Trips I Want to Take, Pt 3

God I miss traveling. Hell, I miss it enough, I miss having to travel for work. There were countless annoyances from that weekly travel to various rural hellscapes that I would take back in a heartbeat. That said, beyond that travel, what I really miss is traveling for fun. Granted, it is probably safe enough to do in a socially distant way today if I really wanted to. I probably will take that leap in the next month or so. So, with that in mind, wanted to once again list out the trips I want to take, focusing on a few domestic ones for a while, as there is a good chance that's all that will be available to us poor Americans for a long, long time.

Domestic

Vermont/Maine

This is the one that has a chance of happening fairly soon. I'll cheat a bit as I've been to Maine somewhat recently, but even that wass a more urban trip to Portland than what we would look to do: get lost in teh wilderness for a bit. Probably not enough wilderness that we're outside the trappings of Modern life, but enough so to ensure we don't risk getting Covid. With that preamble over, I've grown a certain fondness for the wild outdoors, mostly from my time in Calgary and Salt Lake City. Vermont is not that, but getting to get lost in our local version of the woods and wilderness has its charm to be sure. I wonder about the food, but I know the drinks are decent in these areas, and the nature is nature.

New Orleans

OK, off to more interesting destinations. I went to New Orleans a good two-plus decades ago, back when I loved trains so my family and I traveled by Amtrak. Now, I definitely won't be going by train, and I also will not be going during Mardi Gras or any summer time when it is a damn bog. But maybe a nice October type trip. New Orleans is a pick influenced because I know most of my friends who went there loved it, but also influenced by the Somebody Feed Phil episode there. The food looks insanely good, be it the Creole food, the more upmarket scene (like Cochon), or even the down home Po Boys. There aren't many exclusive food tourism destinations in our fair country, but New Orleans defintely is one - which only gets better as a place when you combine in the music and drinks.

New Mexico

Back to nature here. I've been to Arizona (though it's been a good two decades), but never visited its spicier cousin to the West. Some of the appeal comes through having seen the natural beauty throughout a little show called Breaking Bad. The desert, the sunsets, the sun-swept sand, the rocks. It all looks so welcoming in its isolation. I honestly have no idea what the food and drinks scene is like, but from what I've read there's been a bit of a gastronomical revolutions there as well.On the whole, New Mexico is a place within the country that is fairly unique, and again other than the bit more commercial Arizona, it is an area I just haven't experienced to date.

Wyoming

More nature. I'm fascinated by Wyoming. Certainly there is mainstream appeal with Yellowstone National Park. I'm not against mainstream - some things are such for a damn good reason. Even outside Yellowstone, I like to combination of old west (saloons, cowboys and the like) and the nature that I came to love in that part of Americana (Colorado and Salt Lake, so far). Wyoming also fascinates me by being the least populous state in the union. I'm sure there's some hidden beauty even in the more social aspects, be it restaurants with likely incredible meat and produce, or old school bars. It's a part of America that seemed mysterious, taken out of age.

Hawaii

OK, let's end this domestic view with the most chalk of picks. Everyone probably should go to Hawaii at some point - so tells me anyone who has actually been to Hawaii. I'm not a water/beach person, so that aspect is lost on me apart from having Luau food (suckling pig, and what not). What does interest me is the hiking, trails and mountains, be it the volcanoes or the lush tropical forests that litter the islands. Also, there seems to be a really great food culture being built, an interesting combination of american and asian flavors. Hawaii is far away, probably the furthest place I could travel to at the moment, and maybe I'll just take them up on their offer whenever they lift their tourist travel ban from the mainland.

International

South Korea

It pains me to even write this one, given I was suipposed to go to South Korea in May. I changed that trip back in February, back when I was more afraid of the Covid situation in South Korea than what horrors were about to fell my own country. I hilariously changed it to New Zealand. Of course, all trips are on the shelf. South Korea today has covid mostly under control, and remains a truly fascinating place. I am already hungry to try out the local food scene, from the seafood to the noodles to the barbecue, The lifestyle of Korea also appeals, from teh temples and simplicity of the sites to the action, lights and glitz of the nightlife. South Korea is the place I do hope to return to in my first international trip next year - for next may. And I don't think I can pick of a better place to restart seeing the world.

New Zealand

Yeah, so my idea of using New Zealand as a backup to a cancelled trip to South Korea si doubly ironic given how New Zealand may be the single last country on earth trusting of Americans to visit - not that I can blame them. New Zealand though still appeals to me as maybe the best combination of natural beauty and cuisine that I can think of. From the food perspective, I know there is amazing seafood, lamb and local produce. From the natural beauty - well come on. From the coastline, the caves, the mountains, the fields. New Zealand looks to be one of the great treasures in our world. Hopefully one day I can experience it so.

The Baltics

The more untouched, rough, but foresty version of the more famous Balkans, I've wanted to go to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia for a while now. My goal is to try to do so after my sister's wedding in Austria next July. Maybe by then our country won't be a global laughingstock. My parents went there years ago and spoke to its better than expected food, its great beer culture (I already picture some underground beer pub, similar to those I enjoyed in Krakow). The sites are castles and mountains and gardens and the like - enough to keep you more than enteratined, but not so overwhelming you still have times to truly enjoy the food, and drinks and culture. Sign me up - helps its a good deal cheaper than a New Zealand/

Argentina

Here's another one greatly influenced by Somebody Feed Phil, which made Buenos Aires out to be a fascinating culinary center - from the Choripan stalls, to the great gastropub Peron Peron, to the steakhouses, to even one place that was more veggie forward. Buenos Aires seems like a culinary masterpiece - as every large South American city I've been to so far have been. The rest of Argentina seems interesting enough, from Iguazu Falls, to Montevideo (yes, I'm counting the day trip offered to Uruguay as 'Argentina), and maybe if I'm lucky another trip down to El Calafate and the truly unparalleled Perito Moreno Glacier.

Russia

Let's end with the place that has probably been my #1 both times I've done this list. Truly, I think a lot of my yearning to go to Russia comes from not being able to go in 2007 with my school's Orchestra (went with my family to Turkey instead). We can have our issues with Russia the country as a political entity, but as the World Cup two years ago showed, Russia the people and the country is a beautiful, fascinating place. Food is probably better than people think. The drink and nightlife looks great. The sites are many and varied, from world-class museums and history, to beautiful scenery and nature. All of it seems so appealing. Openly, this is my other preferred option for after my sister's wedding. If only there was any security in planning an international trip in July 2021, but alas these are times for dreaming, not planning.

Don't Overreact to Bubble Results

 For so long, we've talked about how this set of playoffs is going to be unlike any other, be it the NBA and NHL playing in their bubbles, or the UEFA Champions League, with its use of a bubble in Lisbon (or Round of 16 ties played five months apart). We said for so long this is going to be something fully new. Then why, I ask, are people overreacting to bubble results and treating these postseasons with the dignity and honor of our standard postseasons? Why are we seeing the same ludicrous takes as everywhere?

Every sport has had these issues. Particularly the NHL with its play-in round. We've already gone into a bubble and played games in front of fans, and immediately threw these teams in playoff settings after a four-plus month layoff. Then they went and made it best-of-five. Why did anyone get surprised that there were upsets. Yes, it was almost too on the nose for both #12 seeds (the 23rd and 24th best teams in the NHL) beating the two #5 seeds - but hasn't March Madness taught us 12 over 5 is a rite of passage?

We have to hear the same garbage about Connor McDavid - he of the many goals - or the Penguins (Crosby is probably the most dinged playoff performer for anyone who has won his league's title three damn times). We had to hear it about the Maple Leafs, who last a god damn 8 v 9 matchup, the biggest toss up of toss ups. But no, we have to hear how they have no heart - despite rallying in Game 4 from 3-0 down with three minutes to go. 

We heard it about nearly every team that lost in the NHL, despite again it being a best of five series. We should not be making whole-sale changes or decisions based off of five games played in front of empty arenas. Yet the discussion seems to be around who from the Maple Leafs core needs to be shipped out, or if the Penguins are over the hill fully, or if the Oilers are truly just too late to the game. Sure, all of those might be true, but not because of three-to-five games.

Moving to the NBA, I'm sure it will start soon now that the playoffs have begun. That said, we've already seen some extreme overreaction, made even funnier given how often we see teams, when we're in normal situations with fans in stands and games at actual 'homes', we see teams just sleepwalk through the end of the season. People are ragging the Lakers for a nothing performance in the seeding games - despite them winning enough to clinch the #1 seed. We should all realize how ridiculous it is to do this given two of the best teams in teh bubble were the Suns and the Nets - a team that was missing like half its roster. 

The worst might be the overall overreaction going on in Europe after the Champions League, a tournament so rooted in home field advantage that being able to score away goals is a critical tiebreaker. In that backdrop, they played 1-leg ties in Lisbon, and we saw Barcelona get hammered (to be fair, that was awesome), but aside from that, we saw Man City lose (after beating Real Madrid), and Atletico Madrid lose to Liepzig. If these happened over two-legged ties, especially a 2-8 aggregate loss, I would rightly be behind all three of those teams being examined and excoriated.

The biggest is Barcelona - with so much acrimony after their embarrassing loss to Bayern. The Pique quotes, the quick firing of Setien, the gloom and gross infamy surrounding president Josep Bartomeu. Eve the Messi quotes and rumors which seem more pointed and firm than ever. All of it. Sure they are fair criticisms, but lets also realize how weird a situation it was. Maybe we shouldn't set off a bomb to a team that was still 2nd in La Liga and looked great just one week ago because of one bad match in front of zero fans in Lisbon.

It is weird because on the other hand, I agree with the people that say the winner of their respective titles will have 'earned' it in a way no other teams have. But that's because they overcame/lucked into getting past these challenges. Let's not assume the ones that fell by the wayside did so because of an inability to try hard to meet this once in a lifetime (let's hope) challenge.

The Nostalgia Diaries, Pt. 22 - The 2016 Olympics

 Yesterday should have been the closing ceremony for the 2020 Tokyo Games. Instead they will, at least we hope, take place next year. I'm not the biggest Olympics nut, and the lack of Olympics in 2020 was more than negated by the surprising presence of teh NBA and NHL in July/August. I'll take that trade (of course, stripping away the 'you know why, right?' of it all.

That said, not having the Olympics does remind me how much I enjoyed it in 2016, when the Games were in Rio, a time zone that was perfect. It was a nice combining of a few elements as well, with me in the throes of a horribly sedate project that was in my own town, allowing me to come home each night with a few hours to kill. What did I do to fill the time? Watch the damn Olympics.

My enjoyment of the 2016 games wasn't about watching sports I didn't know existed - though seeing people shoot skeet and jog around on horses still has some charm. It was about finding a new appreciation, if not outright love, for sports that were there all along.

The sport that best defined 2016 to me was Volleyball - something Brazil apparently sees as second only to football/soccer as the National past-time. The volleyball played inside the Maracanazinho was incredible - mostly because the fans were bonkers. They would play EDM and techno in between points. They would thrown on random songs of the day, like 'This Girl' (Kung vs. Cooking), or 'I Just Came to Say Hello!'. There was this weird 'Monster-Smash' chant that broke out anytime someone just hammered a smash proper. It was bananas, it was amazing.

It took a while to really understand it, but that time it takes to learn and study a sport through is part of the fun. The athletic exploits of volleyballers is insane as well, just people diving around left and right and somehow, someway, getting the ball back up nearly every time. Women's Volleyball, equally popular in Brazil largely because of how good the Brazilian women's team was, became a favored pastime. It was amazing seeing these athletic godesses - almost all ridicuously tall - display their brilliance.

Outside of volleyball, I enjoyed some of the other middle-tier sports, like the velodrome stuff on the track, the fencing, water-polo, diving - all the hits. It was endless fun to sit back at the end of the day and flip through the dozens of Comcast/NBC channels that showed Olympics and go back and forth between them all. It's hard to say I was invested in outcomes, but moreso in curiosity and imbibing the feeling that was present enough in those arenas, gyms and fields that it shook through the screen.

Brazil had a lot of problems leading into the Games, as the period that went through them getting awarded the Olympics and actually hosting it was filled with unsettling times locally. It still is seen locally from what I can tell, as a horrible boondoggle. Don't care. The attendees, be them locals or tourists, created a great atmosphere at nearly every setting.

At the end of the day, Olympics are centered around gymnastics, swimming and track & field - maybe so because the US generally at worst does well and at best dominates at all three. 2016 was a prime example of just how good these sports can be and just how much drama and intrigue can be created by just showcasing on awesomeness. 

2016 saw pinnacle performances in each area. First, you had the US Women's Gymnastics team, headlined by Simone Biles, dominate at a level never seen. Gymnastics calculus-level scoring system essentially assured that no one could match Biles if she just did what she planned to do - because what she plans to do is just technically better than anyone else. And she did just that. The whole team finished miles ahead of anyone else. Country limits may have been the only reason the US didn't go gold-silver-bronze in individuals.

Swimming and Track was about the same people that lighted up 2008 and 2012 - Phelps and Bolt, but not in the same way. 2008 was Phelp's coronation. His dominance was the story. His 2012 was similar - even if Phelps personally was in a low point as he would later reveal. Well, 2016 was a goodbye, but no one expected just that level of dominance in his final showing. More medals, more records, more amazing performances. Watching Phelps swim is one of the great viewing experiences of my life. It was insane in 2004 when he was 17, and it was still insane twelve years later.

Bolt showed up in 2008 and set world records. In 2012, he did the same. In 2016, much like Phelps, he wasn't assured of victory. Dominance wasn't the expectation - it just happened again. Much like watching Phelps swim, watching Bolt run is amazing, but more for its sheer audacity. The way his gait slowly just takes over. The way it looks like he is just playing a different game in teh second half of some of his races. The way he always is able to almost celebrate while running, that giant, infectious smile of his just beaming while everyone else is thrashing around to finish those last few steps.

I remember I was at a crowded bar in New York, The Blind Tiger (RIP bars), with a few friends the night of Bolt's 200m win. They had a small tv in the corner that was broadcasting NBC. No one really paid too much attention. That was until Bolt was about to run. Suddenly, this packed bar became a sports bar, everyone turning their eyes towards the small TV in the corner. We all unleashed in equal parts celebration and absolute amazement - seeing people n various levels of drunkenness try to understand how it is possible for someone to run like that.

2016 had stars, it had moments, but what it also had that prior Olympics lacked, was tennis played at a ridiculous level. Tennis has always been part of the Olympics, but was never really seen as too important. Certainly nowhere near the slams or even maybe secondary tournaments like Indian Wells. That all changed in 2016, largely because the players got really invested. 

In 2016, Djokovic was the clear best player in the world, but had his Nole-slam ended in Wimbledon a few weeks prior - the start of a two year malaise (for him). Nadal was down in the dumps, relatively. Federer was playing well but not great. Murray had just won Wimbledon. Those four men were expected to be key parts of the 2016 story, but the fifth Beatle in this case was the one that changed everything: Juan Martin del Potro.

Del Potro had a cursed career, one that started with so much promise when he mashed his way to the 2009 US Open title. Various wrist injuries cost him pretty much all of 2010-2011 and 2014-15. In the brief periods he did play, mostly 2012-13, he returned quickly to being a Top-10 player. By 2016, he was far from that, but he came to the Olympics in his home continent, and was unleashed. 

An interesting part of this cadre of Tennis stars is how nationalistic and prideful they are of where they came from. We saw it with Murray at Wimbledon - especially when he won Olympic Gold at Wimbledon in 2012. We see it all the time with Nadal and Spain, and of course with Djokovic and Serbia (especially pointed given how he grew up at the height of the unrest/war). And here we saw it with Del Potro.

The matches in that tournament were legendary. Del Potro's 7-6 7-6 win over Djokovic was probably the most memorable. Djokovic couldn't touch Del Potro's serve and epic forehand. It was a battle that should have happened so many times over the years. At the end, both players were crying, Del Potro with the emotion of the crowd and his own injury demons. For Djokovic, it was losing while representing his country - the Olympic Gold being the only real missing piece in his cabinet. 

The Semifinal played between Del Potro and Nadal was similar, again with Del Potro prevailing. Once again there were so many 'Ole's' and chants. It was a world cup soccer match crowd, a high intensity we would have only expected in tennis in Ashe or Laver. It was beautiful, an unexpected glory of the 2016 Olympics.

The 2016 Olympics had it all. It had the personal stories and stars that you can easily get behind - I was able to get a newfound appreciation for the brilliance of Phelps and Bolt. It had the sport I love but never cared about at the Olympics become one of the best shows in the games, with legendary tennis players staging epic battles for a tournament that earned them no money or even ranking points (something that was there in prior Olympics). And it had those other sports you latch onto and ride for two weeks, with volleyball being the central star. For the next 200 weeks after it ended, I didn't miss it. But when teh Olympics didn't return on that 201st week, it became apparent to me again how special it is, and how much we do need it.

NFL 2020: Early Power Rankings

32.) Jacksonville Jaguars

31.) New York Giants

30.) Cincinnati Bengals

29.) Carolina Panthers

28.) Washington Redskins

27.) Chicago Bears

26.) New York Jets

25.) Arizona Cardinals

24.) Los Angeles Chargers

23.) Las Vegas Raiders

22.) Detroit Lions

21.) 

20.) New England Patriots

19.) Los Angeles Rams

18.) Tennessee Titans

17.) Atlanta Falcons

16.) Minnesota Vikings

15.) Houston Texans

14.) Denver Broncos

13.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers

12.) Seattle Seahawks

11.) Pittsburgh Steelers

10.) Buffalo Bills

9.) Indianapolis Colts

8.) Philadelphia Eagles

7.) Dallas Cowboys

6.) San Francisco 49ers

5.) Green Bay Packers

4.) 

3.) New Orleans Saints

2.) Baltimore Ravens

1.) Kansas City Chiefs

Musings on the Return - Post-Return

Sports are back! But they also aren't the same! We get new live things to watch that are compelling! But also there's no fans and lack of energy! What does it all mean!?

= I'll say this, I'm surprised how little the lack of fans is bothering me in hockey and basketball; I have a bigger issue with the NBA pumping in a ridiculous level of crowd noise (particularly ABC's Sunday broadcast), but overall the sports have done a decent job making these closed spaces feel just like that

= The indoor sports do have an inherent advantage, one the NBA has done tremendously with, in making it seem like we are watching a movie or shared play; instead of playing in front of a void of emptiness like we have in baseball

= Basketball created the best atmosphere, with the play on a stage like view of it all, the empty stands completely hidden. It is an excellent visual look. But then why the hell are they ruining it with the fakest of crowd noise? The low murmur used throughout the NHL broadcasts is probably good enough. Instead, basketball had this ludicrous volume of sound. Hey NBA? We know there are no fans, we just want some noise so it isn't basketball shoes squeaking

= It's amazing how competitive most of these NBA games are. Granted, we've removed the eight worst teams, but it is still amazing how well the players and teams have reacted to this environment. So far, very few blowouts, and a few great surprises.

= There was a lot of consternation around inviting teams outside the top-8 in each conference, but amazingly those teams (Wizards aside) have been good. The Spurs are potentailly going to extend their playoff stream - somehow - and then the Suns have taken off. The Grizzlies, a great story all year, may not hold on. Yes, this was all a ruse to make sure Zion Williamson gets into the bubble (similar to the NHL conveniently upping to 24 to get Montreal and Chicago), but it worked out pretty well for them.

= As for the NHL, I'm surprised how little annoyed I am by the lack of fans. There's a nice little murmur, and more than enough action. Anyway, the crowd only truly livens it up in big moments - similar to soccer which I feel wasn't too impacted by the lack of crowds. The hockey so far has been excellent particularly in the play-in series. 

= I do think there is a noticeable lack of energy and pointedness in the round-robin games. The NHL did its best by making the seeding depend on it, but you still don't get the sense the teams care - and given there is no 'home-ice' maybe they are right.

= Overall, the NHL and NBA have made the most of a bad situation. I do wish the NHL took this chance to market themselves a bit better. The NBA Bubble Life has been amazing to watch, from the start with bags and shotfunning beer, to so much more. Its NBA meets Real World and it was excellent. The NHL had so little of that - and we wonder why we don't find the personaities compelling

= All in all, more to come when the real playoffs start - and after so long on wondering if this would be a big failure, I'm confident it will start

Baseball in Uncertain Times

Two weeks ago, the NBA announced they effectively had a clean bubble. All the players and important team personnel tested negative, they had done it. Of course, Lou Williams desire to see some bangers at Magic City may jeopoardize that, but for the most part the NBA did what it could to create an environment to let this work.

Today, the NHL announced that they too have gotten to the point of eliminating the virus from their two bubbles in Edmonton and Toronto. Granted both are in a far better position than baseball, but it is striking that two days before the NBA tips off again, and the same day the NHL announces their great results, MLB is in crisis when 8 Marlins tested positive.

First, we should say the fact 8 Marlins tested positive is not an indication that the MLB failed or never should have tried to get a season out. As the testing from NBA and NHL a few weeks back showed, their players were getting COVID in their normal day-to-day lives. Yes, having them in close contact with each other playing sports is not good, but doing so in a controlled environment is potentially safer then them not playing sports but living among normal civilization.

Baseball is different. It was not going to go into a bubble for four months. It had a whole season to play. The NFL is in a similar position. Many industries have had to shift and adapt, and this is an industry adapting. It isn't perfect, but it is worth trying. What makes it seem not worth trying, though, is the MLB's utter lack of a plan when an outbreak broke out.

Granted, the NBA and NHL hasn't offered any plan either. There are protocols in place if a player test positive, but no announced plan if a significant number of players did. I imagine the immediate reaction will be the same - postpone/cancel the upcoming game(s), and maybe do so for the team that the outbreak team recently played. But right now, step #2 is a complete unknown.

The strict angle is the Marlins as an organization have to self-isolate from anywhere from 5-14 days - the whole team. We ahve to wait to ensure we isolate those who have it vs. those who don't. In that time period, I guess you could postpone some games, but at some point we have to just outright cancel them. If it comes to that, is it a cancellation, or do the Marlins (or Team X) have to forfeit?

Nothing is normal. That's obvious. Nothing will be normal for a long time given how badly the USA has handled the coronavirus response - a response that doesn't seem to have any chance of self-correcting until maybe Jan 21, 2021.

The NBA and NHL may well face the MLB's plight in December when they try to start-up for their 2020-2021 seasons under some guise of normalcy (teams playing in their traditional home markets). The MLB did not manage this well, but they also had the unlucky draw of the first league to face this type of outbreak.

I'm so interested to see how MLB reacts to the Marlins situation. I know in my heart the answer is not going to be to force the Marlins as an org to take two weeks off, but I do hope that is at least discussed and then walk down from there to something more reasoable for all. We are entering a brave new world in baseball, in all sports. The games themselves are working, the atmosphere isn't as bad as I thought, teams are having fun with it in how they dress up their stadiums. We just have to hope the elephant in the room doesn't ram its way in way too much.

Zidane's Latest Triumph

There's so many absurd stats that are floating around Zinedine Zidane's ridiculous run as a manager of Real Madrid. The most eye-popping might be that once every 19 games, he wins a trophy. My favorite is that he's won 11 of 18 competitions or trophies he's competed for - and that counts two 'losses' in La Liga when he took over mid-year - the first of which they came within a hair of catching and passing Barcelona.

It is not outrageous at this point to wonder where Zidane's place is as a manager, and wonder thirty years from now, if he's seen as a greater manager or player. Sounds absurd - he's a pantheon level player who accomplished everything in his career with a magician-like quality that is nearly impossible to describe. He's scored in World Cup Finals, Champions League Finals, and has a highlight reel on Youtube that compares with anyone, especially if you account for grace, passing, and sheer lunacy. And yet... he might be a better nager.

There was long questions in his first (wildly successful) reign about how much credit Zidane should actually get. He wasn't a noted tactical genius - especially since he didn't claim to be as other noted tactical geniuses often do (Pep, Mourinho, Wenger, etc.). His Real Madrid teams were already strong with stars, inheriting a group that had made the Champions League Semifinals five straight years (winning in 2014). He largely got plaudits as a man manager, able to navigate the egos in the locker-room, and more importantly the egos in the board-room with aplomb. 

Zidane had great teams, and great results, but also had Ronaldo scoring 40-50 goals a year, including a ridiculous run to close out the 2016-17 season - especially in their Champions League win. That year was the pinnacle the first time in over fifty years Madrid won the league and Champions League in the same season. They did so with a stupid deep team, routinely playing nearly full 'B' sides in the second half of the year in La Liga. The 'B' side featured Nacho, Pepe, Kovacic, Bale, James, Vazquez, Asensio, Morata. It was absurd. 

Then it went awry in his final season - a season which of course the team won a third straight Champions League crowd. They were nowhere in the league however, finishing a distant third (though their underlying numbers more or less as good as winner Barcelona), and for some weird reason Zidane's era Madrid and Zidane himself, was branded as something as a disappointment in league play. It never really made sense. Zidane's Madrid won the league once, and came a point away from winning it in his first year - despite being 8 points back when Zidane took over in January. They had one bad season and somehow were brandished some Champions League-only specialists.

That's why Zidane's biggest goal which he openly stated, for this year was to win back the league. And they did. And they did by overcoming some serious odds. There was no Ronaldo to score loads of goals. There were injuries abound, be it to their big-name signing (Eden Hazard), or young up-and-comers (Marco Asensio) or everyone in between. It was comical how many injuries they dealt with early on, but Zidane kept them focused. And then after the break, focus turned into a steely, calm, dominance.

Ten straight wins to win the league. Not only did they win the games they never trailed. Zidane so often in his first run talked about struggling - not in terms of results, but in terms of the joy that comes from the agony of playing through tough moments. Mental strength, togetherness, commitment. All these adjectives perfectly described Zidane's first run in Madrid in particular to their Champions League runs. This time, it applied to this run. It applied to this team.

You can't really knock this team for relying too much on stars, or luck. They quickly turned into an amazing defensive team, conceding just 25 goals. They got goals from 21 different players, a La Liga record. There were weeks where the goals came from fullbacks, players like Casemiro, and others. Benzema led them with 21 goals. The next highest was Sergio Ramos with 11. 

People will always claim Zidane is no tactical genius, if not some calling him a tactical novice. In truth, his tactical flexibility is his real brilliance. He didn't shove a team into a system. He adjusted systems depending on game, opponent. He made Real Madrid comfortable playing with the ball, playing on the counter. This year they switched formations constantly, going 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 with consitent mix. Flexibility allowed his team to deal with injuries, with drops in play. It allowed his team to line up with a purpose in each game.

Zidane's skills as a manager are harder to suss out, particularly because he doesn't want to do it. Despite his loud brilliance as a player, and his noted hot temper on the pitch, Zidane is either shy or just uninterested in brashness. He's a genius of course, but has not asked for a second of credit. He has the great gift of not having to fight for a name as a manager - a peace of mind that allowed him to walk away after three Champions League wins, and then come back out of his own choice. He's now golden.

It is hard to truly understand how absurd it is that Zidane has accomplished this much in effectively four seasons (three full ones + two half-seasons) as manager. It is hard enough to understand this even when you don't consider this is one of teh titans of the sport doing it. I still think each half detracts from the other in cementing his legacy. On the one hand, it is hard to put into words that he might be the best manager active in the world with the legacy of his playing career overshadowing it. It just seems weird to comapre him to Jurgen Klopp without acknowledging Zidane's career as a player.

His only comps at this point are Johan Cruyff, who probably was a slightly lesser player, but still has a greater legacy as a coach (that said, Zidane's resume might be stronger, but the Cruyff legacy adds up), or Franz Beckenbauer. That's damn good company. As we see more and more clubs turn to old legends to manage (Lampard at Chelsea, Arteta at Arsenal and maybe, just maybe, Xavi at Barcelona at some point) we have to realize that Zidane is an exception, as a coach an exception as a manager and an exception as an all-time soccer legend no matter what. 

Musings on the Returns

Teams are joining the bubbles, in Orlando (NBA) and Toronto & Edmonton (NHL). That's not to say things are going well - players are testing positive, there are meme-worthy insults to the luxuries not afforded to players in these bubbles. There's so much risk inherent in what these leagues are trying to do. I applaud them for trying, and think its silly to say 'they shouldn't come back' full stop, but still there is a lot of unease.

For a bit then, it is fun to put the unease aside, and think about what this might end up being. I took some time to think about the upside of this situation. Before we dive in, I want to say this whole piece assumes there isn't huge outbreaks, especially anything bad enough to kick out a team or end the whole experiment. Here are my musings of what the next three months (NBA & NHL) may look like.

= I'm interested to see how each league tries to add crowd noise or atmosphere to their games. Soccer has done a decent job with fake crowd noise, even rising and lowering at the right times. While it was nice to wonder for a day what it would be like to hear each basketball shoe squeak, or each tap of a stick on the ice, but also then we would hear all the cuss words you need in a lifetime - and there was no way the leagues would allow/want that. I'll credit the NHL here for taking an interesting approach and have teams organize team-specific chants/cheers recordings to use during games. It will be interesting, for sure to see if that is at all effective

= Obviously we all hope this pandemic is a once-in-a-lifetime issue, and even if it takes until the 2021-22 seasons to get back to something that shows normal, I doubt we are hurdling towards a full bubble season for 2020-21. If that is the case, we are living a once-in-a-lifetime scenario, of sports being played in bubbles, with no fans, with teams staying in the same quarters, almost like a mix of incredible sports feats with Real World. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something weird.

= In a related point, I hope both the NBA and NHL are taking this opportunity to film a lot of the life in the bubble - which I realize some players are already doing themselves. To me, get some video folks to agree to live in teh bubble (to avoid any covid risk) and film away. We will always remember the 2020 NBA & NHL Playoffs that were played in bubbles

= Speaking of which, we're either going to get amazing displays of closeness and positive tomfoolery in these bubbles, or rapturous infighting and drama. I can't wait for either. It's going to be amazing, the nightly night-caps at the bar, the golf, the swimming, all of it. You are putting giant egos (for a good reason) in a confined area. This is going to be three weeks of fireworks.

= On to the play, I get the fact it will initially be sloppy, but we also have a chance to see playoffs where teams are healthier than ever. There are a few cases of players playing that likely wuldn't have played at all had the seasons just continued as per normal. There's cases of guys getting a chance to fully heal and rest. Take Giannis for example, who got injured right before the pause, and now comes back fully locked and loaded and ready to go. On the hockey side, by the end it truly is bascially which team is healthier wins, but now every team is more or less as healthy. For so often we see bad hockey or basketball at times out of sheer exhaustion - for once we should see far, far less of that.

= I'm interested to see how teams that have serious home/road splits react to this situation. Are we seeing it almost like every game is a road game - so teams that hve done bad at home should do worse, or is everything basically 50/50 now. For a team like the 76ers, not getting a home game when they were like 30-2 at home this year is bad, but not having to go on the road where they were laughable at times might make up for it.

= Related to that point, a weird bit of math here. A lot of people are mentioning how home court advantage is irrelevant. That part is true. What often gets left out is home court advantage is lost for both teams. There is no real reason why we should see significantly more upsets. Yes, if you are a lower-seeded team, you don't have to play four road games where you have a lesser chance to lose. You also don't have three home games that you have a heightened chance to win. Especially for some of the underdogs that have particularly strong home court crowds/results (e.g. Utah), losing three home games is a big loss.

The Return(?!) of Sports

Sports have been back for a while in parts of the world that took the coronavirus more seriously, professionally and logically than the US did. European soccer has been back, albeit without fans, for over a month now, with no major issues despite teams traveling (admittedly, distances are a lot closer in these European leagues than a US-wide league).

But that's not the same as sports returning in this country, a country that has utterly failed and flopped its response to this virus - where even the good stories are small or like New York where the curve was flattened only after such endless agony. The US is not ready for sports to be back, but the people losing money were more than ready, and ergo: sports are coming back.

They're coming back either in a bubble, ironically picked in a place that was doing OK when it was picked but is now a disaster of New York levels, but with leadership that still turns a blind eye, or with two bubbles like the NHL, which wisely picked to move its game to Canada, or with whatever the hell the MLB is doing. These aren't perfect scenarios. These bubbles will pop, whether its NBA players not able to go three months without groupies (their concerns, not mine), or NHL players needing to play golf. The sport going without a bubble is already failing to test people in time to progress towards their start. It's a mess, but 2020 was always going to be a mess. For us sports fans, we just have to figure out if it is a mess worth investing your time in.

So much can go wrong with these plans. With more and more players testing positive before they head into the bubbles (not a surprise), the date of the first start (MLB on July 24th) seems still so far away. There are still mountains to climb, and then we get tothe fact it seems eminent that after the restart the leagues will have to shutdown at some point. Maybe not the NHL because they were able to shift to Canada, which helps matters, but for the NBA it almost seems a matter of time.

What I do want to say is if (or as some pessimists feel, when) the leagues have to shut down, let's not go too hard on them for attempting this. They tried something people didn't think feasible (play in a bubble) and maybe it doesn't work, but I'll give them credit for trying. I also don't want to hear the idea they shouldn't have tried - yes the attempt was to recoup money, but that puts them in teh same position as any business globally at the moment. The sports leagues shouldn't have not tried this because it is too hard. They've come up with plans that epidimeologists have said was a good attempt, all things considered. That's enough for me.

When MLB does have its opening day, when the NBA does have its first tip-off, and the NHL has its first face-off, it will be so different. I still remember being in Toronto watching the NBA world come to a halt, and within 24 hours so too the NHL, March Madness and basically every other league. It was surreal. It is hopefully something we don;t have to live with again. 

Seeing it come backj, it is hard to imagine weather it will feel real. It definitely won't feel right, with no fans in teh stands, with either creaky silence or fake pumped in crowd noise. It will be different, but we'll get over it to get sports back. Life hasn't been complete these last 4 months, and surely not only because sports hasn't been played. The world will never be the same (and it is too soon to talk about this in past tense, so shame on me), but having one part of it returning to semi-normal is a welcome event.

My Top 50 QBs: #4 - Johnny Unitas