The views expressed below are my own, and are in no way associated with the Federal Communications Commission. Though I worked on the initial Open Internet Order, I did not contribute any work to the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding.
Tomorrow morning, the Federal Communications Commission will vote to roll back a commission rule that reclassified Broadband Providers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act to protect Net Neutrality. Order
Aside from the argument that dubious argument that the Commission need not worry about Net Neutrality because there are few documented examples so far, the Order leans heavily on the argumentthat Title II reclassification reduced broadband investment in the industry.
I’m not going to get into the merits of Net Neutrality or Title II classification here (short answer – I think it’s good), and as the rules will certainly pass tomorrow, it’s clear that I’m not trying to influence the proceeding. But I looked into the analyses cited by the order, and I noticed a common thread.
The $3 billion Assumption:
I noticed a common thread in almost every study cited by the Commission to justify the case that Title II reclassification had scared broadband providers into reducing their broadband investment – the seemed to rely almost entirely on one assumption (two of the studies cited, Kovacs and Ford, don’t rely on this assumption, I’ll discuss those at the bottom).
Aside from Ford and Kovacs, EVERY analysis mentioned in the order that alleges a decrease in wireline investment makes this assumption or cites to an analysis that makes this assumption.
On face, it might make sense. AT&T acquired DirecTV midway through 2015. Their investment figures pre-2015 did not include DirecTV’s investment, and their investments post 2015 did include DirecTV’s investment, so sensibly that investment needs to be deducted from the later time periods. The problem is that all of these analyses assume that because DirecTV’s capital investment was roughly $3 billion in years prior to the merger, it must have necessarily continued at that level.
BUT WE DONT KNOW. Most of the studies conclude that the industry drop in investment since 2014 was in the area of $3-$4 billion, so this assumption makes up a huge portion of the eventual findings. It’s entirely possible that after the acquisition, AT&T decided to scale back investment in DirecTV’s satellite operations, but we have no way of knowing.
Capital Investment is a Signal
For their part, AT&T was happy to announce to shareholders in their annual filings that they’ve increased their investment in infrastructure every year since 2014. By not disclosing their capital investments in their DirecTV operations, AT&T has found a way to simultaneously tell the FCC that the sky is falling while signaling to their shareholders that business is booming.
This is the issue when a few enormous companies dominate industry trends. We’re left to infer investment outlook for a multi-billion dollar industry based on strategic decisions of a few men in a couple boardrooms who are fully aware that their decisions will influence regulators.
FWIW, AT&T themselves indicated in pre-Title II annual filings that they planned to reduce marginal broadband investment after they finished a huge broadband buildout. Still, it’s entirely possible that AT&T and other industry players actually did reduce their broadband investment because they were afraid of regulatory burden. But that’s not certain, and in light of the outpouring of concern from content creators and edge providers across the web, as well as the unheard concerns of innovators who have yet to innovate, a decision this big shouldn’t hinge on an assumption.
Cited studies that didn’t rely on the DirecTV assumption:
Dr. Anna-Marie Kovacs’s analysis argues that wireless investment in broadband has dropped precipitously in response to the Title II regulation. She doesn’t provide a detailed methodology or raw data, so its hard to audit what she did, but it seems above board. I would add however, that while these companies may not have been investing in hard infrastructure, they invested heavily in spectrum during this time period, and I can’t imagine why they would do that if their future revenue outlook was so poor.
Dr. George S. Ford’s analysis was very different from the others cited in the Order, as it uses post-2010 as the treatment period because he asserts that after the 2010 Order, the industry knew that Title II was in play. He uses a diff-in-diff model which mimics an experiment by creating an artificial control group. Basically, he argues that rather than comparing broadband investment year over year, we should compare it to an estimate of what it would have been if the rules hadn’t been implemented. To do this, he constructed an artificial control group by choosing industries unrelated to telecom that closely followed broadband investment trends prior to 2010, and compares these industries post-2010 to actual broadband investment post-2010.
It’s a pretty cool experimental design, but it’s worth looking at the industries that he chose. His four “artificial control group” industries were:
Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Plastic and Rubber Product Manufacturing
Transportation and warehousing
Choices 2 and 4 jump out at me. I’m completely guessing here, and I don’t know how the BEA calculates their industry estimates for these so I may be completely off… but for #2 – this time period saw smartphones grow from niche high-end accessories to near ubiquity, as well as the explosion of electronic accessories surrounding them. For #4, this time-period also coincided with Amazon’s rise to prominence, which I’m sure has had a pretty significant impact on the transportation and warehousing industry.
Not surprisingly, controls 2 and 4 also happened to massively outperform controls 1 and 3, seem to be the driving factor behind his conclusions. His findings show that 2 and 4 both grew by more than 50%, meaning his conclusion that telecom investment decreased is just an argument that telecom didn’t experience the same gigantic surge in investment that 2 other specific industries did.
To Ford’s credit, his analysis showed that telecom underperformed all four of the control group industries, not just 2 and 4. Also, he includes several robustness checks that I have not yet reviewed closely (but plan to). But if I’m right about 2 and 4, his comparison to the remaining control groups, though still statistically significant, doesn’t seem to hold strong economic significance.
I originally tried to look at all residencies, but there was a ton of variation based on housing characteristics, and since I’m on a time crunch for a graduate school app (if you’re a reviewer reading this, hi!) I opted to look at the much more uniform condo market.
Originally, I had hoped I could construct a time series with this data, but number of observations per year built varies tremendously, and doesn’t seem to correlate with actual new housing construction over time. As a last resort, I opted to just look at new 1BR unit construction since 2011. I picked 2011 in part because this was the year that the first Inclusionary Zoning units went on the market.
The distribution of appraised prices for 1Br units built 2011-2017 isn’t too surprising:
Close to normal but with a very long upper tail seems about right for housing prices. But I was struck by the clustering around the median.
Only $65k separates the 1st Quartile from the median, and half all new units fell in the range between $350k and $500k. Now, to answer the subjective question of, “is that affordable?”
The D.C. government publishes maximum rental and sale rates for Inclusionary Zoned units set aside as affordable. Though in practice, Inclusionary units are only available to households with income less than 80% of the D.C. MSA’s median income (if rented before 2016) or 60% of the median income (if rented after that), D.C. publishes affordable rental and sale rates for up to 120% of the MSA median income.
As we can see here, the 25th percentile for a 1BR unit still exceeds the maximum affordable purchase price for 1BR apartments sold to households earning 120% of the Median Family Income for the D.C. Area. And the actual median price is almost $100k more expensive. Further, my estimate is probably slightly on the low end because my quick code didn’t filter out studios. So is new-unit construction of mostly unaffordable units? I think it’s safe to say ‘yes’, though I’ll admit it’s not as bad as I had thought. The assumption that rent prices are ridiculous underscores life in this city, to the point where data showing that new units are priced “high”, but not “are you f*cking kidding me?” high actually seems underwhelming. That said, the 2017 portion of this data had fewer than 30 observations, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those new waterfront units with drive up the median and first quartile.
Tactically, they’re worlds apart. But two managers on either side of the Atlantic share something deeper: a dressing room that runs on pure defiance and an unrelenting quest to rewrite the script.
With Roberto Martinez at the helm, English Premier League side Everton F.C. employ a fluid style with an emphasis on crisp passing and composure in possession. Across the pond, Ben Olsen’s DC United of Major League Soccer rely on gritty defensive effort and direct attacks to grind out results. An English football club founded by a Methodist Sunday school in 1878, an American soccer team conceived in a board room in 1995, with managers who differ in their fundamental approach to the game… the similarities may seem tenuous. But, Everton F.C. and DC United share similar roles within their respective situations, and more importantly their managers share a deep insistence upon rejecting the narratives that many see as absolute in the modern game.
The Decline of Champions
“Plucky little Everton”… “Punching above there weight”… the English press is never hesitant to lavish Everton with backhanded praise. Founding members of the first professional football league in England, Everton have spent more time in the top flight of English football than any other club and have won 9 league titles and 15 major trophies overall. Everton have exemplified the motto Nil Satis Nisi Optimum – “Nothing is enough but the best” – across most of the club’s storied history, but are currently experiencing a 20 year trophy drought brought on by the financial realities of modern football. The beautiful game is now a multi-billion dollar industry, and with an aging stadium and a smaller global brand than their local rivals, Everton do not have the revenue streams and financial might to register as a club of any stature in the modern game.
Where Everton’s fall from glory took place as a slow trickle, DC United have experienced similar highs and lows in the club’s short lifespan of 20 years. They were the inaugural Major League Soccer cup champions in 1996, and have won a total of 4 league championships and a nice assortment of other top honors. United’s last league championship however was back in 2004, and as the league has expanded to include more teams, the team has struggled to remain relevant.
The importance of financial strength in achieving success is palpable in English football, but it exists by design in the US brand of the game. MLS maintains a strict salary cap, but allows clubs to spend beyond the cap for a limited amount of “designated players.” Wealthier owners (or those more concerned with on the pitch success) can spend an unlimited amount on designated player salaries, which often results in clubs like DC United with shrewd ownership groups getting left behind. DC United’s stadium woes – the horribly aging and completely commercially non-viable RFK stadium – dwarf those of Everton, as it’s clear that the club’s venture capitalist owners are not interested in investing beyond the bare minimum until a new stadium is built.
Roberto Martinez took over for 10-year Everton manager David Moyes, who was rewarded for consistently leading Everton to top half finishes on a shoe-string budget with a move to Manchester United. Moyes’ sides were known for their defensive organization and work ethic. In 2004, Moyes’ Everton achieved their highest Premier League finish and earned a chance to qualify for the holy grail of European football – The Champions League – in large part by grinding out 1-0 victories through disciplined defensive performances.
When Martinez took over, he immediately set to work changing the mindset of the players on the pitch. Martinez put in place an expansive style of play with a heavy emphasis on rhythmic passing, a style that relied on patient buildup and intelligent movement to unlock defensively minded teams. In training drills, Martinez has the starting goalkeeper first go through passing exercises with the outfield players before joining the other goalkeepers, because he insists that every player be comfortable playing with the ball at his feet. Where a Moyes team would have defenders boot the ball up to their attackers, Martinez has his back four pass the ball out from the back.
Ben Olsen’s approach to the game on the other hand is much more similar to Martinez’s predecessor. Endearingly referred to as “BennyBall”, Olsen requires his striker to be a first defender. At times it seems he’ll prioritize a striker who can win the long balls hoofed up by defenders over one who actually scores goals. Olsen’s DC relies on gritty and aggressive defenders, not unlike Olsen’s style as a player for the black and red.
Both managers have had up and down seasons in their tenures. When Everton bled goals last season, the team faced criticism for overplaying and attempting to play “beautiful” style that exceeded the ability of the players. Olsen has faced the opposite criticism this year, as many a tweet bemoaned his conservative and pragmatic approach even as DC sat in first place earlier this season.
Restoration through Defiance
Facing the same challenge to achieve success in the face of financial limitations, both managers rely on different strategies. But there’s a deeper connection at work here, as both managers parlay these pragmatic limitations into a driving force to inspire the best from their teams.
When Martinez was first confirmed as Everton manager, he told Everton Chairman Bill Kenwright “I will get you into the Champions League.” Rather than fixate on the club’s lack of financial clout, he emphasized it’s illustrious history, and had pictures of legendary Everton players hung around the club’s training facilities to reinforce that standard of achievement amongst the squad.
This defiant insistence upon greatness didn’t always translate to results on the pitch, but it was perfectly captured in this summer’s transfer window.
Russian-oligarch-owned defending Premier League Champions Chelsea F.C. submitted a bid for John Stones, a highly promising 21 year old central defender who took over as a starter for Everton last season. The initial bid was promptly turned down, triggering a media maelstrom as ex-players and pundits all felt the need to weigh in.
One of the theguardian’s many attempts to convince Stones to quit Everton
Like most mid-table sides, for the past decade Everton have resigned themselves to losing their top players whenever a rich club came calling. In the modern game, such is the natural order of things, so much so that Everton drew criticism for insisting Stones, a player on a four-year contract, is better off staying with his current club. To many pundits, choosing to force a transfer to a Champions League club, rather than staying put and working to get your current club there, is a sign of ambition.
Eventually the media campaign did its job, and young John Stones submitted a formal request for a transfer. It looked certain that Stones would leave, but the next day Stones was in the starting lineup against his former club Barnsley in the League Cup. In his post match comments, Martinez explained that Stones’ transfer request will be rejected the next day, stating “sometimes can’t buy everything.”
In the first game after the window closed, Everton and Chelsea met at Goodison Park, with Stones in the starting lineup. The entire Everton team played lights out, taking the game to Chelsea like they were any other team. It was fitting that Steven Naismith, a close friend of Stones and the first Everton player to tell the media that Stones should stay put scored a perfect hat-trick off the bench to give Everton a 3-1 victory.
Young John Stones celebrates the first goal against Chelsea with hat-trick hero Steven Naismith
The post-match words of Brendan Galloway, another promising young defender who assisted the opening goal, perfectly sum up the sense of confidence and defiance of the supposed order of things:
“We know what we can do and we don’t fear anyone, especially when they come to Goodison,” declared Galloway.
“They may have been the champions but we didn’t give them that respect.
“We shouldn’t give anyone any respect, especially in games at Goodison.
“We always know what we are capable of, we do it everyday in training, and we’ve started the season well.
As the Goodison faithful sang “Money can’t buy you Stones”, Everton translated their defiant attitude into an emphatic win. I doubt Everton will reach that level again all season, but if only for a game they invoked a spirit more mighty than the rhinestone glitz of the modern game.
While Martinez showed reverence for Everton’s historic glory, at DC United Ben Olsen lived it. As a player he won two of the clubs four MLS cups, and was named MVP in the 1999 cup final. His tenacity on the pitch earned him folk-hero status, and the Cult of Olsen has only grown since he took over as a manager. Win or lose, after every game the supporters bellow his name, and Olsen dutifully walks over to return their reverence with applause – a ritual that now feels as much a part of club tradition as half-time drum-circles and beer-shower goal celebrations.
Olsen lifts the cup after scoring the winner in the 1999 MLS cup final
Since Olsen’s player days and in the post-Beckham era, DC United have waned in prominence as the fledgling league bends over backwards to accommodate teams who spend big on marquee players.
So it was when DC met the rival NY Red Bulls in the 2012 MLS cup playoffs. As the (at the time) sole team in the NYC media market, and lead by one of the all-time European greats Thierry Henry, the Red Bulls often appeared to be the league darlings. DC United, as the higher seed, were supposed to host the second leg of their two-match playoff, this would allow the higher seeded team to host overtime if they tie on aggregate. After hurricane sandy hit, N.Y. were unable to host the first leg. Rather than delay the playoff, D.C. were simply reassigned to play the first leg at home instead and lost their home field advantage in the process.
After the first leg in DC ended in a draw, the situation worsened. Hundred’s of the DC faithful traveled up to New Jersey for the crucial away leg as a snow storm struck. With the traveling fans bouncing and the team ready, DC were so insistent upon playing the game that Ben Olsen picked up a shovel to help the ground crew clear the field, but it was to no avail. The league postponed the game to the following day, meaning most of the fans who made the trip would leave without seeing a ball kicked.
The following night’s match was a cagey affair that boiled over when United’s star goalkeeper conceded a penalty and was shown a red card for bringing down Red Bull striker Kenny Cooper in the box. When the club seemed at it’s lowest, backup keeper Joe Willis came up with an all-important save to keep the score level, and shortly thereafter rookie Nick DeLeon scored the match-winner. And where else would DeLeon go, with visible tears in his eyes, but to right in front of the traveling supporters to celebrate.
Chris Pontius and Nick DeLeon celebrate the play-off winner in New Jersey
It may not have been a fair attitude, but after the series of unfortunate events, the narrative was set. The league, the weather, fate, whatever – it was all out to get us but we weren’t going to take. Maybe it was reasonable to shift the schedule around, and Hamid’s dismissal was almost certainly warranted, but none of that mattered at the time. In 15 seconds, Hamid’s post-match outburst perfectly captures the pathos surrounding the club:
“They can’t hold us back.”
DC have faced some ups and downs since, but the attitude remains the same even this season. Ahead of our first match against expansion team New York City F.C., United striker Chris Rolfe commented on NYC’s star-power driven approach to development :
“It’s disappointing when you have owners that are willing to forego a culture and try to buy the fanciest commodities and try to make a team out of it. I don’t respect that”
In a league where money reigns supreme and buying aging stars to put asses in seats is the fastest way to “most favored club” status, DC players and fans alike are begrudgingly proud to do things differently.
Reality Catches Up
This isn’t a fairy tale, and it’s not a coming-of-age tale about a rag-tag gang of pre-teen misfits.
That game against NYC FC? DC United lost, and we’ve lost 4 of our next 5 games since.
Things look decidedly rosier for Everton, who currently sit 5th in the Premier League despite a string difficult early fixtures. But the average Everton supporter is properly conditioned to expect the worst, even when things are going well we can’t shake the feeling that the regression to the mean is coming.
For the time being, Everton continue to surpass the summer’s low expectations, while United have thrown away the chance to win the Supporters Shield (team with best regular season record) and are set to barely back into the playoffs.
Yet despite their divergent recent paths, both clubs face similar precipices. Tonight, DC United play their second match against NYCFC, and will clinch a playoff berth with a win. Fresh off a new contract, Chris Rolfe has a chance to back up his strong words to get DC’s season back on track, and show NYC superstars David Villa, Andrea Pirlo, and Frank Lampard that there’s more to this league than fat paychecks and cringey photo shoots. On Sunday, Everton face local their local rivals in the merseyside derby, a fixture so nerve-wracking I won’t even entertain the scenario of a win until after the final whistle, but one that I will say could be season defining.
Two managers, both facing imminent tests. Over the last year, both Martinez and Olsen have been forced to bear their vulnerabilities to the world in their respective periodic struggles. Now as before, each looks to double down on his own brand of philosophical intransigence, and infuse it with a healthy dose of defiant passion to will his club against the prevailing winds of modern football.
Again, this isn’t a fairy-tale, and years of supporting both clubs have taught me not to expect much. I’m fully prepared for reality to catch up, for la résistance to breakdown without fanfare, and for both clubs to resume their mid-table roles in the status quo order of football. But looking inward, I don’t think the manic masochistic whirlwind of supporting either team has ever really been about the result. I’m in it for the fight, and no matter how things turn out I’ll know we tried.
On Monday night, the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team registered it’s 3rd successive clean sheet en route to defeating Colombia 2-0 in the first knock-out round of the 2015 Women’s World Cup. Despite the relatively comfortable victory against a Colombian side who were reduced to 10 players following a red card shortly after the half-time restart, manager Jill Ellis has come under intense criticism for a performance that many an arm-chair analyst and beat-blogger have deemed “not convincing”. Former USWNT star Michelle Akers may have delivered the most scathing criticism:
“If she [Ellis] is pleased with the way we played tonight then what the hell is she doing coaching our U.S. team.”
Ouch. I’ve heard various points of criticism from all around, among them that our 4-4-2 formation is outdated and stale, that we are over-reliant on playing long-balls up to our forwards, that we lack creativity in attacking, and that Ellis needs to drop aging star Abby Wambach. I will readily concede that the team hasn’t exactly been dominant thus far in the tournament, but to me the negativity seems horribly misplaced.
The supposed “lack-of-diversity” in our attacking approach is as good a place to start as any. I keep hearing that our attack is one-dimensional, that all we do boot long balls up to our forwards – a hit-and-hope mentality.
First of all, when you have players like break-out star Julie Johnston who can drop the ball right on a player’s forehead from across the field, hoofing it forward isn’t the worst thing in the world:
Second, the way Colombia set up encouraged us to play it long. When our defenders were in possession of the ball, Colombian players surrounded the center circle to clog up midfield. This didn’t stop us from trying to play it out from the back anyways, we actually tried it quite often. Usually something like this happened:
Notice the number of yellow shirts in that area of the pitch. A lot of our attempts to pass it out from the back worked out better than these two examples, they often lead to throw-ins that gave us a good platform to build an attack. But the last two gifs demonstrate the danger in our defenders losing possession there. Plus, Colombia’s approach left holes between their midfield and back 4, so why wouldn’t we send some balls over-the-top to take advantage of it?
Third, we actually showed a ton of diversity in our approach and creativity once we had the ball in the final third. Yes, I know more than a few diagonal balls were floated toward Morgan/Wambach without great effect, but that was far from our only threat. We worked the ball cleverly to set up Heath’s early shot that nearly put us ahead:
Here we tried to pass it through their defense in the final third, a failed effort but definitely the right intent:
The team showed ingenuity and precision to get players in behind the defense down the right flank:
and the left:
Check out the patient build-up, passing, and movement that takes place here before Meghan Klingenberg receives the ball on the overlap down the left:
and here’s Klingenberg’s subsequent shot that nearly put the US ahead:
By the way, those attacking examples were all from the first half, and no I didn’t gif every single one, nor did I gif any of the numerous corners we earned. The team took a very balanced approach to attacking, varied its cadence to catch Colombia out, and showed good coordination punctuated by moments of individual skill.
Do I believe that Jill Ellis’s plan was perfect? No, and truthfully I would have done a lot of things differently. Maybe the 4-4-2 formation is a little bit stale, and maybe it is risky to start two attack-minded players in Carli Lloyd and Lauren Holiday in central midfield. But would replacing one of them with a defense-minded sitting midfielder, or even adding one in as a 3rd central midfielder, really have made a difference against Colombia’s effectively 6-player midfield?
The team set out very differently from what I would have pictured. After the first game against Australia I had started brainstorming with friends about how we could change personnel to shore up midfield. But against Colombia, the team created numerous chances without leaving itself exposed in the back, and these efforts were eventually rewarded with goals.
Prior to the 2014 World Cup, USMNT manager Jurgen Klinsmann came under fire for leaving out the Talismanic Landon Donovan from the squad. He compared the situation to Kobe Bryant’s contract:
“This always happens in America. Kobe Bryant, for example — why does he get a two-year contract extension for $50 million? Because of what he is going to do in the next two years for the Lakers? Of course not. Of course not. He gets it because of what he has done before. It makes no sense.”
Jill Ellis finds herself the subject of criticism for the opposite reason – her reluctance to drop underperforming veteran Abby Wambach.
Has Wambach lived up to her own standards? Absolutely not, and I’m sure she’d be the first to admit as much. But to focus only on her shortcomings is to ignore her crucial contributions to the team.
Technique wise, she’s still got it. This half-volley effort was only denied by goalkeeping heroics:
Now, check out Rapinoe’s ball to play in Alex Morgan and draw the first penalty / red card:
It’s a bit hard to make out, but when Wambach drops deep to support Rapinoe, Colombia’s #14 follows her, creating a huge pocket of space for Morgan to burst into and…well… you know the rest.
Now have a look at Morgan’s goal:
Wambach wins the initial header to keep the play alive. Then, as Morgan receives the ball, #14 on Colombia, who is initially goal-side of Johnston, glances toward Wambach, and her hesitation allows Johnston to gain a half-step on her. Granted, Morgan took the selfish route and scored by herself, but she also had the easy option to play in Johnston, thanks to the space that Wambach helped create for her. Even when Wambach is underperforming, she is always a goal threat.
I don’t think Wambach should get an indefinite pass. I agreed with Klinsmann’s decision to drop Donovan. But unlike Wambach, Donovan was never in the conversation of being the best striker in the world. Sure, Wambach’s penalty miss was poor, but the fact that she chose not to take the second penalty – sacrificing her easy chance to tie Brazilian legend Marta’s record – shows her commitment to the cause. I want to see Abby start knocking them in as much as anyone, but her role in the team goes well beyond poaching headers. I don’t know if I would drop Wambach on current form, but I can completely understand why Ellis chooses not to.
So far, the US Women’s national team hasn’t conceded a goal since the 27th minute against Australia – over 333 minutes without conceding. The team is consistently creating chances, and we haven’t really looked like losing… at all… this tournament. Yet I keep hearing people saying that the way we’re winning isn’t “convincing”, implying that we’ll easily lose to a better team. I think Abby Wambach’s words in the team huddle just before the second half against Colombia respond to this criticism as well as anything I could write:
“We all know we have another level right? It’s just a matter of time before we get that goal, stay patient!“
Not a rallying cry to give 110% and push for the win, just a calm but emphatic reminder to stick the plan. With or without the red card, Colombia were never going to be able to keep up the energetic high press for another 45 minutes, and the U.S. rightly trusted that if they continued to go about their business, quality would win out in the end.
En route to winning the 2014 men’s World Cup, Germany needed extra time to beat Algeria in the first knock-out round, and only avoided a penalty shootout by minutes. They then went on to beat Brazil 7-1 in the semi-finals. Runners-up Argentina also needed 118 minutes to find a breakthrough against Switzerland, and only found it through a moment of Messi-anic magnificence.
I’ll fully accept the ridicule coming my way if we get upset by China or trounced by Germany/France, but I really don’t see it. At the highest level, you don’t set out to make statements with your performances. That sort of conversation keeps the pundits in business, but it’s not the point. Team USA is not in Canada right now to “convince” us of anything, they’re there to lift a trophy. Stay. Patient.
(bonus gif of Klingenberg’s through-ball to Rapinoe with the outside of her foot to set up the second penalty… because damn it’s thing of beauty)
Just before the beginning of the 2014/2015 Premier League season, I wrote what was initially supposed to be a blog post, but turned into an obnoxiously long essay. I had just read The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, and my essay relates Camus’ concept of “The Absurd Man” to Roberto Martinez, the new manager of English Premier League club Everton F.C., and his approach to the sport.
I tried to write it so a casual soccer fan will be able to understand it, and so someone with a cursory familiarity with philosophy can follow it, though it turned out denser than I expected.
After a few discordant attempts over the last few years to start and maintain a blog on different platforms, I’ve decided to commit to one space and bring all of my writings / musings / observations here.
I’ll be linking a few recent posts from Blogger and Google + over here, and hope that consolidation will make it easier for me to stay focused and produce content regularly.