A New Way to Conclude Football Matches

Last weekend, we witnessed an exhilarating penalty shootout between Poland and Switzerland. After neither side taking advantage in extra time, it was time to show their mettle. After Granit Xhaka’s miss, Poland never looked back and confidently dispatched their way into the quarter final.

The post-match discussion devolved into various aspects but one of them contained something new.

Michael Caley polled his followers asking “If a knockout game is tied, should they play extra time then penalties if necessary, or penalties then extra time?”

 https://twitter.com/MC_of_A/status/746721593217409025

68% said keep it like it is, 32% said penalties before, thus better extra time.

Michael Caley’s Suggestion

As you can see from the above tweet, it generated a lot of discussion.  Here is Caley’s suggestion in full:

• Penalty Shootout followed by extra time
• Winner of penalty shootout gains a point (1-0)  and wins if extra time ends in a draw or no change in score
• Loser of penalty shootout can win game by winning in extra time, thus incentivized to attack  while the winner defends.
• Sudden death after five penalty kicks by each team with no resolution

Michael has the right idea. Players are already exhausted after 90 minutes, why extra time tends to be more of a snooze fest than a spectacle. Incentivizing the players to end the game as quickly as possible leads to a more dramatic finish knowing the stakes are higher.

If you’re a player and already fatigued from playing 90 minutes, you know under Caley’s setup you’re encouraged to make your penalty kick count to gain advantage in extra time.

If you’re the losing team of the penalty shootout, you know your task got even harder. You attack, the other team wants to defend and happily hold onto their lead.

Tweaking Caley’s Suggestion

My suggestion, make it more dramatic. First, instead of the possibility of sudden death in the penalty shootout before extra time, each team operates under a best out of 5 approach.

Thus, it implicitly adds the sudden death element to the penalty shootout after 90 minutes have been played.  As discussed before, players are fatigued and making it best out of 5 is an easy way to communicate the end of the game is approaching.

Players will be incentivized to make their penalty kick count even more as their margin of error decreases. As Eminem says “You only got one shot”, better make it count.

If neither team wins the best out of 5, then like in Caley’s setup, they play out extra time but without the element of a point system.  It’s all fair play and the stakes increase because after geeing themselves up for an intense best-out-of-5 penalty shootout, they have to find it within themselves to expend energy again for another 30 minutes. Grueling right?

That’s the idea.  The body remembers grueling pain quite well and once it goes through this experience, it tends to see how it can avoid it again.

Now, if both teams are still level after extra time, they encounter the final test: actual sudden death.  Since the players are already fatigued from regulation play, an intense penalty shootout, and 30 minutes of extra time, sudden death provides enough respite their misery will soon be over.  It becomes a question of staying power and technical execution against immense physical and mental exhaustion.

For those who prefer to see explanations in a bullet point fashion:

• Penalty Shootout (Best out of 5)
• Each team has 5 attempts to score penalty kicks and win the shootout
• After 5 attempts whoever, has more penalty kicks scored wins the shootout and the game is over
  
• If neither team is able to win, the game moves to extra time for 30 minutes of game play
• If neither team is able to win in extra time, teams face off in sudden death to end the game

What’s nice for fans and media alike in this setup is the level of drama and suspense remains relatively high no matter how the game ends.  Based on statistical analysis, you would probably guess most games would end in the best out of 5 shootout scenario, but there’s enough probability it goes beyond. 

If it does, it becomes even more nail-biting as everyone watching is waiting to see what’s going to break the deadlock, perhaps even the players.

It comes down to how the players respond to maintaining composure and quality execution in a pressure-cooker type environment while managers work to ease the pressure to increase the likelihood of victory.

Thus, I believe using this implementation would result in more dramatic finishes to games which go past regulation.

What are your thoughts?

Additional reading 

As much as we enjoy football, keeping players’ well-being in mind allows more optimal recovery and performance for the next game in a tournament, season and the offseason.  

Allowing for more optimal recovery enables players to perform at a maximum level longer.  With ever increasing demand for the sport, it becomes more difficult to manage any fixture congestion which inhibits this level of recovery. 

The question is how far are fans, media and other vested parties willing to push the demand and thus players’ physical capabilities to meet such demands?  We drive high demand then wonder why we hear the stories we do about doping.  

If you ask me, they’re not as disconnected as we think but because of how we identify with the game, we’d rather say the game needs us rather than taking responsibility or ownership for whatever part we play in the way the game is now.

On the other hand, players also drive part of the demand themselves, wanting to play game in game out. The key part to communicate to players is due to what they did to get to the top, it’s nigh on impossible to satisfy that desire.  

It most likely defines a big part of who they are.  Thus, the key there, assuming the player is willing, is to guide them on a holistic process of understanding their mind, body and whatever else helps them create deeper understanding about who they are in a football-specific context.  Equipping the players with a toolkit to maximize their performance on a more consistent basis.

With players more aware of their limitations and how they can push their limitations, they can not only push the boundaries of what they believe about their capabilities, but also know when it’s better to take a back seat to not adversely affect the team and allow a teammate the opportunity to help the team achieve its objective. Winning football matches.

Thanks for reading!

A New Way to Look at Transfers, Teams and Their Environments?

Felipe Anderson, Sadio Mane, Antoine Griezmann, Jamie Vardy, Romelu Lukaku, Riyad Mahrez. These are names which fans around the world are becoming even more familiar with this season. Due to their glowing performances, football fans of other clubs covet these players and find rationalizations for why any of these players should be in their team. However, it seems as football fans, there are many factors we are leaving out.

What we wish to explore today is taking a deeper look into what it means to sign a high performer at another club and why it may not be a good idea at all.

Intro:

Usually, when the football community witnesses a high performer maintaining good form over a period of time, the discussion starts about which club the player would fit best. It becomes an ongoing competition and fundamentally the logic goes as follows:

“Player X performs well at Team A and therefore, will fill a need at Team B” (assumptive example)

On the surface, it’s an attractive way to think. You see a player you fancy and his qualities seemingly address a need in your team. Why not advocate his positives to others? The question hits precisely at the problem, however.

Most of the time when fans are looking at players in greener pastures, they are observing the positives and in some ways, completely ignoring the negatives. This is how you get a “Torres to Chelsea” situation where the expectations are high and the margin of error is low. You could also include Juan Sebastian Veron’s move to Manchester United as another example of what’s been discussed so far.

The Problem:

Clearly the assumptive example above is not good enough and we need a more expansive way of thinking which incorporates more variables into the equation. From a systematic point of view, let’s first break down why the assumptive example doesn’t work.

Suppose we have 2 systems both resembling teams (Team A and Team B, respectively). The system is made up of components, in our case, the players. Using the assumptive example above, if we transfer 1 player (player X) from Team A to Team B, we are assuming the player will have similar impact at Team B as he did at Team A. Furthermore, stating the player (a variable) carries the same weight in Team B as he did in Team A and also assuming the rest of the variables (players) remain unchanged and also carry the same weight.

This way of thinking is incorrect for several reasons:

• Football is a dynamic sport, therefore making one small change can have a significant impact on the flow of the game. An example would be Sir Alex Ferguson substituting on Javier Hernandez or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer hoping to nick a goal late on in the game. Both of these players have their own contribution which affects their teammates and opposition because now, they have a new situation to react to.

• Since football is a dynamic sport it is wrong to assume Team B is increasing its overall strength by the same factor player X contributed to Team A because that assumes ceteris paribus is upheld (all things held constant). In most cases, players jump from one environment to another which share similarities and differences but are rarely ever the same.

• It fails to account for various aspects, such as: interactions with other players, level of pressure at new club, level of expectations, tactical environment(role/position), fit with new manager, integration period and overall interaction between these aspects (e.g Angel Di Maria and Louis van Gaal)

New Model:

I spoke with @TheBerimbolo about how we can better model this phenomenon. At first, my original idea was viewing it in the context of the transitive property in math. Then @TheBerimbolo pointed out it was not the correct usage of transitive property and proposed something else.

Below is a general description of a general linear model. More specifically, this regression analysis helps one understand how the typical value of the dependent variable (or 'criterion variable') changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed.

We are using this model for the sake of simplicity as a means of basic explanation and will seek to improve it with better accuracy and precision later on down the line.

Y1 represents the output of Team A’s success (total contribution from sum of players, type of manager, tactics and overall environment) and Y2 represents the output of Team B’s success (same factors as Team A).

Xi represents the player as a variable within the system

Ai represents Team A’s regression coefficient tied to Xi

Bi represents Team B’s regression coefficient tied to Xi

Basic equation

Y1 = A1X1 + A2X2 + A3X3 +………..+ AnXn

Y2 = B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 +………..+ BnXn

Equation accounting for interaction terms

Interaction Term - measures the relative effect of two or more factors working together towards the team's overall success

Subscript j for additional factor in interaction term

Subscript k for interaction term related to regression coefficient (A/B)

Y1 = A1X1 + A2X2 + A3X3 +………..+ AnXn +………..+ Ak(Xi*Xj) where k!= i != j

Y2 = B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 +………..+ AnXn +………..+ Bk(Xi*Xj) where k!= i != j

Interaction term example

*in this example, assume Team A = Manchester United

Y = A(Ander) + A1(Ander*Mata)  A, A1 > 0

The above equation is saying Ander Herrera by himself makes the team better and so does the combination play between himself and Juan Mata. It allows us to pick out key partnerships within a team when measuring on-field performance and measure how much they contribute to the overall success of the team.

There is not a term for Mata because the other two terms are assumed to be larger contributions to the team’s success overall which makes the individual term for Mata negligent. It would look different if Manchester United were built around Mata but that is unfortunately not the case.

An additional example would be:

Y= A(Ozil) + A1(Ozil * Sanchez) + A2(Sanchez) A,A1,A2 > 0

Key Points:

• When a player from Team A transfers to Team B, fans tend to assume the player’s relative contribution to Team B’s success remains the same. This means a variable (Xi) is added to the initial equation for Team B but that same variable or player in this case, keeps the same regression coefficient (Ai) from Team A. We addressed earlier why this isn’t the right approach. 

• By using Ai instead of Bi, we are ignoring the integration effects which are related to Team B’s environment. Therefore, fans are making value judgments on player X’s contribution to Team A but expecting them to materialize in Team B’s environment when Team B’s environment is different than Team A’s environment.
• To further drive the point home, in most cases we expect Ai != Bi which again highlights the environment between the two teams is not as comparable as we would like to think. Depending on how player X adjusts to Team B, Bi could have a small or large positive/negative value. Or it roughly stays the same which assumes a relatively smooth transition period, something Manchester United don’t know anything about recently.
• For the Interaction Term example, we wish to remind the example captures Herrera and Mata’s relative effect in combination not in the sum of their individual effects.
  In other words: Ander*Mata > Ander + Mata

Final Remarks:

One phenomenon we've seen often as Manchester United fans is a comparison between how players performed while under Louis van Gaal and when they left. It just so happens with namely Javier Hernandez and Angel Di Maria, they have found clubs which suited them better than the environment they were under at Manchester United.

However this does not mean in the case of Javier Hernandez, that Manchester United were wrong to sell him.  Hernandez was looking for regular football and Louis van Gaal couldn't promise that with Wayne Rooney as his captain and set to lead the line at the 9 role.

Fortunately for Hernandez, he found a club which suited his skills and also provides a stable environment for him to enjoy regular playing time.  Manchester United fans are quick to let you know how well it's going for him and some assume if he was at Old Trafford, he would be doing the same. 

Based on what we've discussed in this article and how van Gaal likes his United team to play, we argue against this type of logic.  There is no guarantee he would perform any better, worse or par if he was back at Manchester United.  Based on the balance of probabilities and what we know now about van Gaal's tenure, it's safe to say he would most likely be performing worse than he is at Bayer Leverkusen.

This is our first step into measuring how a player’s performance translates from one environment (club) to the next. We recognize we can use more sophisticated modeling to improve accuracy and precision. However, our priority at this moment in time is to provide a basic introduction into a topic we find could be very interesting in the realm of data analytics. Thanks for reading and we hope you look out for our additional content!



Follow me at @EddieTrulyReds and my co-author @TheBerimbolo

Why I Took a Break from Twitter

"Where have you been?!" The question I've received ever since I came back on Twitter today. It's a similar question I've been asking myself for quite a while. 

However before I continue, let me deviate for a second.

Can you sum up in one sentence what Twitter is? The operative meaning would mention it's a social media application. What is Twitter though? It doesn't seem we can capture it's essence in words. 

I felt similarly when there was an urge inside me saying "maybe I need to step away from Twitter". I didn't feel exhausted. I wasn't being abused. In fact, I was having a good amount of fun. Engaging in banter, reading funny tweets and memes, watching hilarious videos and GIFs.  Twitter is definitely a fun place to be.  However something was missing and it became ever more difficult to disregard the urge.

While I was having fun on social media, I didn't feel I was being productive. Having fun but more akin to aimless fun, such that when it's all said done, you ask yourself, "Where the hell am I? What am I doing with my time?". Pondering thoughts which brought me to a pause. Pondering thoughts which caused me to question yourself. Pondering thoughts which suggested maybe it's time for a change.

There were some negative aspects such as the injustices happening around the world and seeing the perpetual Twitter clashes.  There were times where I myself would get caught up in debates with people. You get all charged up and into the moment you forget on some level, it's not that serious.

There were also exorbitant amounts of negativity being spouted from football fans and Manchester United fans especially.  Within my later reflections I realized since I'm such a sensitive person, reading such negative reactions continuously became exhausting.  It's not to say these negative reactions were wrong, but they were certainly affecting my psyche.

In life, you reach tipping points where a decision needs to be made. Either you go one way or the other or stay where you are. I chose to take a Twitter break. I knew I would come back because of what being on Twitter means to me. I also realized I was going way too hard and needed to take a step back.

In my time away from Twitter, I was able to invest more into myself. I could watch games without having to check my phone or laptop constantly to see what others were saying. I could just enjoy the game for the game.  It was quite refreshing and something I will look to continue for my own sense of self-efficacy.

What's intriguing about my Twitter break is there was also a period of time where I could feel myself getting depressed again. Depression has affected my life quite severely over the past year or so and it's not easy to open up. However, I thought I would tell a bit of my story so others wouldn't have to feel trapped. 

As I started getting depressed, I wondered to myself if taking a Twitter break was the right decision. Whether I had stayed away for too long. Whether I was missing out on so much I wouldn't be able to catch up when I returned. That's how you know depression is a sick monster. It pits you against yourself and cripples you from action or believing in yourself.

I lost my confidence. I lost desire to do things I thought I enjoyed. I wasn't even sure what I enjoyed. Listening to music felt dry. Watching football wasn't as enjoyable as before. So much so, I questioned if I really loved the game at all. Worse of all for me, I got stuck in the circle of unfavorable comparisons.

Unfavorable comparisons are a beast of their own because they combine negative self-talk with self-degradation.  A degradation which makes you feel weak, shameful, afraid, unwilling to take initiative and isolated.  While I had cognitive behavioral techniques to help me push back on those negative thoughts, I still felt so small and insignificant. It didn't make sense to me. My Twitter break had started out so well. 

Then I fell into a more depressive state and I couldn't comprehend how I got there or how to get out. I started to pull away from everything and everyone and would spend a good portion of my days in bed. It didn't help my health hadn't been great due to medical reasons, meaning I had to be away from my normal environment for at least 2 months.

The love and support of family, friends, careful guidance of mentors and my faith in God has been more than invaluable for me. The people who are there for you when you don't believe in yourself. The people who remind you of the good you've done and the positive aspects they see in you.  While it won't seem like it's helping right away, gradually through the support of your community, you pull through.

When you pull through, you come out of the depressive state with new realizations, a refreshed outlook on life and ready to have a good time. One of the biggest lessons I learned through my time away from Twitter was cherishing being in the now.  I'm the sort of person who gets caught up in the future such that as Alan Watts said "you forget to sing and dance along the way". It took me quite some to realize it, but once it registered within me I knew what I needed to change.

Slowly I've developed new positive habits which not only feed into me but also other people creating a positive feedback loop.  I know there will be more ups and downs ahead but I feel increasingly more confident on handling my downs in the future.  

Depression makes you feel like you can't be vulnerable with other people because they'll see the real you and not want to be around you anymore.  By doing so, you isolate yourself or even push away the ones you love.  Depression makes you feel like you have to be ashamed of and reject the more negative aspects of yourself instead of accepting them for what they are and moving forward. Depression also makes you feel life is just a blur and there's no real point in you being alive. These are all feelings I've had throughout part of my Twitter break and even before I took a Twitter break.

However I thought I would share a little bit about where I've been, what I've gone through and where I'm headed. It's because of these perspectives I take sport and other aspects of life a lot less seriously. I'd rather sing and dance along the way then see what happens next.  Thanks for reading and I hope you have a blessed day!

My girlfriend shared a wonderful video with me this weekend I'd love to share with you. It's about vulnerability if you're familiar with Ted Talks. I found the timing convenient now I've returned to Twitter and am responding to the question, "Where have you been?"  Enjoy!

https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?language=en#t-685805

Au Revoir!

So Close Yet So Far Away: Closing the Chapter on Angel Di Maria

Take yourself back a moment.  Real Madrid had won La Decima. Neutral fans witnessed a speedy Argentine maraud his way through Atletico Madrid’s defense, whose shot rebounded to an onrushing Gareth Bale giving Real Madrid the lead in extra time in the Champions League final. Not only did it cap off an excellent season for Real Madrid, it was a moment which encapsulated Di Maria’s world class season. 

Going beyond his goals, assists, chances created and other impressive stats, the lanky winger from Rosario was a vital cog in Carlo Ancelotti’s 4-3-3.  Maintaining the balance of the team through his hybrid role (LW/LCM).

So when Manchester United fans got wind the Argentine would be headed to the Theatre of Dreams, who could blame them for being excited? Di Maria displayed high work-rate, flair, tactical versatility, willingness to work for the team and a consistent level of attacking productivity.

For the likes of Ed Woodward and others within the Manchester United hierarchy, this was the perfect opportunity to cash in on a marquee signing.  Namely for Ed Woodward, it was the perfect opportunity to show his words about bringing star players to Old Trafford weren’t hollow.

Manchester United fans reveled in imagination of Di Maria continuing his world class form at United and becoming a mainstay in Louis van Gaal’s lineup as the Red Devils would seek to make up ground to their rivals after missing out on Champions League football.

With most fairytales, there’s the dream-shattering moment when reality breaks through the glass, threatening to disrupt the comfort zone embedded in reveling in the dream.  Like being woken up from the perfect dream by an alarm clock halfway across the room.  It’s in this moment where a choice can be made to grapple with the uncomfortable truths reality brings to the doorstep.  To slam the door shut, never to entertain the possibilities, or instead, do nothing to address the issue.

           

Along with raising the confidence level in United ranks, acquiring a player like Di Maria also raised the expectations on the club as well as the player.  It’s common for fans of the buying club to expect players from the selling club to transfer their excellent form to their new club.  The expectation is part of the hope the player will deliver the goods and “repay” the fee in terms of on-the-field performances. 

It’s this hope which quickly can turn into vitriolic scorn when a player doesn’t live up to fans’ expectations.  Of course, it’s never the fans’ fault for their arguably unrealistic expectations.  The blame will almost always fall to the player if not the club.

As Manchester United seek to move on from Di Maria’s time at Old Trafford, there are several takeaways which can be explored as a club and fanbase going forward.

Key Facts:

Di Maria Transfer:

When Angel Di Maria signed for Manchester United, one area where Manchester United fans got duped was in the public relations department. Below is a quote shortly after Di Maria signed on with the club.

The key aspect here is Di Maria said these words after becoming a Manchester United player. Like Thiago Alcantara when he joined Bayern, once players sign for a club, they make it seem like the club they’re signing for was their first choice.  To do otherwise can de-legitimize the club’s pursuit, which doesn’t reflect well on the club or pander to the fans. Thus, it was in Di Maria’s best interest as a Manchester United player to say these words.

The real question is, what were his intentions before signing for The Red Devils? From what we know, if it wasn’t for PSG already being fined for violating FFP regulations, buying David Luiz for £50m and being unable to sell one of their star players (namely Edinson Cavani) due to FFP restrictions, Di Maria would most likely have gone to PSG last summer instead of Manchester United.  PSG’s inability to find a workaround with Real Madrid gave Ed Woodward and Manchester United the lifeline needed to sign the Argentine.

When we revisit the above quote with this information in mind, it’s fair to assume Di Maria was speaking disingenuously.  Manchester United was the only club he would leave Real Madrid for on account of the fact PSG couldn’t find a way to buy him. 

Thus, it begs the question, was Di Maria more desperate to leave Real Madrid than join Manchester United?  The evidence would certainly suggest this is the case which aligns with Manchester United’s point of view. Angel Di Maria didn’t really want to be at the club.

Di Maria’s time at Manchester United:

On-the-pitch:

• 27 Premier League appearances, 20 starts, 1640 minutes played
•  3 goals, 10 assists  
• Highest assist tally for Manchester United. Second closest: Wayne Rooney (5), Ashley Young (5) (2872 mins, 2065 mins played respectively)
•  Highest number of key passes (per 90 metrics): 2.25
• Highest number of chances created (per 90 metrics): 2.80
• Di Maria was involved in 55% of MUFC’s shots last season. Only player who  was more involved was Sigurdsson (@colinttrainor)

•  Key takeaways:
• Despite having an underwhelming season, Di Maria came out on top in terms of assists, key passes and chances created.
• Di Maria was best on the left side positioned as a forward or attacking midfielder.
• Tended to perform poorly as a substitute and contributed much less productivity on the right side versus the left
• Despite poor possession performance scores (drops into the negatives) Di Maria’s defensive, attacking and overall performance scores gradually increased over the course of the season
• Since Louis van Gaal strongly stresses taking care of the ball, it makes sense why he became less favored despite his overall performance scores improving. His careless use of possession caused him to stand out in a negative way which indicated to those watching, his form had dipped.
• In a different tactical setup and environment, di Maria’s possession numbers may not have been such a drawback (i.e. under Mourinho’s counterattacking setup at Madrid). However, due to aspects of van Gaal’s football philosophy (or strategic principles) being careless with possession is not allowed thus the only choice for van Gaal was to drop Di Maria down the pecking order.

Di Maria off-the-pitch:

• Di Maria struggled to learn English
• Family struggled to settle in Manchester
• Attempted burglary in January only worsened the situation
• Di Maria and his wife became more unsettled (Oliver Kay -Times)
• Di Maria also did not get on well with Rooney and Di Maria had made complaints about playing with Rooney. Also had problems with other senior players in the dressing room.(Sourced from United circles)
• Senior players felt Di Maria didn’t show strength of character or seem to try enough for the team.(Sourced from United circles)
• Not happy with being played in various roles in the different systems van Gaal used over the course of the season 

Talking points: 

For those on the outside looking in, selling Di Maria was an indication of Manchester United giving up on the Argentine. From the club’s point of view, it was far from the truth.  United felt they went out of their way to support Di Maria but despite the support, didn’t feel Angel applied the proper application needed to gel with his teammates or align with van Gaal’s demands to ultimately be a success at the club.

With PSG being Di Maria’s primary option, United were never really too confident he wanted to even be at the club.  Whether it was his attitude in training, in the dressing room, or on the pitch, the readings from those in United circles suggested he wouldn’t be a good fit anymore after falling out with van Gaal.

Van Gaal didn’t want Di Maria to leave the club but he also recognized there was little to gain in trying to convince an unhappy player to stay against his will.  When there’s an employee who struggles to get on board, no matter how good they are, a decision needs to be made on whether they stay or go before the negative energy they bring to the table leads to a more drastic turn of events.

Although Manchester United have taken a £15m loss on Di Maria, it’s a fair amount considering he arrived from Madrid at the peak of his powers and left United after having an underwhelming season.  Considering the wages he was on and the fact Manchester United usually don’t sell well, Ed Woodward did a respectable job in selling Di Maria to PSG at a reasonable price.

If Manchester United knew Di Maria wasn’t too keen on joining the club, it begs the question why the club was willing to spend so much money on him? Though to understand United’s point of view better, it’s not enough to look at the Di Maria transfer in isolation.

When van Gaal officially started working with United after the World Cup, there wasn’t much time for planning and rigorously scouting targets to sign for the upcoming season.  For example, Marcos Rojo was signed after the World Cup of which van Gaal was vaguely familiar with the player.

In addition, van Gaal did not have much time to spend with the current squad before the regular season started which meant he had to make rasher decisions than he would have liked on which players could stay or go.

It left the club in a position where any acquisition was more likely to be based on opportunism than thorough planning.  If you’re an agent like Jorge Mendes, it’s a golden opportunity to exploit.  Di Maria and Falcao (more so Falcao) epitomize the opportunistic approach of buying big name players made available to you in hope they can deliver.

It’s fair to ask what plan van Gaal had for either player, especially Di Maria with the many positions van Gaal asked him to play in.  Once van Gaal went pragmatic after the Leicester loss, it seemed Di Maria was the loser in that battle.  Van Gaal is known to put the collective (system) above catering to individuals so when he changed tactics attempting to find more balance, he took Di Maria from a position he was flourishing in and tried him in others which seemed to be the catalyst for the Argentine’s loss in form.

Shifting Di Maria around isn’t van Gaal’s fault per se, however, it’s important to acknowledge how it played into the situation we’ve seen unfold.  Contrast the signings from last summer with the current one and you can see a difference in the level of planning and thorough decision-making in the players United have signed.  All offer a level of improvement to the squad and it’s much easier to see how they can fit into van Gaal’s plan.

With Di Maria, there were still many questions mark about where van Gaal thought he could be utilized best.  The Falcao signing raised question marks as he came to United still recovering from his knee issues which never seemed to be resolved. Furthermore, van Gaal tried to use him in an unorthodox striker pair which the Colombian seemed unaccustomed to.  Is it any surprise on some level, neither Di Maria or Falcao had much success under van Gaal then?      

Di Maria’s time at the club suggests a potential clash of cultures between manager, player and teammates as well.  As mentioned earlier, United were aware he did not get on well with senior players like Wayne Rooney.  He did not see eye to eye with van Gaal.  He didn’t have the respect of some of his teammates who thought he didn’t visibly try hard enough.

It paints a bleak picture which seems to put the player at fault.  First consider the fact the above information comes from circles within United so one shouldn’t expect it to paint United in a bad light.  Secondly, the information seems to shed some light on why Di Maria perhaps struggled to establish any good partnerships with his teammates on the pitch.  He looked more like an individual actor than someone who fit into a collective scheme.

Why Di Maria’s spell at Manchester United suggests a potential clash of cultures is due to the different elements of vested parties’ (players, manager, staff) backgrounds.  Squads are becoming more multi-cultural, thus not only are managers encountering players with different playing styles, but also a range of personalities partially affected by the environment and culture they come from.  Such a dynamic can create tensions and preventable conflicts because there exists a level of disconnect or miscommunication between one or more parties, leading the situation to snowball.

We know van Gaal has a specific way of working and comes across as “cold” to the South American contingent at the club.  Whereas with the Dutch and English players for example, they don’t see much of an issue with his demanding, forthright coaching style.  Furthermore, it suggests how one’s culture, background and upbringing shapes their perception in a way where you get disparate views of the same man (in this case, van Gaal) along cultural lines.

It is not to say van Gaal can’t or doesn’t want to work with South American players.  He’s brought in a few!  What it does suggest, however, is managers with more authoritative, autocratic coaching styles (van Gaal & Sir Alex Ferguson share similarities here) seem to be skeptical of or tend not to work well with South American players.

While parallels between any culture can be found, the football culture in England exhibits a high level of jingoism which is not accommodating to players who do not fit into the cultural paradigms.  Hence, it should be of little surprise to anyone why there exists an underlying skepticism of foreign players and their level of application.

It doesn’t matter if English players themselves show a lack of application.  Because English is the default and foreigners are the “other”, it’s easy to find fault and over-generalize foreigners rather than noticing the same issues within the default culture. Thus, when English players fail to meet the standard of “grit”, “determination”, “desire”, “passion”, “hard work”, it is treated differently than if a player like Mesut Ozil fails to rise to the same arbitrary standard.

Perhaps it explains why Manchester United fans turned on Di Maria so quickly.  For a lot of fans, he failed to live up to expectations and more importantly didn’t appear to “fight for the shirt”.  A vacuous notion which doesn’t seem to take into account the quality a player offers but captures the endearing value of seeing a player run his heart out for your club.

United fans have gone as far as saying Di Maria is a coward who doesn’t try.  What’s more interesting is when presented with the evidence of how he’s been a fighter more or less his whole footballing career, the evidence is cast aside as irrelevant as if the only aspect which is relevant is how he played for Manchester United.

While there’s some credence to the argument, to cast the contrary evidence as irrelevant comes across as cognitive dissonance and an oversimplification of the situation at hand.  Rather than seeking to understand why Di Maria would act in a certain way (arguably uncharacteristic), fans have found it easier to project, assume and jump to conclusions. Conclusions and opinions they hold dearer than a player’s well being. 

Assuming it’s true he wasn’t keen on coming to Manchester United, expecting him to meet an arbitrary standard which players who are keen on coming to the club tend to meet, is unrealistic.  Of course, Di Maria could have tried harder, “fought for the shirt”, and shown more determination.  But if we’re truly being honest with ourselves, is that, as a fanbase, what we really wanted to see? Or were we more interested in seeing the Di Maria from Real Madrid reproduce similar kind of form at Manchester United?

If that’s the case, then it would be more about a display of quality and consistency than simply applying himself more or trying harder.  We like to see players exerting the amount of effort we imagine we would if we were in their shoes.  The trick is, we are not, thus what we get worked up over is more abstract than concrete.  What we think we would do, rather than knowing for a fact how it would actually play out.

There is no stipulation for Di Maria to care about Manchester United like we do, or to exert a level of effort which appeases us as fans.  He’s not a Manchester United fan.  Football is probably not the only aspect of his life which occupies his mind.  He also has a family to take care of among other things and when those aspects of life are not in good standing, they can bleed over into your professional life.

It’s interesting to see Manchester United fans who could acknowledge how Rooney’s off the field issues would affect his on the field performances, yet when it comes to Di Maria, it’s seen as an excuse.  It suggests how a level of patriotism and favoritism can blur the lines with how certain players are viewed and through what lens. 

Rooney being given more grace than Di Maria makes sense considering what each has contributed to the club.  Nonetheless, it is an opportunity to become more aware of our blind spots.  When Rooney had an underwhelming season in 12/13, fans still made claims he gave 100% for the team, when clearly it was not the case.  When fans believe in the idea of how a player plays more than the reality, any excuse or rationalization can be found. To adhere to a belief about a player more than encountering the reality staring them in the face. 

The kind of behavior which dominates a lot of football discourse which intrinsically there is nothing wrong with.  Fundamentally, it is a choice.  Where it becomes problematic is when there’s an attempt to honestly discuss a football-related topic and the conversation deviates because one or more persons would rather cling to an idea more than honestly discuss the realities surrounding the topic.

Discussing the realities surrounding the Di Maria situation can be difficult for some fans because it’s easier to jump to conclusions and snap judgments than to explore it deeper.

Throughout Di Maria’s career, he’s more or less struggled his first season at a club before improving in the subsequent seasons. From a goal-scoring perspective, we can see such a trend pictured below:

If Di Maria had decided to stay another season with United, there would be encouragement he would show some signs of improvement based on his trajectory at previous clubs. To do what he did at Real Madrid is remarkable considering the amount of pressure players are under.  It can be very easy to let the pressure get to you.  Di Maria was jeered and booed off the pitch in one of Madrid’s games a couple seasons ago. However, he demonstrated through his on-the-pitch performances he wouldn’t be deterred and went on to have a stellar season for the club.

If Di Maria was truly a coward who didn’t try, he wouldn’t have made the strides he did at Madrid.  Why he hasn’t made those same strides with Manchester United is something which may never be fully answered.  Nonetheless, using the relevant information available to us, Di Maria and his family not feeling settled is certainly one key aspect.  It’s difficult to perform at your best or to make significant strides when certain off-the-field issues are not resolved.

A lot of fans referenced the amount of money Di Maria was making thus conveying the argument he doesn’t deserve any sympathy.  A type of view which shows the disconnect between those who have a lot of money and those who don’t.  At some point, the novelty of being paid well wears off and when you’re a footballer, it’s expected you obtain as much as money as possible during your career.  It’s customary for a player of Di Maria’s caliber to be paid a lot of money.  It doesn’t automatically mean he will have a peace of mind.

How do you put a price tag on your family being unsettled?  A paranoid conspiracy theorist can be given a lot of money to achieve some peace of mind but if the paranoia is never dealt with, will money ever be enough to assuage those fears? In a country where Di Maria and his family don’t really speak the native language, their sense of safety and security was taken away from them, only exacerbating the conditions in Di Maria’s situation.

Now you have a player who hasn’t integrated well with the coach’s methods or his teammates, struggling to provide a peace of mind for his own family in a new country in a culture unfamiliar to them.  Sounds like a perfect storm for a player to deal with and makes sense why for all parties, the move fundamentally did not work out.

Some United fans have not taken Di Maria leaving to Paris lightly and found out crime is worse there than in Manchester without taking any look as to why that is the case.  Furthermore, Paris and Manchester are not comparable in the way Manchester and Liverpool are.  Thus making comparisons between the two without accounting for the differences paints a more apples-to-oranges than apples-to-apples type comparison.

What would be more interesting is investigating if the Cheshire area Di Maria moved from is safer than the specific area he will be moving to.  Otherwise, the discussion becomes less focused on crime in specific areas and more focused on crime in general within both cities.

Another factor to consider for Di Maria’s PSG move is his native language (Spanish) falls under the same language family as French.  Therefore, the chances of Angel and his family feeling more settled are increased.  Additionally, the weather in Paris is known to be fair whereas Manchester is more well-known for how often it rains.  A common complaint amongst players who come from areas with much more favorable climates. 

To further drive home the point how judgmental football fans can be, we can look at a Roy Keane quote James Ducker from the Times used in one of his articles regarding Di Maria.  In case you haven’t seen the quote, here it is below:

"It is not a football move, it is a lifestyle move and those are the type of people you don't want at your club. It is not a problem for me but it is a fact. To me, that player is weak because his wife runs his life."

It blew up quickly on Twitter which led to tweets like the following (note: tweet is now deleted):

“@EWHK70: Also from Ducker's article - top quote from Roy Keane on ADM's lack of cojones”

The kicker? The quote Ducker pulled from Keane was actually from 2007. You can read the full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/s/sunderland/6947333.stm

What’s interesting is how many Manchester United fans assumed Keane was correct in purportedly saying Di Maria’s move to PSG is not a football move.  The argument can be made Manchester United is a much bigger club than PSG.  However, knowing Laurent Blanc is less strict with his players attacking-wise than van Gaal, it would make sense to assume the move to PSG is partially football-related.  Let’s also remember before FFP regulations came into the picture, Di Maria was set to join PSG last summer over Manchester United.

On another note, it’s interesting Manchester United fans assumed Di Maria’s wife ‘runs his life’.  Is he not allowed to show concern for his family’s well-being let alone his wife’s concerns?  Is Di Maria somehow less manly or weak because of this show of concern? Is Di Maria expected to put football over family? What instances point to his wife running his life? The commentary on twitter from those quotes carried misogynistic and sexist overtones, an alpha male element of being manly as an assertion of dominance rather than a focus on partnership and companionship.

The overarching reactions to Di Maria’s situation operate within a spectrum. Nonetheless, they exemplify how football is a microcosm of life and more succinctly, society. Di Maria is not the first Manchester United player of world class ability to not work out, nor will he be the last.  Juan Sebastian Veron serves as another example of a technically gifted footballer who for a multitude of reasons didn’t gel as expected.

It’s disingenuous to point the finger of blame in one direction.  Multiple parties (club, manager, player in question, agent etc.) will have their own perspectives on what occurred and it’s hard to say whose story is more valid than the other.  In Di Maria’s case, all sides could have done something different to make the situation more fruitful.  Alas, for multiple reasons it did not work out and therefore decisions have to be made as each party seeks to move on in their respective way.

Overall, there are several lessons to be learned from Di Maria’s situation.  The important piece for Manchester United is recognizing some of the mistakes made and ensuring those mistakes are not readily repeated.

Manchester United fans or football fans in general have a choice to make in whether they wish to be introspective also and see how they could have reacted better to the situation.  Though since fans seem to take the view the game is catered to them, it’s a difficult conversation to start or let alone complete.  The football world is catered to fans in such a way, where fans’ selfishness and narcissism are appeased.

No one can make you be more understanding or empathetic toward players or want to. How one lives out their fandom is up to them.  What fans need to keep in mind is while opinions are allowed, no one has to listen to them or respect them.  Situations like Di Maria’s are essentially potential learning opportunities as fans for how we can do better, if we wish to learn.  There are consequences either way.  The question becomes what’s more important to us and how do we choose to move forward.

I hope Di Maria and his family can find peace of mind as they transition to a new life in Paris.  I also hope he can rediscover some of his form and show what a wonderful player he is.  I enjoyed him while he was here.  It’s not often you get to witness world class players like Di Maria display their talent at your club.  Thus, you try to enjoy it for what it is because you never know how long it’s going to last.

In The Hope of a Greater, Fairer America: President Obama Speaks

Tick, tock. Michael Brown's plea for mercy is ignored.

Tick, tock. Tamir Rice has 2 seconds before an officer, previously deemed unfit for duty, empties his clip into the 12-year old's body. Like he's living out a Grand Theft Auto fantasy.

Tick, tock. The seconds pass as Eric Garner slowly loses consciousness forever due to an illegal chokehold by a NYPD officer.

Tick, tock, Aiyana Jones is killed in the comfort of her own home.

Tick...........tock.

The lingering question becomes, what do we tell the children when they witness such violence? What do we tell them when someone their age has their life taken on the premise of being the "wrong" skin color?  What do we tell them when black people die despite doing their utmost to be respectable? What do we tell them when they can have their life taken by simply fitting the description of a suspect just because they are black? Not because they actually fit the description of who police are looking for.

In a broader but direct sense, President Obama attempted to answer these questions.  But before we can get to Obama's speech, we have to understand a fundamental truth about time.  With time, we can never describe "right now" because through the attempt of trying to describe "right now", the moment has already passed. Tick, tock. It's too late.  And for so many black lives, a single tick and a tock meant their lives were no more and did not matter.

Even if we are unable to fully describe the "right now", we always have the opportunity to live within it. Be mindful of it. Cherish it, and make it our own.  No matter how you feel about President Obama, you would be a fool not to recognize the man understands one key aspect between the bridge of time & moments. Timing.

What better time to remind America of its racist past.  What better time to bring Ferguson into the national sphere of topics.  What better time to inject a mention of the Department of Justice report on Ferguson. What better time to use reflection as a vehicle for hope.  What better time to ask America to be accountable to itself. What better time to remind America to pursue the desire to be free, instead of the desire to be white.

Obama was well aware of the opportunity and he delivered in a way which will be remembered for many generations.


"In one afternoon fifty years ago, so much of our turbulent history – the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham, and the dream of a Baptist preacher – met on this bridge.

It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the meaning of America." 

President Obama sets up his speech brilliantly by taking us back to the moment John Lewis decided to get up and walk on that eerie morning in Selma.  Painting the scene so we could put ourselves in the shoes of Lewis and so many others who took a courageous step for justice.

A constant theme present in Obama's speech is this underlying faith in America. There are different moments where Obama shows us his calm side and his more forthright side. Whenever it came to putting hope or faith in America, you could see Obama's body language change.  A level of conviction beyond mere belief but a knowledge which conveys, as long as we take a step of faith, we shall overcome.

Because it was through the step of faith of those who marched in Selma, that America's consciousness was shaken.  A step of faith America could neither forget or try to ignore.

"They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities - but they didn't seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before."

Here exists a slight irony Obama uses by saying "promised".  If we go back to when America was founded, we have to remember documents like the Constitution were not written with black people's humanity in mind as slavery showed us.  Yet, it was these ideals which so many of our people could grab onto for hope.  A hope that one day, we may in fact be given equal status by a country which never cared about us in the first place.

So if there was such a promise, we knew it was empty. It more or less has always been.  That's why the #BlackLivesMatter movement exists. Because we fight to hold America to that "promise".

If there's one heavy cookie crumb to take from Obama's speech, it's the long overdue reverence for Selma. Words and phrases which shall not be bound by time and space itself.

Selma is not some outlier in the American experience. That’s why it’s not a museum or static monument to behold from a distance. It is instead the manifestation of a creed written into our founding documents:

“We the People…in order to form a more perfect union.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

These are not just words. They are a living thing, a call to action, a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny.

What Obama does here is remind American citizens the power we actually have. Even though we live in a country littered with elements of a plutocracy, Obama still believes in the American experiment of democracy, and reminds us we have to keep up the fight to keep the democracy experiment running. No one else will do it for us.

Obama goes onto banish the myth that racial bias and discrimination are immutable. That race is essentially inherent to us.  As the great Ta-Nehisi Coates intimated, race came out of racism, and not the other way around. Thus, racism made black people into a race, while we constantly have to remind our oppressors we are a people first.  Racism became interested in us and through the vehicle of white supremacy, sought to divide, conquer, plunder, and vituperate us such that we would hate ourselves.

And while white supremacy combined with the visceral force of racism has succeeded in some measure in doing so, our people continually show the power to overcome. Obama extends this virtue beyond black people and to the various groups of American immigrants who have made the journey to this country in hope of a better life and opportunity for those who would follow behind their lead.

We’re the immigrants who stowed away on ships to reach these shores, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free – Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, the Lost Boys of Sudan. We are the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande because they want their kids to know a better life. That’s how we came to be.

We’re the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. We’re the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers’ rights.

We’re the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent, and we’re the Tuskeegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.

What is so great about Obama's speech is within thirty minutes, he sought out to cover every fabric of American history and life as a recognition of the good, the bad, and the ugly as a challenge.  A way to say, "If you want to truly love and cherish America, then you must recognize everything about it. No matter how good. No matter how bad"

He even went at lengths to talk about the gay community here in America.

"We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge."

The important context here being considering the main focus of his speech was on Selma, to go out of your way to talk about a marginalized community outside of the black community speaks volumes of the man and how he views his country and how he views its citizens.

If anyone (yes you Mr. Giuliani), had any doubts about President Obama's love for his country, you can lay them at the feet of the president's speech.  His love for America shines through in the hope and faith we will not only overcome, but we will reach the ideals the Founding Fathers put into our history so long ago.

He encapsulates this love so well in the following passage:

Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person.

Because the single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. It is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.

Fifty years from Bloody Sunday, our march is not yet finished. But we are getting closer. Two hundred and thirty-nine years after this nation’s founding, our union is not yet perfect. But we are getting closer. Our job’s easier because somebody already got us through that first mile. Somebody already got us over that bridge. When it feels the road’s too hard, when the torch we’ve been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint.”

We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. 

"We must run so our children soar." Tell me Barack Hussein Obama doesn't love his country after reading that quote and I'll "mistake" you for a person who spreads propaganda as terror.

Obama's speech gave me hope among my cynicism and pessimism.  He gave me hope we can win this fight.  He gave me hope to believe America can come to a reckoning with it's racist past and understand the longing effects it has had on our people.  But he also gave me the hope to look beyond myself and into a community of people who demonstrate exceptional love, support and guidance in a country which is still trying to figure out how to walk.