Random Musings August 3-9

Falcons will be tougher, according to the Falcons: On the season premiere of HBO's Hard Knocks, Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith had one resounding message to preach to his players: toughness.  It was the quality the team was perceived to lack most in their 2013 tumble from NFC Championship game runners up to 4-12 washouts.  The solution proposed by Smith: Talk about toughness enough and the players will gain it.  Now, Smith has earned plenty of credibility as an NFL coach through the great start to his Atlanta tenure (missed the playoffs only twice in six seasons; two 13-3 seasons; the aforementioned NFC Championship game appearance) so perhaps there will end up being more to his plan than words.  But watching him give the introductory speech at training camp was almost painful.  There were enough football clichés to make Phil Simms blush and nothing of real substance.  The players seemed to respond by getting into a bunch of fights during practice, believing that this was the path to the toughness being demanded of them.  But all they got was a chiding from a coaching staff that seems unable to communicate what they really want out of the team.  Again, I have faith in Mike Smith, but it's hard to see where this particular initiative is going.

Enough about McIlroy already: Despite respecting his talent and accomplishments as a player, I've long been sick of the media's fetishistic approach to praising Rory McIlroy's golf.   But on Sunday during CBS's coverage of the final round of the WGC Bridgestone Invitational, I took note of one particularly obnoxious comment by normally on-the-level commentator Jim Nantz on the subject of the World Number 1 ranking.  To paraphrase: Adam Scott(the then World Number 1) has had a fine year, but I think we all know who the real top player is, whatever the computer rankings say(end paraphrase).  McIlroy did in fact gain the Number 1 rank back that weekend by virtue of winning the tournament, but I found Nantz's comment somewhat dumbfounding in its shortsightedness.  McIlroy has been on a tear recently, winning the Open Championship, the Bridgestone, and as of this writing leads the PGA Championship by a stroke.  That's great, and was enough to earn him back the top ranking, which he will hold on to for quite some time if he keeps this up.  But think about Nantz's comment.  Adam Scott became Number 1 through over two years of consistently exceptional play.  He won the 2013 Masters, he seriously contended in at least three other Majors and has been generally excellent on tour events throughout all that time.  McIlroy's most notable achievement over that period was trolling Caroline Wozniacki into a doomed engagement while he pouted and stumbled his way through a mediocre two year period as a golf pariah.  Now he plays well for two weeks and we act like Adam Scott having the Number 1 ranking was some kind of great injustice?  I'm not buying it Nantz.  It's fine to praise McIlroy for his current accomplishments, but let's not belittle other players in doing so.

Good on You LeBron: Going back to Cleveland was definitely a good PR move for Mr. James.  He had already slowly won most of his haters back by winning championships and toning down the petulant douchiness that comes with being a young star professional athlete.  But in particular I found the pep rally he held for his return in his hometown of Akron to be touching.  In a lot of ways, it was still about his ego, celebrating him as an athlete before accomplishing anything real yet.  But it felt like such a nice counterpoint to the pep rally which announced his arrival in Miami four years ago.  The one with the goofy pyrotechnics, the "I want to strangle him" Heat PA announcer, and the infamous promise of eight championships(not held up).  In some ways this was more insulting to our society than The Decision itself was.  The new pep rally was overdone too, but it seemed more significant to me that LeBron had come full circle since that infamous move.  It marked the beginning of an era where a neutral fan can root for him without being a bandwagoning hack.  It's a good thing for the NBA when their most marketable player is no longer Public Enemy Number 1 in the eyes of most of America.  The media didn't cover this pep rally for whatever reason, which is a shame.  Although, I suppose the man doesn't need any more hype now.  It's time to win some games. 

It's Good to be Back(To Football)

The running back takes the handoff, plowing into gap on first down.  There's just one problem: the gap isn't there, the offensive line having failed to get any push against their defensive counterpart.  Second down, Eli Manning looks down the field for his receivers.  Doesn't see anything.  Neither do we at home.  Incomplete.  Last chance.  Manning dumps a short screen the running back; he gains some yards but no first down.  Time to punt.  I turn and say, "Well we've picked up right where we left off haven't we?"

                In my recent life as a born-again sports fan, I've been blessed to root for some pretty solid teams.  It's one of the perks of living in New York.  I've seen some failures (the Jets' recent spirals) and some prolonged failure (the Mets) but these always felt peripheral.  I shuddered at the thought of the fans rooting for shitty teams around the country.  While I probably can't say I identify with the Cleveland Browns fan base (this would be akin to being under house arrest and comparing it to the plight of the Palestinian people) but I've gotten a taste of that terror for about a year courtesy of my own New York Giants.  The same Giants whose recent Super Bowl victories kindled my resurgent sports fandom.  The same New York Giants who these days barely look capable of winning a professional football game. 

                Still, watching them play the Hall of Fame preseason game against the Buffalo Bills made me realize that I kind of enjoy watching the team struggle.  Well, maybe "enjoy" is the wrong word.  But there was a certain comfort to the continuity from last year.  There are no new problems, merely the same old problems which plagued the team's offense last year.  An offensive line that does more harm than good.  A revolving door at running back.  Some of Eli Manning's more questionable throws.  The realization that while Victor Cruz makes for a great number two receiver, he is ill suited to being the offense's first option. 

                Thinking back on last year, I wonder how we were able to score at all, let alone win seven games.  In points per game, our offense was the fifth worst in the league, scoring less than half of what brother Peyton's Denver unit scored in the same year.  The Giants lost their first six games of the year, but rallied to win seven out of their last nine.  They did this with grit, determination, and lots and lots of field goals.  Some were close games, some were not so close games, all were ugly games. 

                The scarce scoring that did go on doesn't really stick out in my memory.  I imagine they must have snuck these drives in the middle of the game when I was in the bathroom or distracted or walking out in frustration.  The openings in particular were brutal: This probably isn't true but it feels like every game opened with a three-and-out.  I can say with certainty that this preseason game started as such. 

                Late in the first quarter, the first team offense got going, running the ball well and eventually scoring.  Then the commentators jumped in and reminded us that the Bills had already taken their first team defense off the field.  That took the buzz off the touchdown just a bit, making it feel like the kind of cheap trick that seemed to fuel their second half winning run from last year.

                And at the end, without ever looking sharp or good, they won.  The second half didn't feature much scoring (the final score was 17-13) and was generally overshadowed by interviews with the latest class of Hall of Fame inductees.  Even they were overshadowed by an emotional video on Bills legend Jim Kelly and his fight against cancer.  I couldn't help but wondering whether or not Kelly, 20 years retired and cancer-stricken to the degree where his short term survival is in question, would've outperformed the dynamic duo of backup quarterbacks Ryan Nassib and Jeff Tuel.  Nassib(Giants) and Tuel(Bills) spent most of the second and third quarters trading mind-boggling throws, each seemingly trying to one-up the other in poor decision making. 

                We shouldn't read too much into this game.  It's the preseason, and this game in particular was a week before the preseason proper.  There was a lot of rust to shake off.  Still, I can't quite shake the feeling that our next preseason tilt will open with yet another three-and-out.  And I'm weirdly OK with that. 

Here they come: Liverpool vs. Manchester City

The popularity of soccer is perfectly healthy in the US, if you look at it a certain way.  Forget the World Cup ratings, you know a sport can sustain itself when glorified exhibition games featuring teams from across the ocean can fill up stadiums with engaged, screaming fans.  On Saturday, the University of Michigan's hallowed football arena hosted the most attended soccer game ever held in the US between Manchester United and Real Madrid. 

                I myself had the pleasure of attending a similar friendly at Yankee Stadium between Liverpool FC and Manchester City last Wednesday.  That crowd may not have matched the one in Michigan by numbers but based on my experience they more than matched them in intensity.  Manchester City, relatively new to success, hasn't really attracted a huge devoted following as of yet.  Liverpool fans made up for that, bringing but a small fraction of the passion routine to matches played in their home stadium that still filled the air.  I can guarantee that there was more excitement from the fans, and a higher level of effort from the players, then you will see at any NFL preseason game this August. 

                Stadium staff made a nice touch by playing unofficial-but-ubiquitous Liverpool theme song "You'll Never Walk Alone" before the match, a song whose lyrics everyone seemed to know except for me.  I had to make do sort of mumbling and following everyone's lead.  But the greatest passion was reserved for the club's captain and local legend Steven Gerrard.  He may be as beloved in Liverpool as Yankees legend Derek Jeter is in New York, but a more fitting analogy may be to past Yankee captain Don Mattingly.

                 Mattingly, like Gerrard, is one of the best and most iconic players ever to suit up for his team but tragically failed to win the World Series for the team that can hardly ever do anything but win the World Series.  Liverpool have won the second most English top division titles after Manchester United, but have thus far failed to do so during Gerrard's storied career.  They came close this year, as close as they've been in more than 25 years.  But an untimely slip (not a slip in play, a literal slip-and-fall) from Gerrard himself cost Liverpool a match against Chelsea which would have all but sealed the title.  A blown three goal lead against middling Crystal Palace and it was gone.  The title was taken by their opponent at Yankees Stadium, Manchester City, and their offensive centerpiece and dental assault extraordinaire Luis Suarez was bought by Barcelona.

                Suarez was the best player in English football last season; despite employing talented young attackers Daniel Sturridge and Rasheed Sterling, replacing Suarez's production won't be easy.  That being said, there were positive signs from Liverpool's offense: they frequently created good attacking chances and scored two well-executed goals in the second half.  They offset this somewhat by allowing two incredibly sloppy goals in the same half, one of which came courtesy of another bad slip by Gerrard.  That didn't matter to the faithful though.  He got the biggest cheer of the night when he was subbed out later in the match.

                Of course, some of that excitement probably owes itself to the fleeting nature of the event.  These fans are mostly British ex-patriots taking a rare opportunity to see the team they love in person, like an old high school friend who lives halfway across the country in adulthood.  Others are the children of such ex-patriots, never quite knowing the full measure of Liverpool fandom but experiencing some part of it by attending this friendly. 

                "Oh wait, that's me." I thought to myself as I made these observations at the stadium.  My dad, with whom I attended the game, is originally from Scotland, a place with its own distinct soccer culture but which holds deep ties to English clubs like Liverpool.  Liverpool's premiere striker during their great dynasties of the 70s and 80s was Kenny Dalglish, a fixture on the Scottish national team who had cut his teeth playing for my dad's hometown Glasgow Celtic club during his early years.  Dalglish retired from the game years before I was born, and my dad had lived in the States for years even before that.  But I still felt a connection that day, something that US-based soccer can't yet generate.  Interest is not the same thing as a culture built around the game.  Still need to learn those damn song lyrics though.  

Mudiay's Decision

Emmanuel Mudiay is making a lot of people very angry.  People tend to be very angry when the issue of American college athletics is brought up these days, no matter which perspective they take.  Depending on who you ask, college athletics are either the literal rebirth of slavery or the last refuge of moral values in America(admittedly, you'd probably only get the latter answer if you asked Mark Emmert).

                But the reason Mudiay is making such big waves in the college sporting world is not because of how he will enter, but rather that he will not enter it at all.  Instead, he opted to sign a 1.2 million dollar contract to play with Guangdong of the Chinese Basketball Association. 

                Less than ten years ago, it was common to see top tier basketball prospects fresh out of high school immediately enter the NBA draft.  Their ability to do so had been fought for decades ago when the Supreme Court decision in Haywood v. National Basketball Association ended the collusion between the NBA and NCAA to prevent non-college players from being drafted. However, this protection for players was weakened by the regulation colloquially known as the "one-and-done rule," instituted in 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

                This rule states that draft eligibility require a player to be 19 years old and at least one year removed from his high school graduation.  Since the rule's institution, it has become common for high level prospects to join a college basketball program for one year before jumping ship for the NBA.  Like watching Andrew Wiggins play for Kansas?  Well too bad he's gone now to greener pastures and shinier hardwood of Cleveland. 

                Now, these high school graduates are not obligated to spend this interim year in college.  Some, such as Australian prodigy Dante Exum, opt to take a year off from competitive basketball to insure themselves against injury or bad performance which could hurt their draft stock.  Mudiay has taken the approach which, on paper, might seem the most fruitful.  Playing professionally in China allows him to play against high levels of competition while still being paid for his services.  However, the few who have tried this path in the one-and-done era have not been met with great success.

                The two most well-regarded prospects to spend their gap year playing abroad professionally were Brandon Jennings in 2008 and Jeremy Tyler in 2010.   Jennings played a year in Italy's Lega Basket Serie A before being taken by Milwaukee with the 10th overall pick in 2009.  Sounds pretty good, except that coming out of high school he had been ranked as the number one prospect by ESPNU.  HIs performance in Italy was documented by a New York Times piece which reads more like a post-mortem than sports analysis.  Tyler went so far as to forgo his senior year in high school, spending two years abroad.  The first was spent with Maccabi Haifa of the Israeli Super League, the ugliness of his season only surpassed by the 2011 earthquake which followed his stint with the Tokyo Apache of Japan.  Like Jennings, his time overseas got the New York Times treatment.  He was drafted with the 39th overall pick of the 2011 draft, and has yet to find significant playing time with any NBA team.  Jennings has enjoyed a solid if unspectacular career thus far as the primary scoring option Milwaukee before moving to Detroit last year.  His draft stock was certainly damaged by his decision, but it seems that his career has not. 

                It's only a small sample size, but going pro overseas seems to hold more risk than reward.  The vast majority of NBA players go through American colleges, even when including the era from 1995 to 2005 when 39 players were drafted out of high school.  Even exceptional foreign born players who are drafted without seeing college frequently take more time to adjust to the NBA than a similarly talented player out of college.  The style of play in foreign leagues significantly diverges from the NBA, focusing much more on passing and half-court sets.  Division I college basketball on the other hand mimics the NBA's look; pick-and-rolls and fast breaks are all the rage. 

                But whatever the risk, I'm glad that Mudiay is going to play in China next year.  I'm going to break one of my personal rules and get a little preachy, but I believe that the one-and-done rule is collusion between the NBA and NCAA for the purpose of exploiting laborers, plain and simple.  I think that legal adults should be allowed to pursue any profession for which they are qualified, and playing one year of college basketball is not exactly taking the bar.  It may be better for the players to enter college so as to develop their skills, but it is also their legal right to do what they think is best for them, even if it turns out to be a mistake.  

McIlroy can't commit...does that matter?

It's hard to be consistently excellent in any sport, especially in the case of an individual sport such as golf.  Teammates can cover for a bad day from one or two others here and there but as anyone who plays golf knows, there is no one to help you out on the course.  For a professional, a bad day means you're not going to win the tournament.  A select few golfers have been able to develop a consistently high level of play over a long period of time.  Tiger Woods was the Number 1 golfer virtually from the time I was aware of golf as a human until his pancake house adventures were discovered in 2009, with only a slight Vijay Singh-fueled blip in the middle.  Jim Furyk seems as if he's been in the top 20 for as long as golf has been played professionally.  It's not easy.  It takes talent, practice, and commitment.

                Commitment is not something that Rory McIlroy  seems to have mastered at this point in his professional career.  He has an absurd amount of talent, so check that box.  His technique (that beautiful whip-like drive) indicates a very high level of practice so no fault there.  His golf is flawless...until it isn't.  Even in the midst of his staggering success, being the best golfer in the world through 2011 and 2012, he has had had some pretty low moments.  He melted down so dramatically at the 2011 Masters that even Greg Norman had to wince.  His title defense at the 2012 US Open was cut two days short by the monster disguised as the Olympic Club course.  He withdrew from the 2013 Honda Classic under bizarre circumstances.  In fact, we can safely characterize the entirety of 2013 as a low point for McIlroy. 

                A lot of outsiders pointed to McIlroy's personal dealings to explain his 2013 collapse, focusing on his tumultuous relationship with former Number 1 tennis player Caroline Wozniacki.  After dumping his high school girlfriend for the Danish tennis pro, his game slipped noticeably (as did Wozniacki's, funnily enough).  She was viewed as a distraction by observers, keeping him from reaching his full potential.

                That's a lie of course, everyone with half a brain knows that McIlroy struggled in 2013 because he changed his clubs in exchange for a bajillion dollar contract with Nike and failed to adjust.  It's an occupational hazard of being near the top of any sport that Nike or Adidas will start throwing huge bags of money at you, and the unwary will trip over those bags.  This was McIlroy's true commitment issue, his decision not to follow through on a long term relationship with old partner Titleist more impactful than his insidious mindgames decision to separate from Wozniacki. 

                But finally after text message breaking up with Wozniacki, then proposing to her, then breaking off the engagement after weddings invitations had been printed, and going through a similar but more fruitful process with his Nike clubs, he won his first major tournament since the PGA Championship in 2012.  In winning the Open Championship this past weekend, McIlroy showed the steady and dominant play that won him both the PGA and the 2011 US Open.  Despite a slight dip on Sunday to keep things interesting, the result of the tournament was never in much doubt after Friday's round.  Now he looks to be on the upswing.

                So maybe McIlroy has proven me wrong after all.  Maybe commitment is overrated in terms of long term sports success.  He dropped the clubs, he dropped the girl, but he's gone right back to winning again.  Maybe we'd like to think that athletes have to hold themselves to certain standards, and that it's about more than just talent.  But talent really does win out where athletics is concerned.   But then again, maybe we're all taking this just a bit too seriously.  He's a 25 year old playing some golf.  He's bound to be kind of a screw-up where life is concerned.  His future is a lot less certain than the result was this past Sunday.  

Carmelo and Cookies

A few years ago I read about a study which concerned young children and patience.  The subjects, all very young children, were offered the choice of receiving one cookie immediately or waiting for 15 minutes or so and receiving two.  Follow up studies determined that the children who had opted to wait for the extra cookie were more likely to make smart decisions in managing their money and were generally more successful at life than their hungrier peers. 

                I had a somewhat irrational annoyance at this study, perhaps because I feared that in that situation I would have opted for the one cookie, exposing myself as a fraud who had lucked into some small success in life and who would inevitably fail.  I am indeed, often pretty bad at organizing my day-to-day existence. 

                I was reminded of this study recently when thinking about Carmelo Anthony and his recent decision to remain with the New York Knicks.  For him , it essentially came down to a choice between joining a title-ready team in Chicago or staying in New York and trusting NBA legend Phil Jackson to build a contender around him.  Like the cookies, this was a choice between instant gratification and long term reward.  But there is one key difference between the study and Carmelo's decision: there is no guarantee of the long term reward for Carmelo.  I bet those smart-ass kids would've had to think twice if the testers told them they would "try" to bring them two cookies after a short wait. 

                And don't think one championship is as good as another.  Not for Carmelo.  In New York(where he was born, it should be noted) he would be the star of the first title team in more than three decades, the first building block upon which that team was built.  In Chicago he would simply fill a hole; he would be a plug-in superstar whose legacy would remain in the shadow of the greatest basketball player ever, whose memory is still fresh for Bulls fans.  New York represents the greater risk and the greater reward. 

                But while Carmelo was the only one making a tangible choice, fans of the New York Knicks like myself had a similar choice to make concerning what outcome we actually wanted.  We may not all have ended up like those two-cookie taking future hedge fund managers, but sports fans these days have gotten pretty savvy about alternatives to immediate success.  The strategy of "tanking," deliberately fielding a bad team to leverage a higher draft pick, is far more viable now that fan bases have the understanding necessary to tolerate short term losing for the promise of long term success. 

                The Knicks are no doubt better immediately with Carmelo.  And after some of the bad contracts are cleared off the team's books in the next two years or so, building a contender is entirely possible.  But after years and years of mismanagement wherein opportunities were missed and assets were squandered, I do feel some desire for a completely clean slate from which to start.  However good Carmelo has been in New York doesn't change the fact that the trade that got him here was one of those bad decisions.  We could have had the chance to build up a younger team from scratch using the draft and maybe nabbing a youngish free agent a few years down the line.  With Carmelo resigned, we're pinning our hopes on the 3-5 more years of top level basketball that he has left, plus the services of a potential big free agent signing. 

                With the draft being such a crapshoot, Carmelo is the sure thing.  But is that sure thing going to take us where we really want to go?  Neither we fans nor Carmelo will know for years whether his resigning was the right decision.  We're left to wonder: did we make the smart decision and wait for the cookies down the road or did we just snatch up the one because we were hungry?

The Man in the Machine: Messi vs. Germany

When I first heard the nickname of the German national team, "Die Mannschaft", I guessed that in English it would translate to "The Machine."  This would have perfectly fit the squad's reputation: Cold and unfeeling, brutally efficient, and above all dominant.  It also perfectly fit the narrative going into their final fixture against Argentina and Lionel Messi: The one man against the evil empire; the super star against the deep team; the man against the machine.

                This was always a false narrative, although I'll admit that I didn't realize it until I watched the first few minutes of the final itself.  What I saw was not Messi weaving around German lines trying to make something happen for himself or his teammates.  Instead I saw the tightly coordinated German offense trying earnestly, and at first failing, to crack the stingy and sticky Argentinean defense. 

                The clockwork-like German offense had gotten its due coming into the match thanks to its unprecedented deconstruction of Brazil in the semifinal, but the same can't be said for Argentina's defenders, who had not conceded a single goal during the knockout stage going into the final match.  They plainly carried Argentina forward, given that their offense had scored only two goals of their own in those same three matches. 

                But the Messi narrative was strong, and in the group stage it was actually the correct narrative, as his four brilliant goals were the difference in all three matches.  But he was only one man, and despite the occasional flash of brilliance, he needed his defense to shut out the opposition just as much as they had needed him in the group stage.  And for the first twenty or thirty minutes of the final, it looked as if they were going to stay impenetrable even to the potent German opposition. 

                That's when the real story of the match became more apparent, with the German forwards and midfielders prodding and poking at the Argentine back third, at first unable to even enter the penalty box cleanly.  But they slowly worked their way in, creating chances which got better and better and the half went on.  It looked to be something of a race: Would Germany solve the Argentine defensive puzzle first, or would one of their increasingly common defensive errors be exploited by Argentina for what might be the only goal they would need.

                In the end, Argentina cracked first.  The machine had won.  But did it?  I mentioned earlier how I had believed that "Die Mannschaft" meant "The Machine" in German.  I found out recently that I was incorrect.  In actuality, it means "The Team." And I realized that nothing could be more fitting for this World Cup final.  These Germans were not cogs in a machine, they were men working together.  Far from faceless, I remember many of the players distinctly.  Thomas Müller and his brashness; Miroslav Klose's quiet determination; the heartbreak of Sami Khedira's warm up injury; Bastian Schweinsteiger's bloody perseverance in extra time, and of course Mario Götze's game winner for the ages. 

                This was never about the collective against the individual.  Football has always been and remains the most team-oriented of all team sports in the world.  There were simply two teams of eleven men on the pitch.  Germany's individuals were better, and their team was also better.  They are the best team in the world and now have the hardware to prove it.

Afterthought on the Golden Ball Award:

It's not completely clear why Lionel Messi was awarded the Golden Ball for best player of the tournament(the narrative I've already discussed has a lot to do with it, as well as his being the most popular player in the world) but not a lot of people seem to agree.  He was given credit for dragging Argentina through the tournament, which in the group stage was absolutely true.  But in the knockout round, teams keyed in on Messi as the Argentines' focal point, forcing the defense to step up to get the team through.  Some cite this extra attention as reason to give him the award, but I would instead point to the Netherlands' Arjen Robben, who was also the focal point of his team's offense and yet was not stopped in that same way. 

The Netherlands were only outscored by Germany in the tournament, and even in games when they struggled to finish in the penalty box, they consistently created tons of scoring chances.  No one was more responsible than Robben.  On most possessions, the team would rely on his incredible speed and have him run at the penalty box to create openings for his teammates.  He was never subbed out in a meaningful match, including two consecutive overtime games.  And through all of them he never lost a step, relentlessly attacking opposing defenses with that ridiculous speed.  He ended up winning the Bronze Ball award for the third best player in the tournament, behind Messi and Germany's Thomas Müller.  But in my mind, Robben deserved the top prize, though it would have been small consolation after losing what was likely his last chance to win the cup for Holland.