I don't think people understand the vital difference between a well-rehearsed (and physical) team vs a collection of individuals with no real understanding - new players, makeshift centre-backs, other players out of position. Make do an mend when missing a ton of quality = v.hard
Definitely agree BUT, we should still be beating Burnley and Brighton at home.
— PaulShilly \U0001f339\U0001f339 (@shillcock_paul) February 4, 2021
For me, that is in part, a tactical problem.
More from Sport
Aight. Here’s my favorite 2 stories about Bill Russell.
Both stories reveal how much of a humble human being he is. And one blows my mind because it dismantles what we think about the evolution of sports.
A thread:
The first is, that there is an assumption that today’s athletes are faster, stronger, etc. which is is based on ZERO evidence.
For instance, Wilt Chamberlain benched 465 lbs at 59 years old. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he benched 500 lbs on the set of Conan the Destroyer
Most basketball experts say Wilt has the highest vertical leap in NBA history. A few others argue that Michael Jordan did.
I think they’re both wrong.
Why?
Well let me tell you a story:
In 1956 Bill Russell was selected for the US Olympic basketball team
During this time, pros weren’t allowed in the Olympics, so the International Olympic Committee tried to say that he was ineligible since he had already signed with the Celtics, even though he hadn’t played yet
Luckily, Russell prevailed and led the team to the gold medal as the captain.
But if they would have stopped Russell from playing for the US basketball team, he would have STILL been in the Olympics.
How?
Because Bill Russell was one of the greatest high jumpers I. The world.
Both stories reveal how much of a humble human being he is. And one blows my mind because it dismantles what we think about the evolution of sports.
A thread:
Where is the thread? Love when you give us your take on these players. The KC Jones piece was outstanding. Had no idea.
— Bweasey (@Bweasey) December 27, 2020
The first is, that there is an assumption that today’s athletes are faster, stronger, etc. which is is based on ZERO evidence.
For instance, Wilt Chamberlain benched 465 lbs at 59 years old. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he benched 500 lbs on the set of Conan the Destroyer
Most basketball experts say Wilt has the highest vertical leap in NBA history. A few others argue that Michael Jordan did.
I think they’re both wrong.
Why?
Well let me tell you a story:
In 1956 Bill Russell was selected for the US Olympic basketball team
During this time, pros weren’t allowed in the Olympics, so the International Olympic Committee tried to say that he was ineligible since he had already signed with the Celtics, even though he hadn’t played yet
Luckily, Russell prevailed and led the team to the gold medal as the captain.
But if they would have stopped Russell from playing for the US basketball team, he would have STILL been in the Olympics.
How?
Because Bill Russell was one of the greatest high jumpers I. The world.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB

New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip

New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB

New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF

New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
