and heck – the weakest (or so he believes about Deku) means to win. Which to him, would be the same as losing (anything less than an indisputable, perfect 100 is 0). And if he had to resort to that, he’d rather lose altogether.

HOOOOOOOOO there! *red sirens blazing* DEKU WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS IMMINENT, CHARACTER BREAKING SELF-DESTRUCTION! Nuh-uh, not from his childhood friend whom he admired precisely for his traits to never give up and lose!! Deku will not allow Kacchan to betray himself and lose the image of what he’s always stood for (victory)! So BAM! Instead of All Might delivering the final blow, Deku gains the strength to punch some much-needed common sense and encouragement back into him! YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!      

OH DAMN, we get an extended anime scene of Deku carrying him off to safety into an alleyway!! For the pep talk, “before you give up, at least try using me!” (In the manga this all happened while he carried him off, heck even the grip on him changed 8D) “YOU’RE YOU BECAUSE YOU NEVER GIVE UP ON WINNING, RIGHT?” (holy shit, added anime lines of encouragement) PLUS THAT FLASHBACK, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Deku’s honest and innocent crush admiration for him!!! ;A; This whole time! Deku has viewed Kacchan this way! (yet Kacchan himself still doesn’t know… :’D) 

Also HOLY FUCK!? An anime-only, fucking explosive KABEDON!?!?! (I’m dead :’D) Ok, but here Kacchan finally explains his reasoning for his approach to the fight: against All Might’s crazy speed and power, there’s nowhere to run, and no way a confrontation can be avoided. He learned this as he attacked All Might earlier with his opening move. They have to face him to get through.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO…what do we get!? Kacchan (begrudgingly) AS THE DECOY, while Deku attacks using a full-powered blast from his gauntlet!!! YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Moment I love: when Deku injures his shoulder from the blow-back, feeling firsthand the amount of strain Kacchan’s under when he uses his quirk. (really, Kacchan’s arms are fucking jacked to withstand the recoil from his explosions) Deku, distracted by that revelation, admires his strength even more!! ;D (promptly reminded by him to get his ass into gear and run too, aha!)

DAD MIGHT’S MONOLOGUE!!! HE HAS ABSOLUTE FAITH IN THEIR FUTURE COOPERATION AND RECONCILIATION AS A PAIR! Perhaps not resolved now, but undoubtedly, this is just a first step towards them achieving greatness together. ;A;

In the manga’s official translations, those emotions paired over Deku and Kacchan were listed as ‘envy, disgust, inferiority’ vs ‘awe, rejection, conceit.’ ‘Hate’ hadn’t been used.

Hooo, they even manage some light banter as they escape towards the gate. D: ‘It doesn’t look like (he’s) chasing us, don’t tell me we knocked him out…?’ K: ‘Bastard, didn’t you keep saying there was no way we’d beat him, you idiot?!’ XDXD Ahhh precisely, Deku’s still blinded with hope/admiration because of him. :’))) Kacchan knows that wasn’t enough to take All Might out, already telling Deku what their next steps will be when he catches up…

OH FUCK, TOO SOON! All Might blitzes them again!! D8 Instantly destroying their strongest means of attack (both gauntlets) and….oh fuck…bodily slamming them against each other in a whirling display of raw, overwhelming power. (even the spectating students back with Recovery Girl are aghast in shock at the brutality) Chastising them that their cooperation together was only a prerequisite to passing the exam. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY DO?!

Ayyyy, Kacchan’s inner monologue where he’s reminded just how insurmountable the power of the Greatest Hero is: ‘this man is the highest wall in the world.’ :’) But in proper, classic ‘Kacchan’ fashion (revived!! thanks to a certain Deku ;D), he doesn’t give up here. Firing a point-blank retaliation blast right where he’s pinned underneath All Might! 8D 

HIS PAIN from the rebound!! ;A; And…ohohoho? An up close and personal warning (whoa there! ;D in the manga he just grabbed his forearm one-handed) that’s he’s gonna fling him to the exit, with his trademark ‘Die!’ attack phrase. :P Buahahah! Classic.    

THE PAIN…THE PAINNNN!!!! Both in Kacchan’s overworked arms and in Deku’s poor breaking back from All Might’s retaliating New Hampshire Smash almost snapping him in two! D8 FFFUUUU!!! Hell, even Kacchan reacts to that! (Deku slamming onto the ground and ricocheting off the bus is really…yike. D8)

But SHIIIIIIT!!!!! MY BOYYYYYY!!! He goes to Deku’s aid! 8’D And FUUUUUU how I love how the anime emphasizes the sharp, throbbing pain pulsing from all the stress his arms are under – his gauntlets allowed him to fire at full power without risk to himself, but NOW… He has to go above and beyond (quite literally, ‘plus ultra’), to ensure Deku secures their win. ;A;

AND HOW!! (Added my fav manga panel for comparison) Unleashing the same full-power, stadium wide blast he used in sports festival – twice here, Deku notes!! (ahhhh Kacchan rearing back, clutching his arms :’DD) Urging Deku to move for the gate! His comment here is telling: “I can still move more than you, with your cobbled-together power!” He knows Deku is a recent study with his quirk, so Kacchan has to be the one who must engage the enemy with what limited firepower they have left. THIS decision…he chooses to become the protective decoy covering for Deku to make it through! (despite all the pain) :’D But that’s not all!! Once All Might slips through the smoke aiming for Deku…Kacchan’s RIGHT THERE! Sacrificing himself as a shield for him!!!! HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! ;A; Like how Deku borrowed some of his power earlier in this fight (sharing the gauntlet), Kacchan now demonstrates some of that same noble quality inherent to Deku: the power of heroic self-sacrifice. (which All Might admonishes, as it’s a self-destructive, traumatic trait he’s all-too familiar with…) And YET…!

Even after a blow meant to knock him out of that destructive habit, Kacchan still keeps fighting!! (ohhhh my god his broken voice here..!! ;A; heck, even All Might stops smiling) Uwaaaah my boyyy!!!! ;.;

Deku’s reaction is the same as mine: ‘KACCHAAAAN!!!!’ But he’s driven to act with what he does best: to SAVE him despite all odds (with a smile!), JUST like when he ran in to rescue him from the sludge villain all the way back at the start of the story. Because if Kacchan’s ever in danger, Deku will ALWAYS be there for him. :’33 And what does he do!? Punch All Might (is idol, alike that of a god) in the FACE for Kacchan! It’s been pointed out here before, but it’s doubtful if Deku could be driven to react to the same extent – punching All Might, if it was any other teammate paired with him. Because as the story will continue to prove, only Kacchan can get Deku to react with such emotional extremes. :’)  

Taking one from Kacchan’s page again, Deku’s not one to leave this as a ‘half-assed’ win either! So he carries him with him through the gate!! (Kacchan’s long unconscious by now) Deku cannot leave him or secure the ‘indisputable’ win without both of them achieving it together. :’))))) OOOHHHHHHH!!!! ‘That’s just the kind of person (Deku) has always been,’ indeed!

Aftermath: (uwaaaah my boys!!!!!)

All Might acknowledges both Deku’s growth AND the fact that Bakugou, too, always smiles in response to facing an insurmountable wall. THIS is a trait both boys share, which is also a trait inherent to All Might. Here we see a glimpse of the fact that both boys form the two halves of All Might: his quality to win (Bakugou), and his quality to save (Deku). Respectively representing the traits they also happen to admire most from him, ever since their childhood together. And by learning to work together appropriately, after proving in the exam they can cooperate when it matters most, together they have the potential to become the best heroes in the future. All Might recognizes this, and proudly envisions both of them continually growing much stronger from here! :D  

(Villain scheming tease with Shigaraki’s foreboding preview at the end. Ohhhhh damn, how I sincerely hope for a season 3! The events that escalate from here on out I consider some of the strongest in the story. Their adaptation will surely be a huge treat!)

To finalize:

Where Deku needs to learn how to control his quirk without suffering irreversible damage to his body, Bakugou needs room to grow and understand that compromising to work for less than a personal 100% best, and conceding help from others, does not mean the same as a compromised win. Nor does it mean he’s weak for accepting the cooperation from others either. (In many cases, inspiring teamwork and camaraderie is a beneficial strength.) He needs to learn how to meet people half-way, and from THIS episode, we see both his origin and turning point revealing the depths of what he’s capable of. Depths that had always been there, but have been brought out into the light thanks to Deku’s positive intervention. :’3 Despite what they may feel about one another (mostly thanks to misunderstandings and a lack of proper communication), they remain each other’s strongest driving force for positive development in the narrative. Which will remain a consistent, and most rewarding dynamic to see grow throughout the rest of the series.

[sportsgeekonomics]

ECU -- Sinking Swimming, Soaking Itself

Today East Carolina University[1] (ECU) announced it was cutting its Swimming & Diving programs (men’s and women’s) and its Tennis programs (men’s and women’s).  They were vague as to how much cutting these four sports[2] is going to save the school, saying only that “The plan will recognize an estimated $4.9 million long-term savings” without saying how many years it will take to amass that nearly $5 million in savings.  (Note that I later read an article in which ECU’s athletic Director, Jon Gilbert, was reported to have said these two sports cost the school $2.6 million this year.)

Well, as you will likely to be surprised to learn, if ECU is planning on saving $4.9 million just from cutting those four sports, it’s going to take them roughly infinity bazillion years to get there because by my estimates, in aggregate those four sports are generating ever-so-slightly positive cash flow for the school (so that essentially we can consider the sports to be running at breakeven) and cutting them will not likely save the school much, if any, money.  Let’s dive in to another episode of how athletic department accounting can lead to bad decision-making.

As you likely know, a couple of months ago, rumors started flying that schools were going to be cutting sports either because of, or simply under the camouflage of, the COVID19 crisis.  In anticipation of the looming Great Decimation, I sent out a warning to schools’ ADs, asking them please not to make stupid cuts.  I even used a simple examples with hilarious puns about a happy university named Corona.  It was great fun.  And apparently unheeded, but that’s not unusual here in at the Cassandra[3] department of Sportsgeekonomics.  And I’m pretty sure this ECU follow up won’t really be heeded either, but it wouldn’t be drama without the chorus telling the main actors what’s going to happen and having the actors ignore the warning.

When ECU announced a day or two ago that these cuts were coming, I was ready.  I am fortunate to have done a little bit of pro bono consulting work for the state of North Carolina a year or so ago, and I testified to a special committee of the state legislature. That got me access to the UNC system’s financials and I was able to get familiar with ECU’s finances even before this brouhaha emerged.  A kind reporter sent me the updated version of those number for 2018-19, but even without the latest and the greatest, I was able to see that ECU looked like a prime candidate to lose money by cutting costs.  In case you want to check any of my numbers,[4] here is my source document.

To do this sort of analysis requires either a cooperative and eager-to-learn administration (which is not the case here – I have no relationship with ECU, though my offer of a few hours of free consulting remains valid), or some assumptions. Here are my assumptions, along with an assessment of how aggressive they seem:

I have assumed that in the absence of these programs, ECU will lose every single athlete (or their future equivalents) to another school. Even the walk-ons.[5]  That assumption is strong, and could be relaxed based on info from school.

I have assumed that the value listed for a scholarship (I call this “Listed GIA Value" in caps as a term of art) is equal to the price charged to athletes for partials (pro rata) or walk-ons (at 100%).  To the extent the partial/walk-on pool is in-state vs. scholarship to int'l/out of state, this may overstate revenue.  I don’t think this is that strong of an assumption, but it could be improved with detailed data from the school.

I have assumed all future athletes who would have chosen ECU because of these sports, will choose to go elsewhere, and thus tuition paid by partial scholarship athletes and walk-ons will be lost.  And similarly, I assume that for the next few years, ECU will be under-capacity, so that the slots given up by these sports’ athletes won’t be filled by paying customers. This is a strong assumption, though the normal assumption athletic departments make is much worse, which is they (implicitly and probably unknowingly) assume they will manage to retain every single one of these students, paying exactly what they pay now.  The truth is in the middle, but I think it’s closer to my assumption than not.  That is, probably some of the walk-ons chose to walk-on after they come to school.  But for all of the scholarship athletes, even the people on a 10% partial scholarship, playing their sport was likely a key reason to choose ECU.  And for some walk-ons, the ability to remain part of a team after the end of their high-school career probably mattered too. They may have even been recruited walk-ons.  This is the assumption that an outside just can’t crack open, but a school that wants to know this answer can use focus groups to get a sense of the true numbers and thus refine the analysis.

As stated above, I have assumed ECU for the next few years will be under-capacity, so that the true marginal cost of providing tuition/fees and room is negligible, and thus the actual cost of providing a space on campus and in dorms, on the margin, is 20% of Listed GIA Value.  I think this assumption is fairly conservative in ECU’s case because under conditions of under-capacity, the two highest priced elements of Listed GIA Value, tuition/fees and room, have almost zero marginal cost.  Books and board probably cost 50-75% of their Listed GIA Value, but they comprise a small fraction of total Listed GIA Value, so the real answer might be closer to 10%.  By assuming 20%, I’ve essentially given ECU two times the savings benefit they are probably enjoying.

Next – a methodological note.  As I recently explained in another recent post, I have developed a standardized way to look at whether cutting a sport helps or hurts a university.  You can read it here, but the bottom line is that you need to ignore the listed cost of a scholarship (since that is money out from athletics and money into the central admin, so from the whole university perspective, it’s a wash) and instead focus on the actual cost of educating the athletes on the teams and on the cash they bring in, or out of the school.

Ok, boring words out of the way, let’s get to the numbers.

ECU’s basic accounting shows that in total, these four sports had listed[6] operating expenses of $2.5mm, but over half of those listed expenses were from scholarships, which we’re going to strip out and then analyze separately.  That leaves their “out the door” expenses at $1.2mm.

Based on my 20% assumption, the total cost to educate the 74 athletes on these four teams (including walk-ons) is $514K.  So that adds to the “out the door” expenses, and brings the true cost of these teams to the school to $1.7mm.

Now we need to look at the revenue the school will lose.  The listed revenue on the books of the school is a paltry sum of $86,562. That is all “in-kind” revenue and it’s probably uniforms they get from adidas.  However, as I understand NCAA accounting, when schools get in-kind revenue of this sort, they also list it as an expense.  So if it’s in the base expense of the program, we either need to cut it out of expenses (since those won’t be incurred) or add it into revenues (to zero them out).  So we’ll start with $86K.

Then, and this is the key, the ECU Athletic Department’s accounting completely fails to show two key sources of revenue that will be lost when the sports are cut.  The first is fairly straightforward – the NCAA pays ECU $36,500 per sport per year and also approximately $6,000 per scholarship for each of the scholarships being cut.[7]  Combined, that means that by cutting these sports, ECU will lose ~$360K in NCAA distributions.  These numbers are on ECUs books, but not disaggregated by sport, so a simplistic look at their sport-specific revenues will miss this.  But it’s real money that ECU will stop getting because they cut these for sports.

And then the second category is a little more complex, but just as important.  Across the four sports ECU is cancelling, there are 74 athletes.  In aggregate, ECU charges these athletes $2.6mm, prior to giving a bunch of discounts in the form of athletic scholarships.[8]  But when you deduct the value of those scholarships, in aggregate these four teams pay tuition, fees, board, and books into the university at a total amount of about $1.75mm.  This doesn’t appear anywhere on ECU’s athletic budget, because this is revenue recognized by a different department on campus (maybe the bursar’s office records it as revenue), but it can be a real loss to a school under the assumptions stated above.  Let’s work through them carefully.

Is ECU at full capacity, esp. in the foreseeable future under COVID conditions?   Almost certainly not.

Would a future swimmer or tennis athlete who would have come to ECU to play tennis on a partial scholarship or as a walk-on, go elsewhere so they can play their sport at a different school?  For some, definitely.  For all, maybe not.  So to the extent some students would be retained, then my analysis will somewhat over estimate ECU’s forgone revenue.  So this is the spot my analysis is most vulnerable to new data, and a spot where a dialogue with ECU would (a) improve the analysis and (b) show more benefit to the school from the cuts, and so I would hope maybe ECU can help us all understand what a better assumption here would be.

But under these assumptions, ECU is “saving” $1.7mm, and is losing $1.3mm from lost tuition (and room & board, etc.) revenue alone.  When we toss in the paltry amounts of expense for uniforms that are likely baked into those expenses (but were actually provided by adidas) and the lost NCAA distributions, these sports are just about break-even.   In total, I show that the earn a surplus of $23K, but given all the assumptions and approximations, I would conclude that swimming generates something like $2$0K in net cash flow to ECU, Tennis costs something close to that (more like $220K) and that in aggregate, these programs are breakeven in total.  Here’s the math on how you get there. 

(Click here for a larger version)

So if you’re essentially losing as much revenue as you are saving in costs, how many years will it take for you to get $4.9 million in savings?  Survey says … Infinity!  To be fair, if my analysis has overstated the revenues from the athletes’ forgone tuition payments by 100%, so that they are paying in more like $650K than $1.3mm (and I think that’s too low an estimate, but let’s use it, arguendo), then for those four sports to generate $4.9mm in savings will take approximately 7.5 years.  Now I know ECU said they were going to get that money from other cuts too, but my point is that the estimated benefit to cutting these four sports is basically nil, which is quite far away from ECU’s claim to be cutting its losses by $2.6mm.  But that even if I am off by 100% on my critical estimate, they’ll save $650K per year from these cuts, not $2.6mm, which makes it seem like this is the tail wagging the dog, or the 0.6 wagging the 2.

Moreover, you don’t have to view these sports as linked.  If Tennis is losing $220K per year and that matters, by all means, cut it (though see below about Title IX issues, which will remain).  But if swimming is generating cash, this seems like a very bad time to cut it because of concerns about some future need to rebuild the pool.  “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may”  as they say.

===

But wait, there’s more! ECU is also putting itself into a likely Title IX bind.  I have written about Title IX in great detail so I won’t bore you with it here, but what you need to know is:

By cutting 2 women’s sports, ECU has made itself dependent on the “proportionality” prong of the participation criterion for Title IX.  This means that the athlete population’s M/F ratio needs to hew closely to the undergraduate student population’s M/F ratio.  Depending on how you measure it, even before the cuts ECU’s athlete M/F ratio is either 50/50 (if you let multi-sport athletes count as multiple people) or 53/47 (if you treat each human being as 1 person, not letting 84 women count as two or three humans a piece).  But ECU’s undergraduate population is 57% female.  And after the cuts are made, the new athletic M/F ratios will be either 50/50 (letting multi-sport athletes count multiple times) or 54/46 (using the one human = one standard) which means these cuts, at best, do nothing to help ECU get into compliance with the participation criterion, and potentially bring them further out of whack.

But it gets worse.  In addition to the participation criterion, Title IX also has a financial proportionality criterion, which states that financial aid to men and women has to be provided in a ratio that is “substantially proportional” to the participation ratio.[9]  If ECU is claiming a 50/50 participation ratio, then it is supposed to provide financial aid at something close to that (within one percentage point) which means between 49/51 and 51/49.[10]  Before these cuts, ECU was at 57/43, which is clearly outside the limits.  And because ECU is actually cutting women’s scholarship funding by more than men’s funding (mostly because more women tennis players are more-well funded than their male counterparts), the ratio gets worse, going up to 60/40.

Here are those calculations if you want to work through them yourself

  (Click here for larger version)

Finally – in my estimates above, I mentioned the fact that every school gets money from the NCAA based on the number of sports it sponsors.  If you want to read more about how this works, I wrote about it in the context of UAB Women’s Bowling, which you can read here over at Vice Sports.But for the curious, here are those calculations.

(Click here for larger version)

I’d like to end with a note of humility.  I did these calculations fairly rapidly – in just under an hour.  Then I tweeted my top line results and went and did some other work and took a nap.  I came back to them with fresh eyes to write up this blog post and I found two very material errors.  Fortunately for my tweet, the errors went in opposite directions, so the conclusion is substantially the same – swimming makes money and tennis loses it, but if I had not caught the error, my overall conclusion would be that the revenue loss is far greater than the $22K I calculate now (and which is essentially breakeven).  I say this to remind everyone that I have still only spent about 3 hours total on this work and unlike my normal consulting work, I have had no assistance from anyone else to audit my work.  There may be errors here, and if you spot any, I’d welcome a heads up, so I can fix it.  But I would also remind everyone to be humble.  I am good at what I do and I still made two errors by being hasty. Measure twice, cut once.

UPDATE: This analysis was featured in an article in the Raleigh News & Observer by Luke DeCock.

       [1] I need to be honest here.  EVERY time I hear the name of this school, Neil Diamond is in my head singing “Eaaast Caroline. BAH BAH BAH.  Good times never seemed so good….”

[2] In NCAA parlance, Men’s tennis is a distinct sport from Women’s tennis, but Swimming is not a distinct sport from Diving. So two men’s teams are being cut (tennis on the one hand and swimming & diving on the other) and two women’s sports.

[3] In the Greek myths, Cassandra was “endowed with the gift of prophecy but fated never to be believed.”

[4] If you find a mistake, please let me know! I’ll fix the mistake and give you special credit in the update.

[5] Across the two tennis programs, there are 2 male and 2 female walk-ons.  For Swimming, there were 8 male and 7 female walk-ons.  

[6] You’ll see me say “listed” a lot.  That’s generally b/c I don’t have any reason to believe the listed cost is the true cost.  All I am saying when I say “listed” is this is what ECU’s accounting lists as the cost, whether true or not.

[7] The calculation of the $6,000 is a little complex – I’ve made a separate analysis for it at the end.  This is not the payment the NCAA makes for every scholarship, just the 150th scholarship and beyond.  Since ECU provides about 250 scholarships, the first ~100 they cut cost them $6,000 each.

[8] Again, this is one of the most critical assumptions in my analysis, that the Listed GIA Value is also what non-scholarship athletes are charged.

[9] While the regulations emphasize the +/- 1 percentage point standard, in practice, I’ve never seen anyone get in trouble for being within +/- 5 percentage points.  This seems to be a spot where Title IX is akin to the Pirate Code (All ECU fans give me an “Arrrrgh”) is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. 

[10] If you prefer to use the unduplicated count where some humans do not count as 2 or 3 people, the acceptable range for male funding is between 53-55% and women is between 47-49%.  This still doesn’t get ECU into compliance though because 60/40 is clearly not within a few percentage points of 54/46.

[highbuttonsports]

The Flames offseason took a big swing a few days back with blockbuster trade.

Yeah I’m upset. I think it was Drake who rapped that, now the city of Calgary is singing the same song. Let me preface this by saying personally, I’m not upset, let’s go with neutral. The Flames offseason took a big swing a few days back with blockbuster trade. Alright, well yea you’re right, it’s probably not a blockbuster in today’s game, but back it up 5-6 years when both of these guys were in their younger years, it might have been a decent heavy hitting deal. That’s right, breaking down the James Neal and Milan Lucic trade. 

Let’s put this deal in a brief perspective. It’s like used cars. I have a pickup truck that is no longer good to me living downtown Calgary, I can’t park it in a parking garage, I don’t drive it much anymore and need something smaller. My buddy has a smaller car, with a bunch of miles on it and although isn’t ideal it’s better for what I need. We might have a good trade off here, he actually just bought a house and could use a truck for homeowner shit. The payments are pretty much equal, the needs have changed, how about we swap? That seems like exactly what the Flames and Oilers ultimately did. However you want to help yourself sleep at night, whether it was a bad contract for a bad contract type of deal, or  “filling a need” for “filling a need” type of deal, it’s done. Looch will be wearing the Flaming C come October, and the Real Deal will be up in the blue and orange. I’ll be the first to admit, I was excited as hell last July when the Real Deal signed in Calgary. 

  Who wouldn’t love a career 20 goal scorer each year on their roster. It’s screams consistency. Even at 5.75 million some say it might be steep, others might be like that’s a pretty good deal. I’m in the decent deal boat. Obviously that was shown to be a bust this year, but when you look at some of the other contracts out there based on contribution I don’t think it’s the worst. Looking at Milan, again similar deal. 6 million for what he is now is extremely steep. He probably still calls Uncle Peter Chiarelli every summer to thank him for that ticket. I won’t disagree that it’s also steep for what he offers now, but when you’re dealing with bad contracts sometimes you just have to take your medicine. Obviously Holland just inherited this, but he still has to make the best out of a bad situation and I think he did that here. Treliving on the other hand must of felt like he had no other choice. Listening around the city on sports radio, news outlets and all things Flames, or should I say James Neal must go.  Almost a year later what we thought was a good signing, or what I thought was a good signing was traded away. 

Let’s look at it for each player. When I talk to the boys in the shop, I talk about this deal with expectations. I don’t hate that we traded James Neal, I don’t love it either. I don’t hate that we acquired Milan Lucic, but I don’t necessarily love it. When I say expectations, I go this route. Let’s look back at last summer when the Flames signed James Neal. They’re starting to change their identity after another down year. New coach, some roster changes, things are looking up. Adding what was really a bigger free agent signing in James Neal we were all under the impression he’d walk in here and score another twenty. I was in that boat 100 percent. The expectations were being set for James Neal before he ever stepped on the ice in a Flames sweater. He was going to step into the first line with Gaudreau and Monahan and flourish. Worst case scenario he’d be a second liner and likely still throw up twenty. Obviously that wasn’t the case, so as you sit back and try to find out where it all went wrong we can look at a few different things. New coach, Bill Peters. 

   Right from the get go, did he give Neal a true chance. Sure he threw him up on line one or line two from time to time for a shift to give him that shot, but nothing came to fruition. Did he write off Neal before he ever stepped on the ice? I’m not saying that this was the case, but it definitely could be possible. It could be James himself. Did he play too much hockey over the past few years and never had a true off season where he could recover, and train. This could be the case as to why his foot speed or straight up hockey sense seemed to be non existent this past year. Like I mentioned, expectations, here’s where we lie. We EXPECTED James Neal to come into Calgary, with a 5.75 million dollar contract to put up twenty goals and play top line minutes night in and night out. We don’t know it for sure, but it could be the exact same expectation James set out for himself. Once that doesn’t happen, then obviously it’s a failure. When you are expecting a 5.75 million dollar sniper to be just that, and he turns out to be a dud playing out on the third and fourth line, putting up 7 goals, 12 assists for 19 points you’re damn right we’re going to call a spade a spade and call for his head because that was an epic fail of a contract, or so it seems. Now I’m one that was expecting him to get another year to prove his worth. He would have that full summer to get himself in shape.

   He had that bad year so the motivation should be there to get his shit together. There wasn’t many options for Treliving to get rid of him as a buy out just didn’t make sense, and trade partners are extremely limited. Clearly the Flames felt the trial ran out like it usually does after 30 days and found a partner to dance with and offloaded the baggage. Looking at him up in Edmonton, again it’s a hit or miss. Either he’s going to put up 20+, or he’s going to be another dud. Everyone is expecting him to put up 30 being on a line with Connor, but can he keep up? Can he be put in the slot and get a feed from McDavid? It remains to be seen, and should be interesting to see how it plays out. I will say this though, although I’m not sure what the over/under will be set at for 2019/2020, but based upon last years totals, I got the over for James Neal goals this year.

The other piece of that trade was Milan Lucic heading down Highway 2 to the C of Red. I’ll start this bit off with a little about myself. I grew up a Bruins fan, and still love following the Bruins, but living in Calgary and attending many Flames games, and being invested I’ve come to cheer for the Flames. Call me what you want, but unless you live in the city and go through the same ups and downs and feels in the arena, don’t comment until you do! Looch was your stereotypical Bruin. I loved his game since he came into the league. He was the true big bad Bruin. Obviously times have changed, the league has changed and his game isn’t what it used to be. The game of hockey isn’t want it used to be as it’s changed so much over the past few years. That’s why I’m sitting back and waiting to see how this plays out. By the numbers, again bad contract. Calgary did save some money taking on this bad contract which will help when trying to sign our other RFA’s, but we also take on a NMC, and some signing bonus money that we didn’t have with Neal, but it’s the old adage that the change of scenery could make this work (for both teams). Let me take you back to where we talked about expectations. 

  Let’s move into this trade, and realize that we are not expecting Looch to walk in here and play with Gaudreau and Monahan, or with Backlund and Tkachuk. So yes, when you look at it in the sense that we’re paying 5.25 million for a guy on the bottom 6, but we were going to pay that anyway. Are we going to pay that for a guy that we’re expecting to do something that isn’t, or actually find the value in the fact that we have a guy playing his role, what he was brought in to do and anything he does will seem like an added bonus. Let’s not discount the fact that in 12 NHL years, he has over 500 points and 1000 PIMs in almost 900 games. That’s not terrible for a guy who has been a grinder throughout his career, but can also play up and down the lineup. In those numbers, he’s scored 15 or more goals 8 times with a career high of 30 goals in 2010-2011. Now I won’t be the one that sits here and suggests he’s going to put up 30 this year, or ever again, but I will sit here and suggest that he gets 15+ this year. If we get 15+ along with 40-50 points I think that should be considered a success. But all that aside, I think the part of this deal that will make this a win for Calgary is the fact that Milan Lucic is in the lineup. 

  Yes the game has changed, but if you don’t think he keeps guys honest out there, take a lap. He’s a presence no matter where he is, and with a younger lineup along with some vets like Gio, this has to be a win for the dressing room, not to mention allowing some guys like Bennett and Tkachuk to be their usual aggravating selves out there with a bit less pressure knowing whose backing them up. Not that they necessarily need it, but you know in the back of everyone’s minds that’s the case. I’m not sure if Milan feels as he has a lot to prove, but we know his years in Edmonton didn’t pan out how anyone was expecting let alone how I’m sure he expected it too, so maybe he is entering this year training as hard as ever, maybe even with a chip on his shoulder coming into this season with the mindset he has everything to prove. I’m hoping for that, as I’m sure the rest of Flames fans are. 

We’re still weeks away from these guys even stepping on the ice for training camp to see how this deal is going to pan out, but rest assured on every sports channel, every sports radio feed, every blog post at some point or another are going to dissect this trade all year long no matter how it starts, how it progresses and how it finishes. A very familiar scenario is going to be playing out on both ends of the QE2 Highway this year and it will definitely be fun to watch. The more I write about this trade, the more excitement I get thinking of having that 17 flying around in the Dome this year. I’ll leave you with this. Mark it down now, December 27th, 2019 up in Edmonton. The first time this regular season this trade will go head to head. Until next time C of Red.

-Murrant 

[smilystore]

Salah double seals easy win for Reds

Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp says his side “do not need to excite everyone in every second” after a comfortable victory over Arsenal maintained their place at the top of the Premier League.

The Reds also preserved their 100% start to the Premier League season as Mohamed Salah scored twice to add to Joel Matip’s first-half header in a dominant performance at Anfield.

“It was a performance full of power, energy, greed, and passion, which I think you need against a team like Arsenal,” Klopp told Sky Sports.

“The last 10 minutes I saw the possession – 53 to 47% or something like that – but over 80 minutes it must have been completely different. We were completely in charge of the game.

“We are not Disneyland, we do not need to excite everyone in every second.”

The Gunners, the only other side in the top flight to win their first two games, had opportunities to shock Liverpool in a tight first half, especially when record £72m signing Nicolas Pepe shot straight at keeper Adrian after running clear.

Liverpool took control when Matip put them ahead with a powerful header from Trent Alexander-Arnold’s corner four minutes before the interval.

And any hopes manager Unai Emery had of watching his side mount a recovery were snuffed out in the 49th minute after a moment of madness from new signing David Luiz, who needlessly dragged Salah back in the area.

Liverpool’s Egyptian attacker drilled home the penalty and then embarrassed Luiz again out on the touchline at the start of a dazzling run that ended with a low, curling finish into the bottom corner just before the hour.

Arsenal substitute Lucas Torreira pulled one back late on, but nothing was getting in the way of Liverpool’s 12th successive league victory, equalling their best sequence in the top flight under Kenny Dalglish between April and October 1990.

Liverpool back in the old routine

Liverpool had moments when they stuttered against Southampton and their defense has looked unusually fallible – but this was a movie we have seen many times before at Anfield under Jurgen Klopp.

Arsenal has suffered badly here in recent seasons, losing 5-1 last season and 4-0 in Arsene Wenger’s final season. Once again, despite taking their time to hit top gear, Liverpool’s ruthlessness and intensity simply proved too much for Arsenal.

True, they gratefully accepted Luiz’s gifts but once Matip put Liverpool ahead the pressure and intensity applied to Arsenal were simply too much for the Gunners to resist.

And, as Arsenal discovered, when you fail to take chances to punish Liverpool, the inevitable outcome is that you will be punished yourselves.

Liverpool does not simply have a prodigious work ethic that makes life permanently uncomfortable for opponents; they also have world-class attacking options as illustrated by Salah’s brilliant weaving run and slide-rule finish for their third.

Klopp’s side missed out on the title by a single point despite only one loss, to champions Manchester City, last season – and three wins from three has quickly put the marker down that they intend to go one better and claim that first title in 30 years.

Liability Luiz kills Arsenal chances

Luiz has a track record of success that suggests he may be able to bring moments of quality to Arsenal’s defense after his surprise £8m move from Chelsea – but there is no escaping he has the enduring capability to be a complete liability.

The Brazilian, at 32, is not going to change and so it proved as he delivered a moment of crass stupidity that killed stone dead Arsenal’s hopes of taking anything away from Anfield.

It is a stretch to say Arsenal had Liverpool on the ropes but, despite the overall domination of the European champions, the Gunners certainly had moments of threat through the pace and menace of Pepe and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang. They would have started the second half with hope.

Luiz made it all count for nothing when he felt his best method of dealing with Salah’s 49th-minute raid into the penalty area was to blatantly drag him back by the shirt in a red-mist moment that did not even seriously require the intervention of the video assistant referee.

Salah, despite some ludicrous protests from Luiz, drilled home the penalty before taking him to cleaners when scoring Liverpool’s brilliant third.

Too much of the Arsenal’s playing out from the back was asking for trouble against this Liverpool side. Throw in the act of stupidity from Luiz and ultimately they got what they deserved, despite some areas for Emery to admire.

“We were doing some transitions very good and we had some chances but, in the second half, the penalty was very soft,” Emery told BBC Match of the Day. #

“After 2-0 our reaction was good. We needed to attack and take a different moment in the match. We are disappointed we lost 3-1 but watching some players we can be optimistic.

“We need to improve in the possession and countering the pressure but Liverpool is the best team with this. We have to be realistic but we can fight closer to them.”

Man of the match – Mohamed Salah (Liverpool)

Salah scored 22 league goals for Liverpool last term and has picked up where he left off

Arsenal’s Liverpool woe – the stats

Since Jurgen Klopp took over in October 2015, Liverpool has scored 26 goals in eight Premier League games against Arsenal – the most one side has netted against another in the competition in that period.

Only Everton at Arsenal (64) has conceded more away goals against a single opponent in the Premier League than Arsenal at Liverpool (62).

Arsenal has now failed to win any of their last 23 away league games against fellow ‘Big six’ sides (D8 L15) – during this run, they have conceded 53 goals while keeping just one clean sheet.

Since the start of last season, Arsenal has given away eight Premier League penalties – only Brighton (10) have faced more.

Liverpool have scored 22 headed goals in the Premier League since the start of last season; seven more than any other side. The Reds have scored three in this campaign already, while no other side has scored more than one.

Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp has faced Arsenal eight times without defeat in the Premier League (W5 D3).

Mohamed Salah has been directly involved in more Premier League goals against Arsenal than against any other side (eight; six goals and two assists). He has scored in all four of his home games against them.

Trent Alexander-Arnold has assisted nine goals in his past 10 appearances at Anfield for Liverpool in all competitions, including assisting once in each of his past five competitive home games.

Nicolas Pepe has become the first player to successfully dribble past Virgil van Dijk in the Dutch defender’s past 50 appearances in the Premier League, since Mikel Merino in March 2018 for Newcastle.

What’s next?

Liverpool travels to Burnley in their next Premier League fixture on Saturday, 31 August (17:30 BST). Arsenal resume league action when they host Tottenham in the first north London derby of the season, on Sunday, 1 September (16:30 BST).

By Phil McNulty

The post Salah double seals easy win for Reds appeared first on smilystore.

source https://smilystore.com/2019/08/24/salah-double-seals-easy-win-for-reds/

[junker-town]

This is probably Bill Belichick’s game plan to beat the Rams

Jared Goff? C.J. Anderson? Brandin Cooks? Todd Gurley? What exactly is the Rams’ biggest strength, and how might the Patriots try to take it away?

Belichick’s general defensive philosophy was simple: Find out what the other guys do best — which is what they always want to do, especially under pressure in a big game — take it away from them, and make them do things that they are uncomfortable with.

— David Halberstam, The Education of a Coach

Seventeen years ago, Bill Belichick’s Patriots upset the Rams with one of the most well-coached Super Bowl efforts the NFL has seen. The Rams were two-touchdown favorites, powered by an underrated defense and a devastating, balanced passing game. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce were both 1,000-yard receivers, and role players like Ricky Proehl and Az-Zahir Hakim were around to devastate you if you somehow slowed their primary weapons.

Belichick and his staff knew that Marshall Faulk was the heart of the offense, though, and New England built a game plan around swarming him, hitting him as hard and as frequently as possible (even when legality was questionable), and not letting him out of the pocket in pass-rush situations.

It worked as well as anything could. Faulk carried 17 times for just 76 yards, and while he did catch four of four passes for 54 yards, New England threw the Rams out of rhythm just enough to get off the field in key moments. St. Louis scored under 20 points for just the third time in 19 games; they out-gained the Pats by 160 yards but turned the ball over three times and saw drives stall out at the New England 32 (field goal), 34 (missed field goal), 40, 49, and 50 (all punts).

This was maybe the most well-coordinated, timely defensive effort in a Super Bowl since the Giants had beaten the Bills 11 years earlier... with defensive coordinator Bill Belichick.

Take away what you’re best at and force you to play left-handed. It’s not a unique idea, but Belichick has done it better in big games than pretty much anyone.

If that means keeping the ball out of Faulk’s hands and risking getting beaten by others, fine. If it means letting Buffalo’s Thurman Thomas run wild (relatively speaking) and overplaying a dangerous Bills passing game in Super Bowl XXV, that’s okay, too.

It begs a pretty obvious question as the Pats prepare to play a completely different Rams team in the Super Bowl: what do the Rams do best? And how do you take it away?

And that’s a pretty difficult question to answer.

The Rams are awash with interesting and unique offensive talent, and head coach Sean McVay’s offensive scheme has proven particularly adaptable, capable of shifting from speed-based to powerful, based on how you’re trying to go about stopping it.

As Josh Hermsmeyer recently wrote at Five Thirty Eight, the Rams do a great job of dictating the choices you make schematically.

[A]n NFL offense is not just at the mercy of the defense when it comes to running against stacked or light boxes. Play-callers actually have a large degree of control over how many defenders near the line of scrimmage they will have to face. When an offense trots out three or more wide receivers, the defense nearly always matches with an equal number of defensive backs, which limits the number of linebackers on the field and lightens up the box. [...]

[T]he Rams used the 11 personnel more than any other team in the NFL in 2018. ... [I]t’s really not so much a matter of who you run the ball with — or behind — it’s a matter of when you run it. McVay chooses his spots as well as anyone in the NFL.

When we talk about taking away someone’s strengths, we usually think in terms of how you handle a specific player, or rush the passer, or load the box against the run.

The Rams are balanced enough to punish you for whatever choice you make. They have two different running backs (Todd Gurley and recent addition C.J. Anderson) who have rushed for at least 150 yards in a game. In the passing game, even without receiver Cooper Kupp, injured since midseason, they have two wideouts with at least three 100-yard receiving games (Brandin Cooks has six, Robert Woods three), two other weapons with at least three 70-yard games (Gurley and Josh Reynolds), and two tight ends who combined for 57 regular season receptions, plus eight more in the playoffs.

Their biggest strength might be that they have a counter for whatever you take away. How do you take that away?

You probably do it by attacking their biggest weakness. From a Five Factors perspective — efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, turnovers — it’s not too hard to spot.

SB Nation NFL data app

Los Angeles is absurdly efficient for all the reasons noted above. But considering how infrequently they find themselves in awkward downs and distances (which tend to be well-correlated to turnovers), the Rams sure do give opponents quite a few opportunities to make takeaways.

Fumbles per game (including playoff games): Rams 0.9 (20th in NFL), Patriots 0.4 (second)

Passes defensed per pass*: Rams 11 percent (14th), Patriots 8 percent (fourth)

Passes defensed per pass on passing downs (i.e. pressure situations): Rams 14 percent (22nd), Patriots 11 percent (13th)

* A pass defensed is one that is either intercepted or broken up. On average, 19.6 of passes defensed in 2018 were intercepted.

Quarterback Jared Goff fumbled 12 times in the regular season, tied for the most in the league. The other 12-fumble QBs either faced a lot more pressure than Goff (Dak Prescott, Derek Carr) or ran the ball a ton and faced a decent amount of pressure (Lamar Jackson).

Fumbles are random enough that we have to be careful about labeling someone as fumble-prone in general; that’s doubly true for Goff, who fumbled only 13 times combined in his first two seasons. But it remains true that the ball has fallen out of his hands a lot this year.

Mike DiNovo-USA TODAY Sports

There’s also occasional danger when the ball intentionally comes out of Goff’s hands. When the Rams are forced behind schedule, Goff has his pass either intercepted or broken up 14 percent of the time — about once in every seven throws. Sometimes that’s a decision-making mistake, but as ESPN’s Bill Barnwell noted, sometimes it’s also simply a poorly-thrown ball.

During the season, Goff was incomplete or intercepted on 24 deep passes with more than a 50 percent shot of being completed per the NFL’s Next Gen Stats, more than anybody else in football. He was the quarterback for the three worst deep misses of the season, when he one-hopped the dig route to Cooks, failed to connect with Kupp against the Raiders (on the same drag-and-go concept Kupp would run for a touchdown against the Vikings three weeks later), and threw behind Reynolds on this beautiful fake screen in Week 17. Each of those three passes had between an 85 and 90 percent chance of being completed per Next Gen Stats, and Goff has to shoulder a reasonable amount of the blame for not hitting them.

Granted, the Patriots aren’t the best in the world at attacking the ball in general — they’re 22nd in passes defensed per pass on passing downs — but they have probably spent most of the last two weeks trying to figure out how to bait Goff into misfires.

In Barnwell’s preview, he surmises that Belichick will try to put the game on Goff’s shoulders. I agree. McVay showed wonderful adaptability in re-crafting the Rams offense to lean more on Anderson and a powerful offensive line, but it came out of necessity, as Goff had begun to lose the plot after Kupp’s injury.

New England finally figured out how to generate pressure late in the season, and after a brief, sputtering disaster in pass protection, the Rams once again figured out how to keep the pressure off of Jared Goff late in the year.

Rams sack rate allowed: 3.3 percent in the first five games, 7.3 percent in the next eight games, 2.2 percent in the last five.

Patriots sack rate: 3.8 percent in the first 12 games, 8.1 percent in the last six.

Los Angeles committed a rash of midseason turnovers — 11 in four games, compared to nine in the other 14 — and it coincided almost directly with the uptick in the sack rate. Once the latter settled, so did the former.

The Rams try to lay your choices bare, force you to commit to stopping the run or the pass, then destroy you with the other. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the Patriots put enough defenders in the box to dictate the pass and take their chances from there.

It doesn’t always work, of course. Belichick might be the greatest coach in NFL history, but the Patriots’ defense hasn’t ranked in the DVOA top 10 since 2006, and the greatest coach in NFL history still oversaw a defense that gave up 373 passing yards to Nick Foles in last year’s Super Bowl. And just two years after holding Warner to a 78.3 passer rating in the Super Bowl, the Pats gave up a 113.6 to Carolina’s Jake Delhomme.

As a defensive coordinator and head coach, he’s coached in more big games than anyone, and he’s been burned a few times along the way. Goff might respond well to the moment, and his accuracy might be mostly on point.

Still, you pick your poison and ride with your decision. Seventeen years ago, Belichick tried to keep the ball out of Marshall Faulk’s hands, and my best guess is that, on Sunday, he’ll want the ball in Goff’s hands as much as possible.

[daretolaff-blog-blog]

What else?

Looking back on the whole thing I laugh at the amount of nonsense that went on. There were days I had to play pool volleyball against guests and a tug of war against the deck crew who all have arms like Popeye. In any of these types of events I took to just acting like a pantomime villain, getting the crowd riled up and booing me. When you're facing a team of men mountains, you have to accept that you won't win. These people want a show, not to witness you defy the laws of physics. It's a cruise ship not the Large Hadron Collider. Aside from anything else you're off your head if you think I'm going to risk putting my back out taking part in an event usually reserved for a school sports day. I was useless at them back then as well, not much is going to have changed in 10 years. As well as my own made-up onstage shenanigans I was required to play the part of an Indian taxi driver during a musical number. Now as mentioned, my tug of war skills have remained consistently dreadful since my days at Morrison's Academy, (second name check in this blog- they'll need to pay me for advertising soon.) I made up for this by reviving my portrayal of Ali Hakim from the school's production of Oklahoma. Basically I was a more cartoonish (if that's possible) version of Apu from The Simpsons. This is not something I'm particularly proud of but duty calls. As is often the case in life, so many stand out moments began unassumingly. For example I was sat one day manning the onboard book swap room (it's not all prancing about in a crown. This was a time to write quizzes and read Trainspotting) and a dad passes by with his 9 year old daughter and offers to show me a magic trick. The wee girl seems mildly exasperated and so I think to myself that it's a typical embarrassing dad moment, which is seemingly confirmed when he fails to pick my chosen card from the deck. For a moment he frowns, then grimaces. What I saw next took a minute to fully process. The guy opens his mouth and out comes a folded card which of course was my 9 of Diamonds. As it goes the guy is a professional, although he's got a "day job" as well and went on to do a few more tricks. I told the girl that she had the coolest dad in the world. Time to dispel a few myths and maybe confirm a couple others. Firstly, this is far from slave labour and the horror stories you may have heard are either a thing or the past or just myth. It's true that there are no days off which means a 7 day working week but we're in port often enough. On a port day we either park up on a dock or just out from a beach and crew and passengers can take a Tender (glorified lifeboat) ashore. Port day equals a cheeky half day; the morning off if you're not on duty and evening off if you are as being on IPM (In Port Manning) duty means a 7:30 start or earlier. There's a legal document we fill out every day called an ILO which is a big grid whose columns represent every half hour in the day and the rows being every day of the month. That grid puts Glasgow City Centre to shame. You put an X in every box where you had half an hour of rest so as you can imagine it's reasonably time consuming... God help you if you fill it out wrong as it's required to be immaculate. One mistake and you're doing the entire thing again. I've seen people have breakdowns on the 30th of the month because they've made an arse of it. FAQs What clan is your kilt? It hasn't got one. What have you got under your kilt? A penis and testicles. Also, underwear. I'm not daft, I know 100 drunk middle aged Sharons are going to lift this thing up, let's not have them confronted with the truth. Do you get offended at getting called Irish? No that's English you're confusing it with. Are you Celtic or Rangers? Mate, I know nothing about football, and clearly neither do you.

[yahoo-puck-daddy-blog]

The Sabres were a fixable mess, but their owner is holding them back (Trending Topics)

BUFFALO, NY – JUNE 24: Terry Pegula of the Buffalo Sabres attends the 2016 NHL Draft on June 25, 2016 in Buffalo, New York. (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)

It seems like it would be the best thing in the world, right? A guy takes over ownership of your team, and he basically says, “Hey, I’m not in this to make money. I’ve loved this team since I was a kid, and I’m already a billionaire. So I will love this team as much as I ever have, and the only difference will be my name is on the checks.”

So when Terry Pegula comes in as owner of the Buffalo Sabres in 2011, it was such a nice change of pace from the previous owner, who penny-pinched and generally oversaw a club that was pretty good — they finished with 100 points the season before Pegula bought the team — but about to decline.

And the first thing Pegula does? He takes the 196 points the Sabres earned from 2009-11 as proof that his brand new club is proof that they’re on the cusp of contendership and, in his opening presser, promises Stanley Cups. Plural. And I swear to god this is true and you can look it up: He said the first one would come in three years.

[Follow Puck Daddy on social media: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Tumblr]

We all know what happened next. So there went the three-year plan.

Not to re-litigate the sins of the past too much here, but it turns out Pegula’s idea to make his beloved boyhood team better — “Just spend money on literally whoever you want, even if it’s Ville Leino or Christian Ehrhoff” — doesn’t actually work in practice. Sports isn’t like regular business. You can’t throw millions of dollars at your problems to make them go away. The team fell apart almost immediately.

All that starts the rebuild in earnest, and while Pegula probably doesn’t like it, everyone except the biggest crybabies in the local and national media sees the logic behind the move: In today’s NHL, you basically have to rip it down to the studs if you want to build things back up again.

Only the Sabres, despite icing two of the worst teams in modern NHL history and finishing 30th both seasons, don’t win the draft lottery. In failing to do so, they miss out on Aaron Ekblad and Connor McDavid.

Here it must be pointed out that, when it came to tearing down the decaying husk of the old, pretty-good Sabres and rebuilding it anew, Murray did not do a particularly good job in the “rebuilding” part. It’s easy to trade every veteran you have on the roster for first- and second-round picks. And while that went on, Murray said all the right things, and clearly understood what he should be doing. The problem was obviously that he did not do what he should be doing.

Everyone knew the Sabres were going to take a step forward in Bylsma’s first year, and 81 points for a team that just finished with 54 isn’t bad. As a means of powering out of the tear-down phase, Murray added Ryan O’Reilly and Evander Kane to the mix up front — important for a team with an historically horrendous offense. He also brought in Robin Lehner in net, which addressed another huge hole the team dealt with.

In theory, a team with O’Reilly, Eichel, Kane, and Sam Reinhart — the consolation prize in the Ekblad sweepstakes — has a pretty good young forward group that’s going to score you some goals. It’s something you can build around fairly quickly. In theory. Adding Matt Moulson (who only played 11:36 a night this season)? That wasn’t gonna do it. Adding Kyle Okposo? That probably helps a lot going forward.

To be fair, Murray was also saddled with Regier’s horrendous history at the draft, so the cupboards were a little bare. This was a problem that really only required time to fix, but Murray didn’t acquit himself all that well at the draft table either.

The real problem was that in all the help the team added up front, Murray’s moves to address one of the worst blue lines in the league were baffling to say the least. For one thing, no, Rasmus Ristolainen actually isn’t as good as everyone in Buffalo makes him out to be. Honestly, he’s just not a difference-maker that helps you win games. And he was their best defenseman this past season by approximately one mile.

The Dmitry Kulikov trade was a disaster. He was terrible in his first year in Buffalo, and the Sabres gave up Mark Pysyk (who was decent enough in Florida), as well as a second- and third-round pick to acquire him. Another defenseman Murray actively acquired (in the Tyler Myers/Evander Kane trade) was Zach Bogosian, who’s horrible. Jake McCabe, bad. Cody Franson, perfectly fine but used in limited minutes and played only 68 games. Josh Gorges, one of the worst in the league. Justin Falk, a guy you might as well forget is even in the league.

That Bylsma couldn’t make a team go with this crew is not in any way surprising. That Eichel got sick of it in a hurry is not in any way surprising.

Murray had, in my estimation and apparently Pegula’s as well, not done enough to keep his job. A combination of mediocre-verging-on-bad and unlucky at the draft, the Buffalo pipeline isn’t exactly bursting with talent. And that D group is so ugly as to be actually embarrassing.

FILE – In this May 28, 2015, file photo, Buffalo Sabres GM Tim Murray, left, and newly hired coach Dan Bylsma hold a Sabres’ jersey as they pose for a photo after a news conference in Buffalo, N.Y. The Sabres have fired general manager Tim Murray and coach Dan Bylsma after the youthful team missed the playoffs for a sixth consecutive season. Owner Terry Pegula made the announcement Thursday, April 20, 2017. (AP Photo/Gary Wiepert, File)

But Bylsma? I say it every time a good coach gets fired: Who do you hire that’s better than the guy you canned? What is Bylsma, a top-six coach in the league? Top-eight? If you have him outside your top 10, you’re nuts. His replacement is likely to have at least an equally difficult time. assuming there is no major overhaul; Kulikov, Franson, Brian Gionta, No. 7 defender Taylor Fedun, and backup goalie Anders Nilsson are the only UFAs whose contracts run out this summer. Whoever replaces Murray has to let ’em all walk. After he adds a coach.

But here’s the problem: Who made the decision to fire the coach and GM? Pegula. Check the letterhead. Who’s going to hire the new GM, if not have a big say in the hiring of the coach? Pegula. If you don’t think so you’re deluding yourself.

And what happened the last time he brought in people to run his beloved club? He brought in a beloved former player who quit after four months, and a beloved former coach who had no idea what he was doing. So what prevents Pegula from doing the same thing this time? Rumors are already swirling about Chris Drury, currently in the Rangers front office, potentially being a candidate. On Thursday Greg also mentioned maybe bringing Lindy Ruff back to coach.

And why not? This kind of thinking — that former players for any given franchise can successfully guide them back to winning ways — is currently going great in Vancouver and Boston, right? Worked even better in Edmonton for a decade-plus.

The problem with owners who get involved in decision-making for their professional sports franchises is that very few of them got rich by owning a professional sports franchise. Pegula knows how the fracking business works, and he — like all obscenely wealthy people — figures that makes him some sort of expert on just about any topic. Because hey, when you have $3 billion in the bank, no one’s gonna tell you no about anything. “Yes Mr. Pegula, good point,” is the most ardent disagreement the rich encounter.

One supposes that if you own a team no one gets to tell you how to run it, but rich people don’t have brains that allow them to see things in the way a normal human being would, no matter how much they’d like to think otherwise. Pegula may see himself as a fan first, but he’s making franchise-changing decisions based on one year’s won-lost record, and (probably) the say-so of a 20-year-old. It’s only going to lead to trouble.

[Join a Yahoo Daily Fantasy Hockey contest now]

A natural gas tycoon owning the team and deciding to fire an elite coach and so-so GM after one injury-riddled, bad-luck season — the Sabres shot 6.4 percent at 5-on-5, and 8 percent overall, both in the last-six in the league — in which the D corps was never going to allow it to be competitive anyway? Alright, explain to me how that’s any different from letting lucky Caller No. 7 to the WGR morning show make that decision.

They both, ultimately, have the same qualification when it comes to understanding this sport on any sort of deeper level.

They’ve loved the team since they were kids. And that’s it.

Ryan Lambert is a Puck Daddy columnist. His email is here and his Twitter is here.

All stats via Corsica unless otherwise stated.

MORE FROM YAHOO HOCKEY:

[m-green-writing]

My 2016 in Films

I should really get a film blog for this, but seeing as I don’t have one, and I already have way too many blogs going, this list is going here. Enjoy. Or not. Either or.

Creed ****

I’ve never seen a Rocky movie. In fact, “fighting” or sports movies in general I just have no interest in. I’ve seen a few and I’ve liked them but the genre itself hasn’t really grabbed me. With that said, I really enjoyed Creed. Knowing nothing about Rocky I was worried that I would be left behind with a lot of what was going on, but luckily the movie does its best to welcome newcomers as well as long time fans. In essence this is a passing of the torch movie, and it works incredibly well. Michael B. Jordan is incredibly likeable and Stallone, whilst still not amazing at drama, can certainly bring the emotion when it’s needed. If I had one drawback is that the film felt a little unfocused at times, with a collection of scenes all fighting to be shown. Ultimately it doesn’t affect the end result. The end fight is also a great finale, and in general, the strongest parts of the movie are the boxing scenes themselves. Definitely give it a whirl if you’re even slightly interested. 

In the Heart of the Sea ****

Earning a lot of controversy with its subject matter (i.e. whaling), In the Heart of the Sea wasn’t resonating with audiences enough to convince them to go and see it. But they should. The whaling aspect is present throughout, yes, but it never tries to justify it and really the main focus is on the people; namely the captain, played by Benjamin Walker, and the frustrated first mate, played by Chris Hemsworth. This is also a very human story, detailing just what people will do not only to survive but also to thrive. It isn’t without problems sadly. The CGI is incredibly noticeable and distracting, and its story telling is a little jagged at times. For example, I felt it wasn’t clear that it was being told from the cabin boy’s perspective until about half way through; then again, that could just be me. All in all the movie is engaging and darkly entertaining. The scenes involving the illusive “White Whale” are some of the best sea-fairing moments I’ve seen on film, obvious CGI and all, and if you were to take anything home with from the film, you should take the raw humanity shown. 

The Revenant ***

Why is it that Oscar-bait movies these days are so overrated. I mean, the Revenant isn’t a bad movie per se - it’s got a strong cast, a straightforward story, and a very ambitious director - it’s just generally a slog. The CGI is criminally visible half the time, making it difficult to get immersed in the wild-life scenes, and most of the dialogue is mumbled. Honestly this could have been a silent movie. The only-natural-light approach also doesn’t serve the story well, which can lead to overly dark moments. Leonardo DiCaprio took the oscar for best actor for this role, and, not to say it’s undeserved, but he has done better roles than this. In fact, he should have earned his Oscar for one of them, not here. It’s a good performance; it’s visceral and there’s a hell of a lot of effort going in, but it also feels pretty empty, like there’s not much depth outside of whispering and grunting. Generally, it’s about an hour too long, and has way too many slow moments, but it’s OK enough. I just didn’t realise OK was Oscar worthy. 

Spotlight ****

Why is it that every other story that comes out of Hollywood is “based on true events”? Half the time the events are heavily dramatised to appeal on the big screen. Even so, thankfully, amidst the fluff of over-embellished narratives, there a few diamonds shining through. Spotlight is one such diamond. Detailing out the investigative journalism of the catholic paedophilia scandal at the turn of the century, the film (if you’ll excuse the term) spotlights the people who uncovered it all. Everyone pretty much knows about the controversy, so it’s good to see what happened behind the scenes. In terms of narrative it’s actually quite slow, but the performances keep you well and truly invested in what’s going on. Every high, every low, and every set back holds your interest firmly. There’s no getting around it; the subject matter is quite disturbing and many people may not be too comfortable discussing it, but that doesn’t stop Spotlight being an uplifting story about facing corruption and winning.

Dad's Army **

Despite not really being this film’s target audience (that would be people that grew up with the show) I was quite looking forward to this flick. The trailer looked to be pretty funny, and the casting seemed like a sure fit. Sadly, the film just didn’t deliver. The word that comes to mind is predictable. After the basic premise has been given to you, you know how this film is going to go. Misunderstandings are telegraphed, jokes outstay their welcome more often than not, and generally the whole movie just doesn’t feel like it belongs. Like I say though, the cast is great and everyone brings their best. None more-so than the scene stealing Michael Gambon as Private Godfrey, who is both riotously funny and incredibly sincere - to both the characters and the source material. The humour isn’t that bad either really. There are more misses than hits, mind you, but the ones that land really get some genuine belly-laughs out of the crowd. There’s also a good mix. There’s slapstick, wordplay, some great writing, some equally great delivery; all of it does come together, but not often enough. It’s a shame this film is more a collection of highlights than it is an actual movie. 

Concussion ***

Yet another “based on true events” tale, Concussion goes into the groundbreaking work of Dr Bennet Omalu, as he uncovers the adverse effects of professional football. On paper it’s a fairly engaging idea, but in execution I feel it misses its mark somewhat. Will Smith in the lead is a great move and most of the supporting cast do their best, but generally you feel as if the whole movie is lacking in substance. You start to wonder if this movie would have been suited to a documentary rather than a movie. A few too many dull moments drag the pacing down, and with ultimately no real build up, the film feels rather empty. It just keeps rolling along, going from scene to scene until it ends. Apologies for the spoiler but there’s also no real resolution at the end either, no grand victory, just a slight change to an already corrupted rule book. Hardly the best note to close on. Even if it is being faithful to the truth, perhaps it would have been better left un-filmed. For what it’s worth, it’s not a terrible movie. It’s entertaining enough and Will Smith is charming pretty much 100% of the time so it’s not a complete waste. It’s just trying to tell a story that is either unfinished or not there at all.

Hail, Caeser **

Hail, Caeser is a film that’s got all the critics in a tizzy. “It’s the Coen Brothers, they can’t make a bad movie” and “It’s a love letter to the art of cinema, you must be heartless not to fall for its charm” rung out in almost every review I read. The above statements are correct: this movie is made by the Coen brothers - filmmakers with both a strong writing history and a strong directorial history - and this film is a love letter to the industry’s past. Do not think, though, that it is a good film. Hail, Caeser has the star-studded cast, and the writing to make it a great movie, but this film has such a monumental structure deficiency that what we end up with is a movie with no sense of pace or plot. The story, which you’d think should take centre stage at all times, is actually constantly on the back seat to arguably pointless scenes. These scenes are there to “show” what the business was like “back in the day”, but they add nothing and go nowhere. Some even go on for an absurd amount of time, feeling more like filler in an already full movie. They are more distractions than anything else. It’s like trying to read a book at a pub quiz; you’re just not allowed to follow the story. Furthermore, you realise by the end of the movie that this star-studded cast, this billing of absolute talent, is barely used. Scarlett Johansson is in a grand total of 2 scenes. Channing Tatum, 2 scenes. Jonah Hill, who is on the bloody poster, features in 1 scene. 1 scene! And it’s the scene in the trailer. Why bring him on board at all? Was he just out and about and you snatched him on his day off? Did you have just a huge casting budget and you just had to spend it all? None of it contributes anything. As a love letter to the golden years of the silver screen, the film succeeds, but as a movie, as a story, as a narrative, it fails on all fronts. 

Deadpool ****

In an era where adult satire means juvenile humour, I was nervous about seeing Deadpool. The concept was there, and Ryan Reynolds was born to play the role, but I was worried the comedy would be a little below my tastes. Thankfully, this dressing down of super hero movies, and action movies in general, is a hilarious and fun experience. Yes, there are a few too many crude jokes, and the humour is a little childish sometimes, but Ryan Reynolds sells this character and then some. His charisma alone is enough to make this movie good. Add to that some brilliant meta humour and blink-and-you’ll-miss-them references to other properties and you’ve got something truly unique in its field. Deadpool is perfectly satisfying; it doesn’t outstay its welcome and it knows where to take the audience. It feels quite short, which is refreshing when most action movies feel incredibly drawn out, and it also has a small but meaningful story. You can tell the team behind this put in maximum effort.

Zootropolis *****

I really like the direction Disney have been going recently. They could just churn out any old colour splashed montage to keep kids entertained, but seeing them use their position and talent to tell not only thought-provoking, but also progressive stories gives me hope for the future generations. Zootropolis (Zootopia to everywhere else outside the UK) is just the latest example. Where to even start? You wouldn’t think a movie about anthropomorphic animals would have a lot of depth but it surprisingly does. It tackles huge adult issues like race and prejudice, as well as going into sexism and misogyny, all while maintaining a family atmosphere. Some of its writing does get a little heavy handed sometimes - what with the main character Judy having her parents tell her to give up on her dreams - and some of the jokes don’t have the energy to take off like the rest of them, but for the most part the movie is tightly written, tightly acted, and generally well thought out. Everyone can relate to the dilemmas in this movie, and the best part is the film seems focused on building bridges between factions than it does painting divisions. It wants to make something out of the grey areas, and frankly I think it achieves this with flying colours. Zootropolis is quite possibly the best movie I’ve seen this year.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ***

DC need an intervention. I felt this even before I saw the movie, but now I’m only more convinced. To be fair this movie starts off and it’s not too bad. I think that’s what made the following hour and a half so hard; this film had potential - in spite of my assumptions. Everything starts falling apart the moment they try and allude to future films, stories, and spin-offs. Once that starts happening, the cracks in this film’s facade only become more and more apparent. Needless and overdone dream sequences used as narrative devices, absolutely no coherent sense of structure or causality, and zero effort to capture the essences of the film’s main stars. Both characters preach a moral high ground, yet neither of them have one. And these aren’t character flaws being shown to the audience, these are genuine arguments presented as if we the viewers should agree with a certain side. Batman for a start kills. Whether with a gun or a knife, or just with his own hands, he murders people. This is so out of character that it doesn’t make any sense, no matter how the film tries to - poorly - explain it. Then there’s Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther, who is painful to watch. Even if you take it as writ and aren’t a fan of the source material, his performance is so bad that it alone had the power to sink this film. There are some good qualities. The music is possibly the best thing about it, and the casting - Eisenberg aside - is actually pretty perfect. Ben Affleck is probably the best on-screen Batman, it’s just a shame that he’s written so far off base. Overall, it’s just entertaining enough to scrape an average score. There are some good scenes sprinkled about, and the actors do put in a lot of effort. If only DC and Warner Brothers knew what they were doing; this could have been great. 

Eddie the Eagle ****

Oh look, another movie “based on true events”. Luckily this is one of the better ones - even if it does embellish a lot. For example, Hugh Jackman’s fallen-from-grace coach is entirely fictitious, and is rather a culmination of all the real Eddie the Eagle’s mentors. Furthermore, for the sake of storytelling, the alignments are very black and white; there’s not a lot of grey going on here. In the wrong hands this would have worked against the movie. Thankfully, it works out great. Taron Egerton as the titular lead is extraordinarily likeable and relateable and both the writing and performances are on point. when this movie wants to be dramatic it pulls it off, when it wants to be funny and whimsical it pulls that off too. At the end of the day it’s not going to be breaking any ground, and it’s hardily original or unique, but it’s a brilliant feel-good film for anyone of any age. Give it watch if you ever get chance. 

Midnight Special **

Midnight special is an odd one. It raised a lot of eye-brows for many critics, and earned a lot of praise for its high ambition with a low budget; but honestly I can’t see it as anything but a sub-par sci-fi flick. The mystery and the intrigue is undermined by the movie’s inability to pace or explain, and a lot of the performances here feel a little stagnant. Also, as much as the film tries to paint itself as a sci-fi, with call backs to genre greats like Close Encounters, it has an insane amount of Religious overtones. This movie paints the main child as a somewhat messiah figure, which would be fine, but it doesn’t fit well with the science fiction element they’re also running with. Is he an alien? Is he a messiah? What are the extent of his powers and why does he have them? The movie makes its audience ask these questions and more, and it seems to enjoy watching their viewers writhe in confusion and frustration when nothing is explained. It’s a story with build up but no pay off. A joke with no punchline. What’s more, while I’m not saying a movie has to have money behind it to be good, the low budget aspect really doesn’t help in some scenes. There’s a moment where Michael Shannon and his son are in the woods at night, and you can’t see anything. It was just black with hints of grey. Altogether, the movie is harmless enough, but it’s too boring and too obtuse to warrant any real praise.

The Jungle book ***

The latest in Disney’s line of “Real Reboots”, the jungle book takes the classic story and brings it to life with “live action”. I put quotation marks there because it’s not really live action, is it? Half the sets aren’t real, and naturally every animal is CG. It’s only slightly less cartoony than the original. Right away, you’re first criticism is a valid one: “Why even bother?” It’s true. It seems ultimately pointless to reboot this movie. The Jungle book isn’t Disney’s strongest properties, and although it’s a classic, not a lot of people would say it’s their favourite. So why remake it at all. Sadly I don’t have an answer, but taking the movie for what it is, it’s actually pretty all right. I can’t hate this movie too much as I can tell a lot of effort went into it. The casting is decent enough, though for every Idris Elba as Shere Khan there’s a Christopher Walken as King Louie. Speaking of, a lot of things have been changed from the original - King Louie now being almost sociopathic in his pursuit of fire for instance. “Well maybe this is this film’s attempt to be different from the original?” You may say; but then why do they keep some of the songs - arguably the most iconic thing from the 1960s version. In a way they keep all the songs, but some are saved for the credits, which makes you wonder if this movie was undergoing an identity crisis during production. Ultimately, it’s not a terrible film. It’s got some highlights worth watching, it’s just not going to take many awards home. Then again, does a movie have to do that to be good?

Captain America Civil War ****

I like all comic books. DC, Marvel, so long as it’s done right, I don’t mind. So when you ask me, am I team DC or team Marvel, I’m team Comic Books. Y’see Marvel are doing a better job because they’ve got the right people behind the scenes pulling the strings. DC are struggling, not because no one likes Super-man, or that people are all Marvel fanboys, but because DC have decided to surrender all control of their properties to Warner Brothers. All these IPs are money spinners to these companies, but the heads at Marvel and Disney know that a money spinner is only useful so long as it’s faithful to the fans, and good for everyone else. Take Captain America Civil War, which is probably the most ambitious comic book movie ever put to film. Over ten on screen heroes, each with their own presence and each bringing layers of potential to the show, as well as trying to weave in a coherent plot that ties it all together. The action here truly has never been done before, or at the very least not to this scale. The performances again are great; these characters are always fun to watch, and it poses some pretty interesting arguments, leading to genuine dialogue. It’s not perfect however. The villain is quite weak, despite having a strong presence in Marvel’s history, and sometimes the conflict between Iron man and Captain America feels forced. A better set up or more consistent character arcs over the last few movies would have improved things. They do try to explain the influxes in character motivations, but they do feel a little thin all the same. As an adaptation, it fails also, but to be fair, if you’ve read Civil War, you’d know a film to match its magnitude is simply not possible. Despite the downsides though, this film is highly enjoyable from start to finish. Pacing is spot on, and the writing is well done; not to mention how seamless the action scenes can be, especially when they could easily be chaotic. Another great string in Marvel’s bow. Not really sure about Martin Freeman’s american accent though.

X-Men: Apocalypse ****

Oh god, the X-Men movie franchise has had a rough ride, hasn’t it? It started strong, then quickly lost its way, then fell even further, before rising up and being moderately good again. The continuity in these movies has always been awful, and whilst Days of Future Past pretty much retconned everything after X-Men 2, Apocalypse brings the series plot holes back in force. The continuity deficiency is terminal with this franchise it seems. But, thankfully, if you just take Apocalypse as a stand alone movie and ignore everything set before and after it, it’s actually rather good. The effects are great, the story is interesting, and the villain is genuinely intimidating - even if he does look horrible when compared to the source material. The writing isn’t so tight sadly, and most of the movie is more just a collection of scenes than anything else, but even so, if you somewhat switch your brain off, its incredibly enjoyable to watch. I think the X-Men series has run its course though now. Reboot it or leave it be, take your pick; but please just put the continuity out of its god damn misery!

Warcraft ***

I’m putting this here first: I have not played the game. Nor will I, nor has this film made me want to. Warcraft as a video game just doesn’t resonate with me. That said, I’m always up for a fantasy lore-fest whenever one rolls into town, so I went into this oddly enthusiastic. And it’s OK. It’s not really a bad movie, though there are plenty of areas that could be stronger, and it’s just not got the strength to match the gravitas of, let’s say, Lord of the Rings, but its decent enough. Easily one of the movie’s biggest problems is the CGI. If they were trying to make this film look like a video game, they succeeded. It’s like I’m watching a 2 hour long cutscene. Nothing is real, and even the actors themselves don’t look like they’re there half the time. In contrast, the CGI backgrounds are jaw-dropping. The environments excel in both imagination and scope. They’re genuinely impressive. The cast here seems, for lack of a better word, cheap. Not saying the actors are terrible, far from it, they do a really good job, but Ben Foster just doesn’t look like a wise and experienced wizard to me. And Dominic Cooper just looks too young to be the king of the land. It’s not so much miscasting as it is mismatching. Furthermore the lead in this movie has a strong accent that sometimes doesn’t fit with the film’s surroundings. The plot is intriguing at first but it gets convoluted towards the end, with motives and other key plot points being lost along the way. Furthermore there are a few too many scenes that don’t pan out well. Even with this in mind, I don’t think it’s all bad. I wouldn’t say it’s the next fantasy franchise to look out for though.

Independence Day Resurgence **

The trailers to Independence Day Resurgence were silly. And that was fine. Because as well as being silly there was a vibe that it was also incredibly self-aware. This movie knew how dumb it was and it was going to go with it. Turns out I was wrong to assume that. This film is just a giant 2 hour shrug. The story, while intriguing at first, soon gets uninteresting as you realise the film-makers aren’t interested in pushing the boundaries of imagination. Within 15 minutes everything becomes irritatingly bland. The characters - both old and new - are bland, the plot is bland, and the effects are bland. 90% of this movie is computer generated, and it’s so jarring to watch with real actors around it. Roland Emmerich the director said back in 1996 that he preferred practical effects to CGI; that’s one of the reasons why, in spite of its problems, the original film is still beloved. He said CGI was too much like a computer game. It seems so bizarre that he would pull a 180 on it as an artist. In the end this movie just lacks so much of what made the original good. The humour - with the exception of one or two moments - is forced, performances are phoned in, and the writing is lazy at best. Even if you didn’t like the original, you had to admit there was a degree of charm to it. None of that is here. It’s not unwatchable, but it’s hardly worth going out of your way to see. Feel free to skip it.

Secret life of pets **

Illumination Entertainment are, in my opinion, more doers than thinkers. They have ideas and run with them immediately, but not every idea they have is a surefire hit. Enter: The Secret Life of Pets. A lot of people have criticised this movie because its plot and dilemmas are similar to Toy Story, and that’s true, but to me this film’s biggest problem is it’s just generic. The characters are generic, the situations are generic, the plot, the structure, the humour, none of it is unique. The animation is nice, and there’s some great imagery sometimes, but on the whole that’s your lot. The celebrity voices add nothing. Kevin Hart’s “villain” is more obnoxious than anything else, and Louie CK’s lead is barely recognisable or charismatic so why bother. Then of course there’s the humour which is so, so done now. “Oh they’re dogs, quick get out the dog jokes EVERY OTHER FILM HAS EVER DONE, EVER. Sniff butts, ha ha it’s hilarious right. Hey look, the small, ‘girly’ dog is actually the most badass pet in the movie, totally out of left-field and never been done before, right?” Even the none pet-related jokes fall face first into concrete. Ultimately, everything is just lazy and uninspired, which is why I raise my earlier point. If the team had sat down, truly thought out an idea, and put together something original, we could have had something with a lot of potential. As it stands, it’s as if the filmmakers sat down, said “toy story with dogs”, and then went to work on animation without a second thought. They phoned in the story, the script, and the performances, and in the end the film is just that: phoned in. 

Ghostbusters ****

If it’s not ‘based on true events’, its a remake; Hollywood’s other favourite money-spinner, but of all the remakes to split the world in two, why Ghostbusters? Honestly, the lead up to this film was insane. There were staunch defenders of the original about ready to boycott it, and you had misogynists disguising themselves as “fans” because of the all female cast. But why Ghostbusters? The original is all right, it’s good. Of course it’s a cult classic but it’s not Citizen Kane; pull yourselves together! A lot of this crowd didn’t like being called misogynists for their outbursts, but can you blame us. The only big change to this franchise on the surface is that the cast is all female instead of all male, and you’re getting way, WAY too upset about it. A lot of people trying to explain away their misogyny were also particularly staggering. Actual comments like “There were women in the first movies, why do they have to be the main characters?” and “The men in this are either idiots or arrogant, hardily representative wouldn’t you say?” seem to procreate male privilege; but I digress. Point is the movie is actually good. And no I’m not saying that because I’m scared people will think I’m misogynist. The movie had some genuine laughs from start to finish, and the effects, in my opinion, were a brilliant homage to the original. The characters as well were all immediately likeable. Leslie Jones was particularly great, and half the time Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin steals the show. All in all I really enjoyed it. If you didn’t, that’s fine, just make sure you don’t get all furious about it. It’s just a movie with women in it; steady on.

Star Trek Beyond ****

The Star Trek reboot series has been sort of good and sort of bad at the same time. On the one hand you’ve gotten a great ensemble, and they’re highly entertaining films, whilst on the other, J.J. Abrams. OK, I don’t hate the guy and he’s more than capable of directing, but if his “style” doesn’t annoy you, then his ill-conceived winks and nudges will. When he wasn’t attached to the third movie in the series, and proud Trekkie Simon Pegg was helping to write it, I was sort of glad. Then when I saw it was the director of the Fast and Furious movies taking charge I got worried again. Thankfully though, Star Trek Beyond is a great movie. The story was well put together, the characters are wonderfully played, and, for once, it wasn’t afraid to try and be its own thing and try something new. The “sabotage” scene is particularly note-worthy. There’s your now obligatory Idris Elba role, which turns out to be quite an intimidating villain, and the action is fantastic. There are one or two set-piece scenes that don’t quite work; i.e. fight sequences that are overly long, or just feel empty, but for the most part there’s a lot to keep you hooked. The rules are that every even Star Trek movie is good, whilst every odd is bad; I’m happy to say Beyond breaks the rules.

BFG ***

I feel the work of Roald Dahl should stay in the past. Oh, no, that’s not me saying the stories are done or tired; Dahl’s classic tales will always and forever be timeless. What I mean is, in today’s CGI obsessed world, it can lead a lot of the magic and imagination to, ironically, dissipate. No matter how much motion capture you use, no matter how up to date your software is, once you make a CGI extravaganza, there’s always a disconnect between the audience and the visuals nowadays. It’s a shame really because Spielberg's attempt to cover the unforgettable BFG, is actually rather good otherwise. Mark Roylance as the BFG is wonderfully dopey and charming, and the young starlet they got to play Sophie is brilliant for a British child-actor; they’re usually not great. What lets this movie down is how its again trying to blend the real with the fake by using CGI. That and the fact that it’s a little bumpy, with pacing issues in the middle and a general anti-climax at the end. It all does feel rather bland when you really get down to it though, as if the movie has a heart, and a brain, but is missing a soul. There’s no grand lesson per se, and whilst the book is a fun exploration into the strange, silly, and bizarre, it doesn’t truly translate well into a full-fledged movie. The story on the page turns into more of a collection of scenes on the screen. There are your funny scenes, your tense scenes, and your “Gulliver” type scenes, but all of them feel like snapshots, as opposed to part of a grand tale. So yeah, it’s strengths are incredibly strong, but it does have a few drawbacks. Not a bad movie by any stretch, but one that will nevertheless have you questioning whether a movie was the best thing for it.

Jason Bourne **

The Bourne franchise is exciting and action-packed, but if this latest entry tells us anything, it’s that Jason Bourne - as a character - should stay in his original trilogy. For starters, this movie holds none of the energy or tense pacing of the originals, which leads to a rather drab and dreary end-result. Greengrass does his best but the simple fact is the material he’s been given just isn’t that weighty. The action scenes, whilst fast and constantly moving, just feel soulless and at no point was I ever gripped or held in suspense. The mystery is also rather average. As far as government conspiracies go, this is oddly tame. Add a confusing set-up and a lack of urgency to this, and you’ve got a story beyond difficult to get invested in. There are plenty of locations used but none of them seem to have any bearing or relevance to the story so one wonders why they were even there, and generally a lot this movie’s pacing leads it to be more boring than tense. A lot of it also feels like a “greatest hits” of sorts, with many scenes being almost retreads of the previous films. I can see the effort, and the desire to make something great, but sadly, maybe this is should be the end for Jason Bourne.

Finding Dory ***

Pixar deserve their status as probably the most exalted animation studio out there, but that doesn’t mean they cannot slip up. The Cars movies in particular fail to resonate with most audiences, and The Good Dinosaur last year felt rather bland by the studio’s standards. Most consistently however, whenever Pixar do a sequel, (with the exception of Toy Story) it almost always turns out mediocre. Case in point: Finding Dory. On paper it makes total sense to have the most popular character from the original and develop more of her story, but what we get is a film that lacks the charm and creativity of its predecessor. The characters lack any real vibrancy, and a lot of the humour is just lifted from Finding Nemo. Of course, there are some exceptions, but not enough to balance it out. The story itself tries to have a lot of heart, but it just doesn’t quite have the power to break ground sadly, and sometimes the movie retroactively damages the first film. Most painfully when we learn that Dory’s trademark “just keep swimming” wasn’t a result of her spontaneity, but rather taught to her when she was younger. This ruins an important piece of her character in the first film. She’s supposed to be chaotic, sporadic, and impulsive. She’s the perfect foil to Marlin’s order, fear, and caution; and together they show that one side (be it order or chaos) doesn’t always have the answers. Here, by bringing this in they try to add order where there shouldn’t be any. Generally though, it’s mostly forgivable. There are some stand-out moments - Young Dory is cute beyond measure, and the animation is gorgeous as always. It’s good, but when Pixar is used to exceptional, good just isn’t good enough. 

Suicide Squad **

When I first heard Suicide Squad was being made, I was excited. Seeing a collection of DC’s villains on the big screen was bound to be great, right? Then I saw the first promo shot, and it was all downhill from there. First, DC decided to go with some of the most abstract villains under them (Captain boomerang? Really?) but secondly, everything was so drab. What’s with all the grit and grime, why does everything have to be so dark? The movie itself isn’t much better. Rumour has it Warner Brothers panicked after critic reviews of Batman v Superman came out and they re-shot and re-editted Suicide Squad to make up for it. And it shows. This movie just doesn’t know what it wants to be. Add to that a pathetic structure and weak characters, and you’ve got one hell of a poor film. The first half hour of this movie is a mishmash of desperation, trying to appeal to every demographic at once in a bid to win audiences over. The result is an absolute disaster of pacing, music, and edits. Pop songs are used seemingly at random (many have attributed this to DC trying to do what Marvel did with Guardians of the Galaxy) and every character in the “squad” is read out and explained to the audience. Come on, movie - show, don’t tell. This is made worse when further down the line the movie does it again. These are the problems you get when you don’t use your IPs properly, DC. If you had made prior movies showing us these characters and giving them room to breathe, this movie wouldn’t be such a mess. The writing for this movie is one up from awful. Character motivations don’t line up with actions, and later certain details are thrown out or conveniently forgotten for the sake of the plot. And don’t get me started on this film’s “attempt” at humour. Want to know how bad it is? There’s a “delete my internet history” joke in there, because originality is dead. Even when this film supposedly gets into gear during the second act, it’s just bland. Characters don’t interact or show any real rapport with one another, so they’re hardily a squad, and the action is about as basic as you can find. Then of course there’s the elephant in the room; Jared Leto’s woeful performance of the Joker. To be fair it’s a split responsibility. Leto pulls off a mumbly, hipster-like Joker in his performance, capturing nothing of what makes the Joker what he is, but let’s not forget that he was being directed by people who felt the Joker needed the word “damaged” tattooed on his forehead. Jesus wept, this is an abomination of a representation. But, was there anything good? Will Smith and Margot Robbie are easily the most likeable and charming parts of the movie, even if their characters are written like ass; and there are a few stand out scenes that got my attention. But outside of that it’s kind of lame and boring. As a movie, it’s disjointed, lazy, and generally nonsensical; as a comic book film, it’s a terrible representation of its source material. See it if you want, but don’t go out of your way. 

Kubo and the Two Strings *****

Good art will never die so long as people are doing it. To some, stop-motion animation has had its day and it’s time to move on to more digital means of film-making, but to Laika it’s one of the most creative and visually interesting means of storytelling. I love Laika’s work in the past, and Kubo continues that trend. Its story is like a classic fairy tale and its imagery is unique and original. I will say that it does take a while to get moving but once the ball gets rolling its a joy to behold. Honestly I struggle to find anything wrong with it. It’s got wide appeal, it’s visually impressive, and it’s well written as well as well structured. What’s not to love. Quite easily one of the best 2016 had to offer.

Hell or High Water ***

Hell or High Water is a last minute movie in that it came out with almost no marketing at all. There was no build up. No posters or trailers in the theatres, only the internet had any idea of what it was. I guess you could make an argument that the movie is a little niche, taking a lot of praise away from the film festivals it showcased at, as well as prompting some early award nominations, but one that ultimately doesn’t resonate with audiences. And I can buy into that. As far as I’m concerned Hell or High Water isn’t the most original film of the year and really its not exactly exceptional, but its still mostly good. It’s main strengths lie in the morals and the characters. Jeff Bridges steals the show easily with his portrayal of an unabashedly politically-incorrect sheriff, and the motives of the main leads are very “robin-hood”. Really it’s a solid and nerve-shredding set up where you want both sides to win with a wild card thrown in for good measure. What drags this movie down though is its pacing. This movie is so slow and overly long. Scenes are drawn out for emphasis and I’m not against that, but sometimes there’s just not enough substance to warrant it. I’m not saying it has to be fast, and hell I know a rushed movie is almost always bad, but far too many times the audience is left watching nothing. From a story-telling perspective it’s distracting and serves only to take you out of what is otherwise a well written and well performed piece. 

The Magnificent 7 ****

Another remake of a beloved classic, but one that didn’t carry as much controversy as Ghostbusters. Generally it was met with a lot of shrugs, but I quite enjoyed it. I haven’t seen the original so I don’t know if it’s being faithful or anything, but from what I’ve read up on it, it kind of does its own thing. I mean, sure it’s not got a revolutionary story and it’s a little more than corny, but it’s cool, fun, and damn entertaining. The centrepiece of this film being the 7 themselves, how they interact, and what they bring to the team. These characters aren’t exactly the most in depth of people, even when the movie tries to show them as more than just charismatic gunslingers, it doesn’t seem to invoke much of a reaction, but I’m willing to let that slide just for how riveting everything else is. I left the cinema feeling like a kid after watching this flick; buzzing off the energy and asking my family “who was your favourite?”. It has its highs and lows, bizarrely peaking in the middle with an outstanding shoot out scene that not even the movie’s 20 minute long climax can top, but for the most part it’s one of my personal favourites of this year. 

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children ***

I’ve been a Tim Burton fan since my teens. I’ve been there for the highs, and I’ve cringed with the lows. Burton’s been on a low streak for a while now, so imagine my excitement when reviews came out calling this film a return to form for him. Sadly, I cannot agree. It’s all right. It’s watchable; but it’s nothing close to Burton at his best. The one defining trope we get is his signature “look”. Angles, colour pallet, and overall design scream Burton, but there’s such a lack of oomph in everything else that I can’t help but feel disappointed. The story is entertaining, though a little (for lack of a better word) uncommitted at times. The film sometimes veers off from the plot to show off peculiarities, instead of weaving them into the plot naturally, and the general performances involved are the acting equivalent of a head shake. Eva Green and Samuel L Jackson aside, no one “acts” in this film. Asa Butterfield, who has done some great work in films like Hugo, brings us easily the most phoned in performance of his life, whilst his supporting cast are equally as uninterested. Even acting giants like Terence Stamp don’t seem to care, and there’s so much miscasting going on around that. Butterfield, who is British born, is playing a Florida-born character despite the film being set in Britain; which is just a stupid, roundabout way of doing things. What’s more, Chris O’Dowd, an Irish actor, is brought in to play his father. To be clear, they add nothing to the roles and they both have to put on accents which are, not bad, but ultimately a lot of needless effort. I fear they were cast because of their price tag as opposed to their acting prowess. One way or another the film is otherwise all right. Imagery is delightfully Burton, with some not-safe-for-kids horror thrown in, and the general imagination is there, but if like me you just can’t see through the lack of effort in some parts, you may not enjoy the 2 hour run time. 

Inferno ***

I am a huge fan of interpretation. By this I mean I love seeing how people take an original idea from the pages of history and then do something new with it. It’s just really great seeing something familiar but also fresh at the same time. That being said, not all interpretations are great. Inferno, based on the Dan Brown book, which took inspiration from the irrefutably imaginative Divine Comedy, is a bit of both. There is some really great imagery in this film. I loved seeing hell brought forth, with all its dark, macabre forms in tow, but there’s so little of it that I couldn’t help feeling disappointed. Everything else is rather standard without it. The story is pretty straight forward, the plot twists are kind of forgettable, and the mystery generally uninteresting. Which is odd because we’re talking about the divine comedy here. There are libraries dedicated to dissecting this marvel, and this is all you could scrape out of it? Plus the movie tries to sell an idea and it does its best to be thought-provoking, but it generally misses the mark; possibly because its ideas are oversimplified. Ron Howard gets a bad rap with these movies, but I honestly don’t mind them. Yeah, Angels and Demons was a little dumb, but the Da Vinci Code was engaging. Inferno sits in the middle. It’s not awful, and it is a little entertaining, but its rather lethargic narrative and uncommitted performances don’t help its case.

Doctor Strange ****

The Marvel train keeps on rolling and once again we find ourselves at another obscure IP. Doctor Strange is certainly popular enough to be known to comic book fans, but he’s hardly a household name like Iron-Man or Captain America; so putting him on the big screen is a little bit of a risk. Luckily this isn’t Marvel’s first rodeo and it pays off in droves. Doctor Strange is one of the best movies the studio has put out. Its visuals are epic in every sense of the word, and their constant unpredictability in both scale and scope keeps everything fresh. The story is simple and well focused and the action is unlike most other films of its ilk. The pacing gets a little wobbly from time to time, with Strange’s training in the mystic arts passing by a little bit too fast for my liking, but it doesn’t get in the way and by the end it’s forgivable enough. Benedict Cumberbatch is great in the role, even with his american accent, and pretty much all the supporting cast around him are played brilliantly. Generally, I can’t find too much at fault with it; it’s a great, fun movie experience. All I can say is, I can’t wait to see him again in Thor: Ragnarok.

Storks ***

Storks is a tricky one to talk about but it’s certainly a movie I enjoyed. The main dividing factor here is generational, specifically in a comedy sense. Storks is a movie that I think perfectly understands its audience; that audience being: modern. As a result it doesn’t quite fit the mould of other family movies. Its jokes are a little more abstract, its humour is more in its surrealism, and there is plenty a lot of older generations won’t “get”. Some may call it weird, while others may say it’s all over the place, but that pacing matched with its obscurity is what exemplifies it in my opinion. It could have done the same old jokes of the past over and over again, and viewers worldwide would gobble its inane unoriginality up gladly, but thankfully Storks seems to respect its audience a little more and tries something much more new. That makes it a lot more fresh. At the end of the day it’s not exactly a work of art. It’s hardily the best animated movie of 2016, but it has some of the best comedy in a family film I’ve seen in ages. Performances are great and characters are genuine. Some old-hat jokes sneak in under the radar, while other jokes either fall flat or run on too long, but for the most part I was laughing from start to finish. It’s a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant medium, and whilst it won’t be taking home any awards, it’s certainly a much more entertaining flick than others of its kind. 

The Accountant ***

You know, I don’t consider myself a cinema snob, but is it wrong to hope that every film you see does something to stimulate you as an audience member? I say this, because I’ve seen a fair few films in recent years that really don’t have much to bring to the table. Yes, they’re stories, but outside of that there’s nothing. The movie isn’t really saying anything, commenting on anything, or even having a message; it’s just there. Hell, sometimes they make you question what passes for entertainment these days. The Accountant is one of these movies. It’s not bad, but its lack of impact doesn’t do it any favours. You’d think the premise would give you something unique but it doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do anything with it. The main character is an autistic mathematical genius who does finances for mob bosses and other less favourable sorts. That’s the movie’s only “wild card” as it were, and they don’t really do anything with it. A few scenes play out, things happen, drama occurs, and that’s your lot. Like I say, it’s not bad, it’s just not exactly good either. There are some decent things: Affleck gets one or two great scenes, and the resolution at the end is actually rather heartfelt. But there are equally poor things that drag it down. Anna Kendrick, who is a great actor, is miscast in this role as far as I’m concerned, and the film doesn’t half drag from time to time. Altogether it wasn’t a giant waste of my time, but it’s not something I would recommend either. It’s about as middle of the road as you can get.

Arrival ****

Arrival is probably one of the best sci-fi films I’ve seen in years; probably because it actually decides to do something different with an arguably stagnant set up. Aliens, friendly or not, coming to earth is hardly new for the genre, but making an entire plot about sheer communication is. Yep, this is a movie about talking to aliens. It doesn’t sound exciting, but as you watch you start to become more intrigued. For lack of a better word, the concepts they throw at you here are very “alien”. They’re clever ideas we’ve never really explored before but ones that are quite interesting. Having the aliens communicate an entire sentence and all its intent in one image is inspired. To say any more we’d be going into spoilers, but take my word for it, it’s really very good. A little convoluted and hard to wrap your head around at first, I admit, but good all the same. The main drama comes from the human elements; the lack of trust between nations and the panic civilisation faces is what keeps you on the edge of your seat. It’s a little slow at first, and sometimes you feel as if the movie is dragging on, but by the end you’ll come out quite satisfied. It also has a magnificent plot twist. One that, not only comes out of nowhere, but also is wonderfully woven into the story prior. Admittedly some may find its delivery confusing, and many others may find the mumbled dialogue a little bothersome, but on the whole, Arrival is probably one of the best movies of 2016.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them ***

Don’t get me wrong: I like the wizarding world. I’m not enraptured by it all, but I can see the quality when it’s there. With regards to Fantastic Beasts, that quality is mostly missing. For a start this movie is rather bland and slow considering it’s something that should be at the very peak of fantasy story-telling. The CGI is very noticeable, which doesn’t help immersion, and most if not all characters are rather simple and one note. Easily the best character of the film is Dan Fogler’s wonderfully endearing Kowalski, who is both brilliantly played and also hilariously written. Honestly, it would have done the story better to have been told from his point of view. Other problems lie in an overabundance of Deus Ex Machina (something the wizarding world is no stranger to), its indifferent attitude towards explaining new elements of its universe, and also an incredible lack of any real shocks or surprises. It’s a shame how predictable most of this movie is, and worst of all it’s as if that predictability was intended. They don’t even try to keep things a secret. Any “plot twists” that do happen are more inevitable statements than they are shocking revelations, and for the most part the film never really picks up - it seems content in maintaining the same energy throughout rather than building to a big finale. With all that in mind however, the film does have its charms. Simple as the characters may be, they are likeable, and there’s a lot of lore for the fans to sink their teeth into, along with some fun animal interactions. Overall it comes across as a more half baked idea brought to life, but it’s entertaining nonetheless. 

Allied ***

Allied is one of those movies that has a story, but isn’t sure how to tell it. At first you could be forgiven for thinking the film was a romantic, war-time drama, much like Casablanca, but at the movies half way point that genre shifts to a somewhat spy-thriller mystery. Tonally, this makes it feel like two different movies have been slammed into one. On the whole, there isn’t much damage, but it can lead to a lot of elements not really gelling. Character interactions start feeling stale; and general momentum can come to a halt sometimes, leading many heart-pounding scenes to lose some of their edge. Personally, if I could reach in and adjust accordingly, I would have the scenes in Morocco told entirely through flashback, with the main story staying in post-mission London. This would keep the film focused a lot more, and make the whole thing fit together more smoothly. Granted, it would change a few of the intended affects of the story. For example, by showing the two spies on their mission in Morocco first we see their romance bloom which makes the future dilemmas more pertinent. With the flashbacks, we wouldn’t get this result. Truth be told, not that much would be lost as I felt there wasn’t much chemistry between Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard’s characters in the film. A few too many of their intimate scenes felt dry with nothing really connecting them. When all is said and done though we have a fairly decent movie, with a handful of good moments sprinkled here and there. The is-she-isn’t-she dynamic from the second act onward is legitimately well put together, and when it needed to be it was suspenseful enough. It’s not exactly classic material, but it’s entertaining enough.

Sully ***

How odd that a week after seeing Allied, I saw Sully; an arguably better film, but one that suffers from opposite grievances. Tom Hanks is charismatic and plays the role well, and his relationship with his co-pilot is also rather endearing. Being more or less a one man show, most of the surrounding story is in the background to what the character is experiencing in the aftermath of his heroic water landing in the Hudson. But that in itself is one of the film’s main problems. Because the story is more or less playing second fiddle, it leads the narrative to become unstructured. I said Allied would have benefited with a non-linear, flashback based structure, but here we have a film that would have been better without that. Flashbacks come and go whenever Sully is remembering something. This is fine, except these flashbacks can last upwards of 20 minutes sometimes, and some even repeat themselves, leading to many shrugs from the audience. Generally, more often than not, the flashback sequences are jarring to the narrative, and sometimes it really feels like it’s a small story trying to be a big one. This goes doubly so for the writing, which over dramatises certain situations. Most notoriously, any scene involving the air-flight investigators. These people are painted so 2 dimensional, that the film feels unrealistic. And it is, because in reality, these people were just doing their jobs; they were not out to get this man. For the most part it’s forgivable. When it wants to be exciting it can be, and if you’re not familiar with the outcome before going in, you’re genuinely interested in how Sully is going to get out of it. It does get a bit too flag waving at the end though; “God Bless America" and all that, and many of the plot threads literally lead to nothing, making some scenes feel retroactively pointless, but it’s passable. 

Moana ****

Moana is a movie that seemed to get more and more interesting to me the closer it got to release. Granted that could have been the Rock hyping it up but where’s your proof? Either way I was pretty psyched to see this. And, it didn’t disappoint. Mostly. The animation is great, bright, and colourful; the characters are incredibly well done - Dwayne Johnson is perfect as Maui, and best of all I almost don’t recognise his voice - and of course the music is phenomenal. Lin-Manuel Miranda is the unseen character in this movie as his songs are some of the best in Disney history, and that is saying something. Seriously, the Hamilton powerhouse has got some crazy talent. Aside from this though the film does have some issues. The pacing is a bit up and down and feels almost rushed at times; especially at the beginning. I get it, it’s a Disney movie, an hour and a half story, and a lot of set up to get through; I’m not surprised things in the beginning get a little clumsy. Still I do feel it could have been tighter. Furthermore, the movie’s environments are a little bland and the story itself is a little choppy even for a Disney movie. The plot twist, whilst a good one, is also quite predictable if you pay attention. The good news is a lot of these shortcomings don’t hold the movie back too much. It’s still enjoyable from start to finish; Maui is irresistible, as is Hei-Hei the chicken; and the music will be burned into your soul forever.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story ****

I have to admit when Disney acquired LucasFilm and announced they were going to be releasing a Star Wars movie EVERY year, I was nervous. “Oh but I think they should just keep it as 6 movies” I said, “any more would just get ridiculous”. But Episode 7 was good - if a little unoriginal - and when I saw the trailers for Rogue One I was immediately hyped. The truly surprising thing is that, for the most part, the film lives up to the expectations. It genuinely feels like a brand new Star Wars movie, not a retread like episode 7. The characters are interesting, enjoyable, and diverse; locales are constantly changing, offering an insane amount of variety; and for Star Wars fans there’s a lot to eat up, from the lore right down to the nods and winks. On the negative side of things, I do feel that the movie takes too long to get going. The opening act is bothersome and slow, with far too much back and forth and way too much mumbling. The plot is arguably simple, but for some reason it’s set up in such a roundabout way it’s easy to miss what’s going on. Plus, I did feel that the writing was trying to achieve something beyond its pay-grade at times. I don’t want to go into spoilers, but it tries to delve into the mucky business of extremism and how it negatively impacts a rebellion. An ambitious attempt, but one that ultimately misses the mark, and one that also paints the rebellion itself as villainous sometimes. I don’t begrudge them trying, but introducing grey to a black and white story takes precision and skill. Thankfully however, once the second act gets under way this movie forgets about this and charges on like nobody’s business. It refocuses the story and keeps riding it right to the very end. Honestly, I think this movie’s third act is the best of any Star Wars movie - it’s genuinely breathtaking. All in all, one or two issues don’t hold this back from being easily one of the greatest Star Wars movies ever made. It is a shame that a lot of the trailer footage isn’t in the finished product, but thankfully, the end result isn’t damaged by the absence. The force is strong with this one.

Passengers ****

Passengers is the sort of film that can slip under the radar, but it really shouldn’t. It’s actually quite good, in many ways you could even call it great. Its story isn’t very new or original, but it does bring new elements along as well as having some genuinely thought provoking dilemmas. For instance, Chris Pratt’s character Jim makes some very questionable decisions. His desperation pushes him down a path without ethics or morals at times, but his conscience never leaves him, and his character-arc turns into a quest for redemption. Where ever your head’s at with him during the film, you can’t deny so much of him is human. The real glue of this movie however is the chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, which not only feels natural but is also incredibly endearing. You want these characters to be happy. Visually, the movie is impressive, with very little CGI for a Sci-Fi, and the imagination in some scenes is a breath of fresh air. There are some minor problems of course. Sometimes story structure gets shaky and plot devices are thrown all over the place, very much like the film’s space-craft, but thankfully, these moments pass and things remain mostly focused. A part of me wondered if certain plot details would have done better if re-arranged, but ultimately the movie doesn’t suffer with the choices it makes. 

Collateral Beauty **

With an inspired concept and a strong cast, Collateral Beauty looked like it was going to be the modern day ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’. Sadly, it doesn’t deliver. What promised to be a feel-good abstract film turned out to be a clumsy story about grief that, whilst earnest in its performances, is somewhat lacking in structure and tone. The main premise, which is simple - death, time, and love personified visit the main character and discuss his grief - is butchered into a needlessly convoluted narrative. It’s annoying that I can’t detail anything specific without drifting into spoilers, but I can say that the impression you’re given from the trailers is a false one; do not trust it. The writing here is extremely roundabout too, with many scenes seemingly being needless in the long run, and it seems that the director had no idea what storytelling is. Plot threads either go nowhere or they lead to disappointment, and worst still the plot twists are so tacky they’re annoying. Seriously, they feel unconvincing and incredibly forced with very poor set-up. The worst crime of this movie however is the squandered potential. Underneath all of this there is a formidable, feel-good, holiday film fighting to get out. It could have been thought provoking as well as touching. There’s such a strong idea here that it’s a terrible shame to see it wasted in such a way. In the hands of more competent storytellers we could have hit gold. There are one or two decent scenes, and as I say the actors are truly committed to their parts, but Collateral Beauty, as far as I’m concerned, is proof that a good idea doesn’t automatically make it a good movie.

[cover32-yahoopartner-blog]

Why I’ll probably root for the Los Angeles Chargers – Eventually

I am a native of San Diego and a current resident, yet would never claim to be the biggest or most knowledgeable Chargers fan. I was born in San Diego, raised in Seattle, live in San Diego again now as an early 40-something, and follow both the Seattle Seahawks and the Chargers. I love them both, and people tell me all the time that I’m not allowed to do that. Hey, honey badger don’t care. So I am not some Chargers super fan who double mortgaged his condominium to have season tickets. However, I genuinely love the team and our city.

Yet I have a love-hate relationship with San Diego. I agree with Nick Canepa of the Union Tribune when he says that he cannot hate on the decision to leave town, only the way the owner and team have treated the fan base. The city is at least equally at fault in our loss. For that reason, I want to discuss whether our love for the city and hatred of a flawed man should preclude us, as a fan base, from rooting for the Chargers on television. Or *gasp* driving up to a game.

Let’s start with Dean. Mr. Dean Spanos has long disregarded the fan base and individual season ticket owners. I have a friend, a prominent business owner in Ramona, who has been a season ticket holder for 35 years. During the stadium negotiations, she typed a two-page letter described as “heart felt” to the Chargers about her family’s tradition as Charger fans and how they hoped the Chargers would stay. She never received any response. If they don’t care about a 35-year season ticket holder, they don’t care about any of us. Yet we knew that all along. There are tales galore of just how ham-handed and lacking in grace or charisma Dean Spanos really is.

The only thing the exit-stage-left of the team changes is where they’ll play. We clearly never loved the team because of the owner. We loved it in spite of him.

I have followed the listless pursuit of a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers for each of its 15 or so years. From half-hearted mentions of potential stadium sites in Escondido, Oceanside, or the South Bay to more promising yet conspicuously incomplete plans to develop the Qualcomm site at a hefty profit if the city would just fork over the free land.

The city, for its part, never had true leadership in the mid-2000s when this thing was really deep-sixed. Current mayor Kevin Faulconer’s role could be analyzed multiple ways. I feel as though he was protecting himself more than he was trying, but he also protected the city by giving the issue its proper place and being prudent in the process. He didn’t get it done in a fairly limited time frame, but the team suffered some of its most disappointing and frustrating seasons during that time period and the fan base was hardly rabid. Most would give him credit for the fact he wasn’t falling over himself to placate an out of touch billionaire and a team the fans weren’t showing up in droves to support.

The climate now is simply much different after a major recession, which Spanos has simply never wrapped his thin skinned head around. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve never seen a truly competent effort by the team or the city to get a stadium built. It’s the city’s fault, but Spanos could have helped the situation by at least speaking sincerely – publicly – on the topic and by putting something on the line.

As Alex Reimer wrote in a Forbes article on the fumbled stadium talks and while comparing Spanos and Rams owner Stan Kroenke:

“It’s much easier to be in the driver’s seat when you put your money where your mouth is.”

Self-financing $350-500 million toward a stadium is a pretty reasonable ask for a billionaire whose family paid $70 million for their stake in ownership of the team in 1984, and whose family’s net worth has risen into the billions primarily on its value. Part of that value was earned on the backs and shoulders of the workers who buy their season tickets with hard-earned cash. The fact that Spanos was so cheap in the stadium pursuit shows he may have been unable to plunk down money for a stadium in San Diego. Yet people with ties like one would assume a billionaire to have can get things done. They can partner up. Right? Well, not necessarily.

Part of the reason the Chargers struggled to get a stadium built or failed to get the city interested was a lack of rapport. They stuck it to the city whenever possible. Like the ticket guarantee. Like strategizing on ticket prices to best take advantage of said ticket guarantee. Instead of operating in the best possible faith and honoring the city as a partner, they were profiteering. One gets the feeling if we humans were capable of swallowing gobs of cash, Spanos would literally come running up and squeeze it out of us if he could. And that has persisted through the very end, as he continued tightening screws on demands he foisted upon us rather than creatively solving problems. One has to imagine that potential business partners see him the same way.

AROUND COVER32

Mailbag: What to expect this weekend

Preview:: How will this exciting weekend play out?

Awards:: cover32’s end-of-season awards

Regardless of how wealthy Spanos and family could have been without the Chargers, San Diego and its citizenry are the reason he’s where he is today. That’s why the platitudes leveled at the city on the way out the door are so enraging.

Most of us never liked Spanos and he certainly didn’t like us back. We don’t expect our billionaire team owners to be particularly pleasant, but it’s nice if they’re sincere and have a genuine appreciation for the fan base that makes the team viable. The recent actions and final decision to move are what’s going to turn disinterest, or dislike, into outright hate. See Modell, Arthur.

And even though it might be fun, we can’t even guarantee we’ll watch them fail from afar. Let me be clear: I think it’s likely they will. It’s said the fish rots from the head down, and without exception, winning NFL teams are those with the best owners. Still, it’s hard to fail at making money in the NFL. The Los Angeles Chargers will likely dress up in more powdered (if you will) blue uniforms that are some of the best in sports, and have a name and overall brand that is at least subjectively more interesting than the Rams. They’ve also got a chance to outperform the Rams over the next few seasons.

From a purely financial standpoint, we have no clue whether this was a good decision for Spanos. I think this is going to be ugly a times, and I think they will struggle at the gate, but there’s no way to know that. We’ve all heard that moving the Chargers to Los Angeles magically imbues them with another 33 percent in sheer value, but I don’t think anyone will pay for something that others aren’t paying to watch.

So it might fail. And if it does, I’ll laugh long and hard.

Yet the truth is, rooting for Los Angeles teams is not a completely foreign concept to San Diegans. My grandfather and my father rooted for sports teams in L.A. and did so wholeheartedly. I never heard something like, “well, the Lakers are good but I’m not really a fan because they don’t play here and I hate Los Angeles.” They were big time fans of certain Los Angeles sports teams. Like it or not, many of us will eventually support the Chargers again. Especially if they’re good.

It hurts right now. Stings like hell. Yet the reality is, we’ll continue to see bolts on cars. We’ll continue to watch them on television. It won’t be the same numbers. I’m not saying you, dear reader, will support them, I’m saying a percentage will. I haven’t decided where I stand yet. If I could lay this 100% at the feet of Spanos, I would make that guarantee. However, the personal actions of Spanos only confirm what I knew about Spanos when I first moved here in 2000, thanks to people like Lee Hacksaw Hamilton. He told me, point blank, what a scumbag we were dealing with over the radio waves. I never considered not following the team because it was owned by a scumbag. Literally nothing has changed. That’s why I expect that once I get over the pain of “losing” a team I almost always watched on television, I expect I’ll probably take interest and follow them again in some regard. I love football, I love the uniforms, I love the history, and I love watching some of the players.

I was fewer than 20 years old when I had my enlightenment of what athletes and pro sports should mean to me. It was my younger brother’s birthday, his favorite player was going to be in town, and I knew where the visiting team was going to be staying. I waited at least an hour and a half until the Toronto Raptors arrived at their hotel. Waiting in front of the unloading area, I asked Damon Stoudamire for an autograph on a basketball card for my little brother as he got off the bus. He walked right past me mumbling about how coach didn’t want him to sign autographs. I was the only person waiting for the bus and the guy didn’t even take off his headphones. Up until then, I had no idea what pro sports was about. In fact, I wanted to write about them until that day.

Pro sports is a pure cash exchange. Money for entertainment. So Spanos may be a dick. Most of these people probably are, athletes included. It’s purely about the on-field entertainment. And that has always been worth it to me on some level. If we can’t have nice things here, some of us will take the opportunity to enjoy those nice things elsewhere. Thanks, San Diego.

Thanks to Dean, the way the team could be most valuable is if he sells it. If the Chargers were in Los Angeles and had new (read: competent) ownership, they would maximize the San Diego market to the south, advertising the new ownership and brand as they try and compete for market share in L.A. And assuming some knowhow and wherewithal, they would be best positioned to possibly look into the San Diego market again if things aren’t so peachy in L.A. People want to forgive, and that’s easiest when those at fault vacate the premises. He’ll be richly rewarded if he does so, and we all know what drives Spanos.

The post Why I’ll probably root for the Los Angeles Chargers – Eventually appeared first on Cover32.