0:00

This

0:00

is Steven Nesbitt, host of On Deck, the newest baseball

0:02

show from The Athletic. Join Levi Weaver

0:05

and me every Monday and Thursday morning on The Athletic

0:07

Baseball Show podcast feed. We'll tell you what you

0:09

need to know about the big storylines in baseball

0:11

and set the stage for key upcoming series.

0:14

Plus, which pitchers and hitters we expect to

0:16

break out and follow along as we compete

0:18

in the year-long Arms Race and Homer

0:20

Chase competitions. Check out On Deck

0:22

every Monday and Thursday morning on The Athletic Baseball

0:25

Show, wherever you get your podcasts.

0:29

The Athletic

0:52

The

0:58

managerial

0:59

disciplinary tightrope. Premier

1:02

League

1:05

years showing its true

1:08

value. Non-league vicars.

1:17

When

1:23

exactly did old-fashioned number nines become

1:25

old-fashioned? Scorelines that don't

1:27

tell the full story. The language of Erling

1:30

Haaland missing chances. Can two players

1:32

hunt in packs? Tenuous football curses.

1:35

The Spice Rack league table. Seeing

1:37

your name in the headlines. Where and when

1:39

is it most appropriate to do the G-ing up the crowd

1:41

gesture? And the Rolls-Royce

1:44

of the sea. Brought to your ears by The

1:46

Athletic. This

1:47

is Football Clichés.

1:50

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 256

1:53

of Football Clichés. I'm

1:55

Adam Hurray and with me on the adjudication

1:57

panel, once again,

1:58

Charlie Eccleshair. How's it going? It's going well. How

2:01

are you? Yeah, not too bad at all. Alongside

2:03

you, David Walker. Hi, Dave. Big

2:06

weekend for you. You're in Munich, I see. Lovely

2:08

tweet from you. A classic stag

2:10

do behaviour here. You went to see 1860

2:13

Munich. I did. Before

2:15

you tell me what it was like, here's what I theorise

2:18

it was like. This is how all football

2:20

matches on stag do's go. You had a good time at

2:23

the start getting into it because you're football literate,

2:25

so you're quite happy to be there and you

2:27

have your beers. You quite like the atmosphere

2:29

and the novelty of being there.

2:31

And then it just kind of wore off.

2:33

You got a bit cold and you went to leave. No, no,

2:35

we had a much better time than that.

2:37

The weather was great, so it didn't get cold. If

2:41

anything, it was too hot. There was no

2:43

shade. We were on a terrace with

2:45

beating sunshine and most of

2:47

us were wearing black as well. So, you know,

2:50

that was difficult. But thankfully you can

2:52

drink beer in the stands in Germany, so we were able

2:54

to cool ourselves down with some of those. It

2:56

was a decent game. One nil win for 1860 Munich

2:59

against Freiburg Svei.

3:01

Freiburg 2. Oh, right. What

3:03

league? Third tier. Oh,

3:05

is it really? Because I'd say another staple

3:07

of watching, especially lower league football on

3:09

a stag is what do you reckon school would be if

3:12

we played them?

3:13

I'd say, you know, but do you reckon 10-0? What

3:15

would it sort of be? When

3:18

I went and saw 1860 Munich, they were lower down

3:20

in the pyramid at that point. Some of

3:23

those discussions, especially after a few beers, like,

3:25

no, like maybe it starts to happen.

3:28

No, they were a decent outfit.

3:30

Both teams were decent. We wouldn't have had a chance. Didn't

3:33

realise they were third tier, I have to say. So

3:35

you can become like an unbearable Bundesliga guy

3:37

now? Well, no. I don't think I'm going to be

3:39

tuning in every week, but I think I will

3:42

follow their fortunes from afar. I like

3:44

the 1860 vibe.

3:45

Look out for their results? Yeah.

3:48

Nice. Okay, let's adjudication panel.

3:50

In no particular order, really. I've just thrown this

3:52

together, but it's all really good. Let's start with

3:55

RJB1998, who is watching Celtic

3:57

vs Rangers in the Scottish Women's Premier

3:59

League. League and he simply says, has

4:01

this ever been said about a manager before? If

4:03

I'm at the area where you can see, sorry. Fran,

4:07

a lawn's all getting a yellow card. You'll

4:10

have to be careful for the ravine to the digging

4:11

in. Walking

4:14

a tightrope. Well, this is it, Charlie.

4:17

Maybe it's natural where we're kind of normalising

4:19

the disciplinary process for managers.

4:22

He does have to be careful. Maybe the principle does apply

4:24

to managers. Yeah, I mean, I suppose it is true.

4:26

And if it was someone like Deserby, say, in

4:28

the Premier League, you can imagine

4:31

quite easy that he would get a second booking.

4:33

I guess it's just the fact that

4:35

the cost of it is a lot lower

4:37

than a player getting sent off. That's true. Yeah,

4:39

that's true. I like the idea potentially

4:42

of, I don't know, this, maybe this has happened

4:44

at some point, who knows, but a referee pointing

4:47

to three different areas in the technical area. That's

4:50

an easy job, isn't it? Easy. If

4:53

there was a sort of border one, it's like, if he's not on a booking,

4:55

that's the second yellow all day

4:57

long. He's got away with one there. Yeah, just

5:00

a little talking to. Okay, Dave, Charlie

5:03

has rightly said that the stakes are a little bit lower

5:05

for the disciplinary tightrope for a manager.

5:07

But does the principle of the statements that apply, do

5:09

they have to be careful? I mean,

5:11

is the same level of kind of risk

5:13

involved here? I suppose it is, because one bit of

5:15

backchats of the ref and you probably are off. So

5:17

I think the same model applies. Yeah,

5:20

I think so. Yeah, it's important for these guys to be right

5:23

there, so they don't want to be sent off, do they? It

5:25

looks like in the pictures that we've got

5:27

here, Fran Alonso, the manager in

5:29

question, is now standing with his hands behind his

5:31

back. So it does look like he's on his best

5:33

behaviour. Try not to handball it when

5:36

a cross comes in. No,

5:38

I can see this catching on. I mean,

5:40

you know, I think referees are getting more and more engaged

5:42

with this. So I can see it catching on. Managers

5:44

have been careful. It'll become more of a thing. Do you think there'll

5:46

be like a five bookings for a manager

5:49

gets that one game ban and

5:51

there's a big sort of worry as that sort of a point

5:53

of the season is almost

5:56

coming to an end? I suspect one of the big

5:58

differences here, the one thing that...

5:59

will never really achieve

6:02

with managerial disciplinary processes is

6:04

that Charlie, a manager is never going to get booked in the first

6:07

two minutes. Like that's gonna have to be careful

6:09

now for the next 88 minutes.

6:12

Why do you think not? I don't think

6:14

anyone's going to get that riled in two

6:16

minutes. Maybe, but like if there was a really

6:18

contentious penalty decision or something... It's

6:21

possible, but I feel like it's more of a build up. It's

6:23

definitely less likely, but I think

6:25

it could happen. Okay, fine.

6:27

Next one, Charlie, you're gonna love this. Absolutely

6:30

love it. This came from Mickey the Macam who's watching

6:32

Luke O'Nyen's My Sunderland Story

6:35

for the club's YouTube channel. Here's O'Nyen

6:37

talking about when he first joined the club.

6:52

I

6:56

used to think it was just really nice. I used to think

6:58

about it really charming.

7:03

I'm

7:08

stunned. I really thought

7:10

that was just the preserve of the

7:13

slightly older generation to still... That

7:15

it carries on to people of that age. I

7:17

mean, he would barely have been sort of football conscious

7:20

when it was still the Premiership. Yeah.

7:22

I mean, he genuinely would have bit... It was last

7:25

what, 15 years ago or something? Yeah. 15, 16 years ago? And

7:28

he looks about not much older than that himself.

7:30

He's 28 currently, born in November 1994. He's 28

7:34

that guy. Oh, I thought

7:36

he was much younger. God, shows how old I'm going. Dave,

7:38

Mickey the Macam continues. Imagine the Premiership

7:40

years being your only news source, finding out

7:42

about the Iraq war, nine months later sandwiched

7:44

between Leicester beating Leeds and Arsenal's injury crisis.

7:48

I mean, we know about footballers

7:50

who don't like football and don't like consuming it. Maybe

7:52

there are footballers who just consume life through

7:54

football and nothing else. We need to get him on and

7:57

put him to the test against Charlie C.

7:59

See if he's got a similarly encyclopedic

8:02

knowledge of all of the Premier League years. Well,

8:04

he can spot stadiums on Premier League

8:07

years, so Charlie, what a challenge that would be.

8:09

Seems like a nice glow. I'll happily have him on the pod.

8:11

Let's see how we go. Right, fantastic. Moment

8:13

for one of our ongoing devices here. Dave

8:15

Molcock writes in, says, I'm in training to become

8:18

a vicar and had a weekend away meeting other

8:20

people who are training. Meeting one person

8:22

chatting about how we were finding training, he said to me,

8:24

Well, I'm training part-time for my sins.

8:27

I couldn't hold my composure and had to laugh, which obviously

8:29

drew a blank expression. Surely the most significant

8:31

context for a For My Sins ever. The

8:34

first genuinely

8:37

religious For My Sins we've had, Dave.

8:39

I think,

8:40

I mean, it's good that they're just throwing this

8:42

phrase around in this circle. So does he feel

8:45

like he genuinely has sinned? So surely

8:47

you'd want to throw yourself into

8:49

it more? He's not giving it 110%, is he Charlie? Part-time vicar.

8:54

That is a mate. Yeah, I mean, I hoped when

8:56

you said that that was going to be the big reveal

8:58

here. But yeah, part-time, that's a weird

9:00

thing to focus on that that's the sinsey bit. I like

9:02

the idea of all the vicars going away and training

9:05

together.

9:06

This is St George's Park style

9:08

on a chorus. This folks just a non-league vicar

9:10

though. He's got to go back and like, ply his trade

9:12

elsewhere. They're doing their badges.

9:15

Church of England DNA.

9:18

Fantastic stuff. Right.

9:21

This is very curious, actually. This came from commentator

9:23

Dan Mason. Who's watching a clip from the

9:25

BBC build-up to the 1973 FA Cup Final. Sunderland

9:29

versus Leeds, I believe. And there's

9:32

a portion of the build-up was set

9:34

aside for the Sunderland players to be introduced

9:36

to the viewers.

9:37

Here we go. Now we're going to invite you to formally

9:39

meet the teams playing in this FA

9:41

Cup Final today. And we're going to start with the Sunderland

9:44

players. And Arthur Cox is

9:46

the man that we've asked to make this introductions for

9:48

us. He is the Sunderland coach. Vic

9:51

Hallam, age 24, forward. We

9:54

think Vic Leeds are a line like Bobby Smith

9:57

and Nat Loftouse led Tottenham

9:59

and Bolton.

9:59

lines, an old-fashioned type

10:02

of centre forward. So, as Dan

10:04

Mason observes Charlie, I

10:07

like that even 50 years ago centre forwards could be

10:09

categorised as being old-fashioned. This

10:11

is amazing. So, at what point

10:14

weren't they? What point were they not

10:16

even cutting edge? What point were they not even worthy

10:18

of commenting on? That is going, I mean,

10:20

you've got to be going back some way. I mean, do you think

10:22

in the 1930 World Cup they were talking

10:24

about, yeah, it's just an old-fashioned

10:27

proper centre forward? Let's treat this

10:29

seriously,

10:29

Dave. I would say the mid to late

10:32

50s is the heyday of the old-fashioned

10:35

centre forward as we now call them. Now, they

10:37

were in their pomp, the battering rams

10:39

and the focal points and the noble

10:41

goal-scorers and, you

10:44

know, your Nat Loft houses and that sort of stuff. Legacy-defining

10:47

players. And then somewhere between,

10:50

somewhere in the next 15 years, I

10:52

guess, they became old-fashioned. So, maybe they kind

10:54

of became not obsolete, but less

10:56

fashionable sometime in the 60s then, I

10:58

guess. But what were the, who

11:01

were the sort of modern centre forwards

11:03

at that time? Because obviously, you know, they weren't playing

11:05

like false nines or anything or inside, were they

11:08

inside forwards? That sort of thing. And the game

11:10

wasn't softening up, was it? Yeah. So,

11:13

it's not like, I don't know, maybe you couldn't batter

11:15

the goalkeeper like they did in the 50s, in the

11:17

early 70s,

11:17

Charlie. Maybe that's what it was. Maybe the game was

11:19

getting a little bit more technical.

11:21

Yeah. And maybe they frowned upon that sort

11:23

of stuff. Maybe it went from having you'd have two old-fashioned

11:26

centre forwards up front to then the sort of

11:29

more the number 10 playing with the number nine. Did

11:31

you have, you know, and my timelines might

11:33

be a bit off here, but, you know, I remember watching

11:35

like,

11:36

I'm sure there was a series about football

11:38

Mavericks was on TV a few, a few years ago,

11:40

and I'm sure, was it like, you know, the 70s,

11:42

like Frank Worthington, Rodney Marsh,

11:45

Dan Bowles, were they all around this sort of time?

11:47

Are they sort of the new fangled fancy

11:49

Dan strikers? Number

11:51

10s with long hair and sort

11:53

of extracurricular activities.

11:56

Yeah, very much so. You certainly wouldn't have

11:58

got those in the 50s. So maybe that's what it was.

11:59

Yeah, I mean also has old-fashioned

12:02

sense forward evolved a bit to the point that now

12:04

could you I don't say I said before

12:06

but like someone like Defoe was talked about

12:09

as like an old-fashioned He by

12:11

the end of his career even I feel like he was

12:13

old-fashioned in the sense that he's just an out-and-out goalscorer

12:16

You know all he's interested in doing is

12:18

scoring and he was sort of seen as old-fashioned

12:20

in the sense that

12:22

You know back in the day that every team had a striker

12:24

like that But then with the growth of just playing one up front

12:26

you didn't really

12:28

So I don't he was not an old-fashioned since it's all

12:30

like an old-fashioned big number nine, but you might serve

12:32

him Yeah, you know he's he's quite old-fashioned in

12:34

the way, but you know all he's interested in his goals You know he's

12:36

not he doesn't want to hold the ball up and stuff like that Okay,

12:39

so it's moved on so but Dave surely we still

12:41

have old-fashioned old-fashioned number nines

12:43

right they are still about he's a real

12:45

Throwback isn't he is Harland? No,

12:48

is he described as an old-fashioned number now? No

12:52

big but he's not even that good in the

12:54

air is he really and he's not a battering ram in

12:56

the in the old style

12:58

sense I mean he sort of steamrolls players But

13:00

doesn't bully them

13:01

off the ball in a Mick Harford kind

13:04

of style John fashion new style was not

13:06

throwing elbows around Yeah, yeah, okay Yeah

13:08

I mean I did enjoy big Sam called him the

13:10

big man in this press conference as if he was

13:12

talking about a kind of Duncan Ferguson

13:14

yeah Just reducing Harland

13:17

and his ridiculous number of goals and everything

13:19

he offers to the big man status Just

13:21

got close to the big man early Harland a new fangled

13:24

old-fashioned number nine a real throw

13:26

forward I don't know I don't know to be honest, but

13:29

fascinating to know that we were still calling number

13:31

nines old-fashioned back in 1973

13:33

right some

13:35

Elections the other day Charlie all

13:37

sorts of numbers flying around but did you know who

13:40

gathered? 11% of the votes

13:42

for the Conservative Party in Totten

13:44

East no it was none other

13:47

than the

13:48

infamous pie-eating goalkeeper Wayne

13:51

Shaw really yeah Wow

13:54

back was it a publicity stunt this

13:56

time or dunno standing for election

13:58

for Totten Town Council Such a great

14:00

town and community, looking forward to new challenges

14:02

with a great conservative team. If it can't be nice,

14:05

don't be nasty. The rolly-polly-goally

14:08

tweeted Dave." I

14:11

mean, his brand is incredibly strong

14:14

still. Every other tweet at least

14:16

references a pie or him eating pies.

14:18

Right. Okay. So he's not sort of put all

14:20

that behind him. He's still embracing the pie. I'm shying

14:22

away from it. Yeah.

14:25

The last picture of him on Twitter, Charlie, was

14:27

him holding three Freibento

14:30

pies with some oven

14:32

gloves. What

14:34

a commitment. Wow. To an increasingly

14:37

old gimmick. I

14:39

mean, that's six years ago, that game,

14:41

that run.

14:43

Oh really? Yeah, it's a long time. Okay,

14:45

yeah, six years, fair enough. Okay, yeah. All right, in

14:47

that case, I'll let him off. I mean, some of us are

14:49

still one-trick ponies after all these years,

14:51

so yeah, fine. I'd say six years is quite a long

14:53

time to still be pushing

14:55

that. Is it? Yeah, maybe not in football, but in politics,

14:58

definitely. Only one percent short of

15:00

getting elected there, Dave. So he's

15:02

got work to do. Well, surely he should have called upon

15:04

his mates at the Sun to get him a bit more

15:06

publicity. That was who he tied up with

15:10

for the stunt, right? Or was it

15:12

a bookmaker? Either way, he should

15:13

have struck while the iron was hot

15:15

back then. Yeah. Would have got elected. Do you

15:17

reckon he would have got elected if he'd run in like the year after

15:20

it all happened or soon after?

15:22

Quite possibly. When his star

15:24

was highest. Stocker.

15:27

Never going to be higher than that. I think it's probably one of the least

15:30

glamorous footballers into politicians'

15:32

stories of all time. I'm

15:35

about to say good luck to him, but his last

15:37

tweet was egging on Matt LeCissier, so

15:40

let's move on. Over in the Air Tricity League

15:42

at the weekend, Charlie Shamrock Rovers, 2,

15:45

Bohemians nil. Bohemians

15:47

tweeted out a graphic with a score

15:49

on it and said, a score line that doesn't tell the full

15:51

story. We go again. Seacath

15:54

asks Charlie, what score lines

15:56

do tell the full story when you think about it?

15:59

Well, any can be misleading, can't

16:02

they? I mean, like an 8-0. I

16:04

could tell the story. I think you know what's happened there,

16:06

right? Yeah, yeah. Well,

16:09

funny you should say that. Not quite an 8-0, but the

16:11

7-0, the Liverpool Manchester

16:13

United, there was a bit of, well, actually,

16:16

their XG wasn't that high. I

16:18

think all their shots on target went in. That's not

16:20

to say United were unlucky to lose the game,

16:22

but it's to say

16:23

that maybe wasn't a 7-0. It was just a

16:25

day where everything that could possibly have

16:27

gone in did. I'm not sure

16:29

about this. I mean, I'm firmly behind

16:32

the XG revolution, Charlie, but I don't think XG

16:35

solely can be brought into the equation of

16:37

a score line not telling the full story of a game.

16:39

I think, I mean, quality of chances, I mean,

16:41

to an extreme example, it could be seven

16:44

own goals, for example. I mean, I'd appreciate that in

16:46

a penalty or something. To a certain extent, a 7-0 is a

16:48

7-0, right? Yeah,

16:50

but then also, if they sort of, if

16:52

in a 7-0, you score

16:53

three or four in the last 10 to 15 minutes,

16:56

and up until then, it was a reasonably close game,

16:58

you're not saying, oh, they're unlucky to lose, but you're

17:00

saying, because 7-0 comes images of

17:02

an absolute battering. Like, that's

17:05

a proper novelty score. But

17:07

can you imagine if Manchester United had tweeted

17:09

out a score line that doesn't tell the full story

17:11

of a game? I wish they had. I

17:14

wish they had. That would be brilliant. That

17:16

would be brilliant. Just tweeted the XG. Actually,

17:18

it wasn't quite as bad as it were. Right

17:20

then, were we talking about Erling Harland earlier? We

17:22

were, weren't we?

17:23

Here's his day

17:25

against Leeds on Saturday, condensed

17:27

into

17:29

merely the commentary for his shots. Here's

17:32

Harland. Glazes

17:34

it wide and over. Even

17:36

for him, that was wildly optimistic. De

17:38

Bruyne has found the gap.

17:39

Glazes back off! He

17:43

is human. Slides

17:46

it through for Erling Harland. I've

17:48

got it! Well,

17:50

it's not his day yet, is it? Alvarez

17:53

pulls it back. Oh! Lovely

18:02

subtle evolution of the narrative there Dave.

18:16

First up was

18:19

Amir Saita, literally in the second minute of the

18:21

game. So I don't think at that point you

18:23

could pass any kind of a chance unless it was a glaringly obvious

18:25

chance. I think there's any point in passing any comment

18:27

on the bigger picture stuff there. But even then

18:29

it was a little bit, you know, for a player of his quality, you

18:32

know, that sort of thing. And then after that,

18:34

the emergence of his day as a concept

18:36

began. And I think the first

18:39

mention of his day was about the squinty

18:41

something minute, but with the crucial quality

18:43

of his day so far. Which, I mean,

18:45

is that too early?

18:46

He said it's not his day

18:49

yet was the first mention.

18:52

Then, I think it's not his

18:54

day so far. And then it turns into just

18:56

one of those days. Match

18:58

of the Day was similar as well. They went with something

19:00

like, well, maybe it's just not his day.

19:03

He doesn't have many. Doesn't have any? I

19:05

mean, that's clear. I was actually surprised and

19:07

I'm glad it was there because on Match of the Day when he did miss that

19:09

glaring chance, I was waiting for the he is human after

19:11

all and it didn't come. So I'm pleased

19:13

it came there. Good to see that still going strong, but

19:15

it was just a lovely trajectory

19:16

for the passing comment on Erlingharn missing

19:19

chances. So enjoyed that thoroughly. Next

19:21

up, Wayne Thicket writes in he was watching West Ham

19:23

versus Man United on Sunday night and he says,

19:25

Fletch just claimed Rice and Sowcheck

19:28

have been hunting in packs, trying

19:30

to get the ball back. Can two players

19:32

hunt in packs or even a pack? How

19:34

many players make a pack? I

19:36

mean, I was fully prepared, Charlie, for having a genuine

19:39

debate about what the threshold is for players making

19:41

a pack, but I think it's fine. I think it's

19:43

fine because it's the spectacle of seeing it happen

19:46

rather than the intricate details of it. If two players

19:48

do hair after the ball and close one player

19:50

down, I think that's pat, that is hunting in

19:52

packs, plural. That's fine. I

19:54

think that's all right. And also if you get much

19:56

more than that, it can look a little bit like you're out of control.

19:59

Then I think it's sort of a it's not

20:02

that well coordinated a press. Yeah,

20:04

you've got three people going after one Yeah,

20:06

I think I think that counts if it looks like

20:08

they're both sort of really going after

20:10

the ball I've just googled how many dogs in

20:12

a pack and the top the

20:14

top result is from pet

20:17

place calm Understanding canine

20:19

social structure in the wild the typical

20:21

number of wild dogs or wolves in a fully fledged

20:23

pack ranges between 8 and 15 Wow

20:28

That's

20:28

like AC Milan 1988 press isn't it?

20:32

The aggressive offside trap you can't

20:34

have that Well that almost supports the point because

20:36

then you're never gonna have an actual pack volume

20:39

I mean Liverpool. Yeah, Liverpool's Geggen press Dortmund's

20:41

Geggen press, but yeah I think I think modern

20:44

pressing strategies really do negate

20:46

the idea of a three-man hunting impact

20:48

situation So I think two is fine in an

20:51

ultra modern context So I like the idea of

20:53

a proper football man playing down, you know, I like to play

20:55

down the influence Like dogs

20:56

have been hunting impacts for centuries We

21:00

just used to call it canine social structures Lovely

21:05

stuff speaking of ancient football cliches

21:07

and this lots of people got in touch

21:09

about this This was from Fulham versus Leicester on

21:12

the world feed the co-cometry comes from David

21:14

Phillips I

21:16

Think you got with Tom

21:18

Kenny here and full of her in once again, it's Harrison

21:20

Reed Vital save from Ebersom

21:23

Kenny tete next up straight

21:25

at the keeper Well

21:27

once again Lester of

21:30

sixes and sevens maybe even less than

21:32

that at the back I

21:36

sympathize with this day because very

21:38

few people

21:39

Know or care about the origin of sixes and

21:41

sevens and it's almost too boring for me to

21:43

explain the possibility But so

21:46

I still have sympathies with the idea that people just think

21:48

sixes and sevens is like a rating out of ten There

21:53

at ones and twos, yes, we

21:55

really would be good

22:00

I love it. Who cares what the origin is? It

22:02

sounds good. Six and seven sounds too high.

22:05

It's fine. Love it. Yeah,

22:07

and they were. They were

22:09

all over the shop. As you all know by now, we've teamed

22:11

up with BetMGM this season. We'll

22:13

be using BetMGM lines to make all

22:15

of our picks for favorite Major League

22:17

Soccer bets and we'll have special

22:19

offers for our listeners each week. If

22:21

you haven't signed up for BetMGM yet, use

22:24

bonus code TASoccer

22:26

and you'll get a one year subscription to the athletic

22:29

and you'll receive $200

22:30

in bonus bets instantly

22:33

when placing a money line wager of at

22:35

least $10 on any game

22:37

at standard odds price. Download

22:40

the BetMGM app and sign up using bonus

22:42

code TASoccer. Make your first

22:44

deposit of at least $10. Then

22:47

place a pregame money line wager

22:49

in the amount of at least $10 on

22:51

any game at standard odds price.

22:54

And finally, claim your voucher for a

22:56

one year subscription to the athletic and $200

22:59

in bonus bets regardless of the outcome

23:02

of the wager. 21 years or older to wager, visit

23:04

BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. U.S. promotional

23:06

offers not available in Washington, D.C., Mississippi, Nevada,

23:08

New York, and Ontario. Gambling problem? Call

23:11

1-800-GAMBLER in Colorado, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Indiana,

23:13

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

23:15

Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In New

23:17

York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPENY. Call

23:21

1-800-NEXTSTEP in Arizona. In Kansas and Nevada, call 1-800-522-4700. For

23:25

Massachusetts, call 1-800-327-5050. Iowa,

23:28

call 1-800-BETS-OFF. And for confidential

23:30

help in Michigan, call 1-800-270-7117. Don't

23:34

forget, if you haven't signed up for BetMGM

23:36

yet, use bonus code TASoccer

23:38

and you'll get a one year subscription to the

23:40

athletic plus up to $200

23:43

in bonus bets on your first $10 money

23:46

line wager.

23:50

Hey, this is Andrew Schleich from the Athletic NBA

23:52

Show and I wanted to let you know that we

23:54

are on YouTube now six

23:57

days a week. Plus you can tune in to

23:59

the Daily Ding live.

24:00

live each weeknight after the

24:02

games are over. Just search the Athletic

24:04

NBA Show on YouTube and hit subscribe.

24:08

Oh look at that!

24:11

That is wonderful! Brought

24:13

to your ears by the Athletic. They

24:15

see football cliches. Right

24:17

next up, this wasn't a bugbear

24:20

for me at all really Charlie. I never really registered in

24:22

my footballing consciousness until now.

24:24

Luke of Norfolk writes in and he's

24:27

referencing a common football

24:29

writing theme of a curse.

24:31

So a pattern of events that have happened

24:34

that have been massaged into a narrative

24:36

of a curse. So things

24:38

that have befallen teams who happen to have something in

24:40

common. I suppose that's the best way of describing it really. This

24:42

came from 442 who were talking about the curse

24:45

of sixth place in the championship. Blackpool

24:47

are the last side to finish sixth in the championship and

24:49

gain promotion to the Premier League through the playoffs, achieving

24:52

that feat in 2010. Since then, 12 teams have

24:53

been promoted,

24:56

none of whom finished sixth. The curse.

24:58

It's not a fucking curse, it's just the worst team

25:00

in the playoffs. Yeah

25:02

I don't think it can be a curse if it's sort

25:05

of following the form book. It

25:07

would be like the Etihad curse

25:09

for visiting teams. They rarely win. Exactly,

25:12

it's a bit worried. Dave helped me out with the curse of finishing

25:15

20th in the Premier League. You're down! But

25:18

I do like this because it flies in the face

25:21

of something that is still commonly held. People

25:23

still

25:23

go on about all the time about if you finish

25:25

sixth and you just get into the playoffs at the end and

25:27

you've got the momentum, it doesn't

25:30

happen. Because there was a lot where there

25:32

was a germ of truth in that. I think before

25:34

this curse took hold,

25:36

there were a few teams who came up having finished

25:38

sixth. West Ham, when they came

25:41

up in 2005, I'm pretty sure came

25:43

sixth and then did actually really well in the Premier League.

25:45

I sort of do sympathise with, I mean, as

25:48

we've spoken about before Charlie, a lot of football

25:50

observation is based on paranoia about what might happen

25:52

to your team. So

25:53

you err on the side of caution. Almost

25:56

too much. But a good example of

25:58

this curse-based paranoia.

25:59

would be Knott's County's National League playoff

26:02

against Borenwood for the weekend. Borenwood were 35

26:06

points behind them in the table and then

26:08

they played each other in the playoffs. And then Borenwood

26:10

went two in a lap and you got the sense that this

26:12

was kind of bound to happen. Like,

26:15

the narrative was so stacked up against Knott's County

26:17

in this respect, like it was almost too

26:19

comfortable for them and that's it. They fucked it. And

26:21

then they did. Well, it's almost like when you're watching your

26:23

team play and there's an early

26:26

refereeing decision that goes against you in the move.

26:28

There's still loads to go. But if you're like, if we concede

26:29

here, if we fucking concede here,

26:32

and you're almost willing it to happen so you can

26:34

vent and it's kind of the same thing. It's like, if we

26:37

lose to a team, we finish this far above, it's just

26:39

not fair. I think the bar should be higher

26:41

for curses, Dave. That's all I'm saying.

26:43

Keep curses magical. The most

26:45

famous footballing

26:47

curse or the most oftenly cited

26:49

is surely the manager of the month curse.

26:52

Is that still a thing? Yeah, that's still

26:54

talked about, yeah. And that's cursy because there's no

26:56

obvious logic to it. I mean, no one

26:58

even bothers to suggest, Charlie, that they get really complacent

27:01

after they've won an award and don't even bother doing the video

27:03

analysis. Ah, got February, February

27:05

manager of the month. That's me done for the season. Feet

27:07

up on the table. You sort it out. Go

27:09

on, Sammy Lee. You do training. No, I think that's fine.

27:12

Right. Sam writes in next. I reorganized

27:14

our spice rack over the weekend. In explaining

27:17

the new set up to my partner, by the way,

27:19

those words alone are brilliant. I instinctively

27:22

describe the lesser used spices, now

27:24

at the bottom of the rack, as basement

27:26

boys. What

27:29

are the panel's most basement boys, herbs

27:31

and spices? I'm going straight

27:33

in, Dave, with cinnamon. It's just it's

27:36

shit and it's horrible and I would never use it. And

27:38

it's basically a dessert spice, not even like

27:40

a cool cooking savoury

27:42

spice. So that's straight in there as a basement

27:44

boy spice. That's divisive

27:46

in my household. I'm a big cinnamon fan. Very

27:50

marmite. I

27:52

would say something like ground coriander

27:54

because I'd much rather just have fresh coriander.

27:57

But you've sort of got to have it for certain dishes.

27:59

It's not, I don't, like coriander

28:02

is great. Ground coriander, it feels

28:04

like a slightly diluted version. Smoked paprika,

28:06

like an upward looking kind of European

28:09

place chasing traditional

28:11

mid-table side. Like filler basically, yes.

28:13

It's a banging spice. It's nothing, not

28:15

harsh, not gonna blow your mind, but it adds

28:18

something every time, delivers. Yeah,

28:20

exactly, it's sort of a short, it's quite an easy shortcut.

28:23

I mean, what about, you know, your sort of,

28:26

we sort of- Rosemary, would that be down there? That's

28:28

not very, don't use that much, do you? Again,

28:30

I think you'd- Depends on the meat, doesn't it? Yeah, but you'd

28:32

want the fresh stuff. Yeah, meat specific spices, they, I mean,

28:34

they are, they're struggling, aren't they? I mean, turmeric,

28:37

which I know you're a fan of Adam. Yeah, I know. Love

28:39

it. Yeah,

28:40

I mean, great for making rice. My

28:43

wife is- Thanks, ricey, hello. Cheers, mate. Absolutely,

28:46

pretty and everything, I don't know why. Garam

28:50

masala. Right,

28:52

Kesey. We ventured into

28:54

which spice sounds most likely it was read out by Richie Kese.

28:57

And that's fine too, and that's fine too. Dave,

28:59

Dave, being very diplomatic here, not getting involved.

29:02

Yeah, I'm showing my inexperience in the kitchen,

29:04

really. Someone will buy you a spice rack for like

29:06

your 40th one day, and then you'll know, then

29:08

you'll realize the ones that just remain sealed,

29:11

you're never going to use them. They are your

29:13

spice basement voids. Great stuff. I

29:15

was worried that was going to sound too middle class and it wasn't, so they're

29:17

great. Now we were talking about Bohemians

29:20

earlier, Charlie, bemoaning that the school

29:22

line didn't tell the full story of their game

29:25

against Shamrock Rovers. Chris Thompson writes in

29:27

now, says, score versus score line,

29:29

is there a difference? Where would one be used

29:32

over the other? Instinctively, Charlie, I feel like

29:34

score line is

29:35

completely unattached from a

29:37

game. You're talking about a score line that

29:39

could happen in a game, three, two, four,

29:42

two. And it's regardless of the context. A score

29:44

is the something that happened in an actual game. Yeah,

29:47

I think you would say, and we were talking about it, I can't

29:49

remember if you talked about it on the podcast or just off

29:51

air, but we were talking about four, two, and what an amazing

29:54

score line that is. I mean, we've already done

29:56

it on this pod, like the Bohemians thing was

29:59

a score line.

29:59

that doesn't tell the full story. It's

30:02

a, as you say, it's a four-two,

30:04

a seven-nil, a one-nil, whatever. You're addressing

30:06

the numbers specifically rather than the

30:08

result of the match. Exactly. Yeah,

30:11

so yeah, David, if I asked you what's your favourite score

30:14

line, I would say score line, I wouldn't say what's your favourite score,

30:16

that would sound weird, genuinely weird

30:18

thing to say. You'd be racking through your brain thinking

30:20

what's the best score I've ever seen at the end of an actual

30:23

match? Yeah, and you wouldn't be sitting in the car listening

30:25

to the radio going tell me the fucking score line.

30:27

That's absolutely true.

30:29

You'd

30:29

also talk about things like, you

30:32

know, that's not a pretty score line

30:34

at the end of the game, as if you're kind of reflecting

30:37

on it. Yeah, it's just the sight of the score

30:39

and nothing else, so it's very isolated. Yes,

30:41

exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah. What a crucial difference

30:44

that no one has ever messaged me about

30:46

before and we've no one in the history

30:48

of humanity has ever commented on, and Chris

30:51

Thompson has blown it apart. Like, if you'd

30:53

asked me, oh, I thought you went to see 1860 Munich

30:55

at the weekend, what was the score line? He

30:59

wouldn't say that, would you? You'd say, oh, what was the score? But

31:01

if you said 7-2, be like, God, that's a very

31:03

Sunday League score

31:04

line. You might say result though, and the result

31:07

gets in the way there. The result sits in the middle of the two,

31:09

I think, quite more versatile, because

31:11

you're looking at for the results, but 7-2

31:13

is also a result, but doesn't

31:15

quite have the score line in that

31:18

context. Great question, brilliantly

31:21

answered. Now, this is great. This is a

31:23

lovely new entry into footballer's

31:25

names creeping into popular culture. This

31:28

came from Dan and Andy, who are watching

31:30

Apple TV's new sci-fi show,

31:32

Silo, starring Rashida

31:35

Jones. Here's her

31:36

lead character.

31:50

Dave, on the balance of probabilities, I think Alison

31:52

Becker is a deliberate act. It has

31:54

to be. What are the chances?

31:57

Yeah,

31:58

surely, surely, because it's so... No,

32:00

it's not common. I mean, it's like,

32:03

when you said it was Sheeda Jones, I was thinking, what

32:05

names in the Premier League could plausibly

32:07

be female? And I mean, there probably are

32:09

a few more, but that is perfect. Alison

32:12

Becker. Too perfect. Yeah. Charlie,

32:15

I tend to frown on people who use his full name.

32:17

I just think it's odd. But in this

32:19

case, I'm happy to encourage it. How do

32:21

you feel about it? Not a pure

32:23

coincidence, surely? No. And I do

32:25

seem to remember it being spoken about

32:28

as a thing. And I suspect one of the writers just finds it quite

32:30

amusing that as many did the juxtaposition

32:32

of kind of quite flamboyant Brazilian

32:35

goalkeeper

32:35

with the name that we associate

32:38

with a kind of middle age woman, Alison Becker.

32:40

If it is a deliberate decision, and it's

32:42

a writer, you know, having a bit of

32:44

an in joke, but it's like, if you

32:47

are a football fan,

32:48

it takes you out of the moment straight away. Yeah.

32:51

In the show. And it will colour

32:53

your perception of that character. Maybe

32:56

this moment of dystopian, draconian

32:59

law enforcement is in spite of

33:01

the fact that Alison Becker continues to wear tights in

33:03

the Premier League in all weathers. If

33:06

there was a rival character in this show that

33:09

turns out to be called Edison de Maraisch.

33:14

That would be too telegraphed, I think, wouldn't it? Yeah.

33:17

A bit too much. Complete coincidence. Where

33:20

it is. Will McCartney writes in next, Charlie. He

33:22

says, what are the parameters for he saw his name

33:24

in the headlines there? If an audacious

33:26

attempt is well saved or just misses,

33:29

it would be a good effort. Must there be an unused passing

33:31

option? Can Harland, whose name is regularly

33:34

in the headlines, see his name in the headlines

33:36

in any instance? OK, so let's deal

33:38

with the core

33:39

concept here. In what footballing scenario

33:42

would a player see their name in the headlines or

33:44

see their name in lights? I was going to say, yeah, up in

33:46

lights is the other one as well, isn't it? Yeah. I

33:49

think the ideal combination is it's a player

33:51

who doesn't score very often, going

33:53

for a spectacular goal from range,

33:55

because then his name really would be up in lights. And

33:58

I think if he's ignoring an option, because I think that's a good idea.

33:59

I think there's a little bit of a knowing chuckler

34:02

where he saw his name up in lights there didn't he? Doesn't

34:05

get many. Charlie's onto something here Dave, it's definitely kind of, it's a slight

34:08

sort of rush of blood

34:09

for a player who is unaccustomed to being in that

34:11

position. So that's the first thing and I think there's

34:13

extra context here. I think it has to be quite a potentially

34:16

pivotal moment in a game. It can

34:18

like potentially maybe a winning goal or

34:20

quite a decisive

34:23

moment. I don't think it's a long range

34:25

effort though, Dave, necessarily. I think

34:27

it's maybe more of a clear

34:29

cut chance but then they go for something quite emphatic

34:32

and it doesn't work. So like a

34:34

defender who finds themselves

34:36

in the box, say like a corner's come

34:38

back in and they've got a relatively easy

34:41

chance or presentable chance in

34:43

the box and they've sort of snatched

34:45

at the finish or they completely miss it or

34:47

they just blaze it over

34:49

the bar. Blazing over the bar,

34:51

I think would be a great idea

34:53

here. Charlie, I do sympathise with your

34:55

suggestion there because it's kind of ambition, isn't

34:58

it? Like misplaced ambition. Yeah, because

35:00

I think what's the big thing that's going to make

35:02

their name be up in lights is the spectacularity,

35:05

to use an Ars Invenger word, of the

35:07

goal. Because I'm not sure their name would be up

35:09

in lights otherwise if it's just a kind of routine

35:11

finish, unless it's just such a big moment.

35:14

So you're suggesting that they kind of... I think that's the driving force. I

35:16

think the driving force of having your name in the

35:18

headlines is the fact that you did something

35:21

big in the game.

35:21

I don't think a good goal in its own right would

35:23

put you in the headlines, would you be a good goal? In

35:25

a literal sense, yes. But I think in this one,

35:27

I think it is more about that than actually

35:30

the moment because I think then

35:32

it's a less whimsical... In your example, it's

35:34

more like, ah, it just wasn't the player you

35:36

wanted that to fall to or it's just snatched at it

35:38

a little bit. I think there's more at

35:40

stake there, whereas I think the Sora's name up in lights

35:42

is a bit more whimsical of a

35:45

kind of chuckle, almost like you had

35:47

a bit of a nosebleed there sort of thing. Okay.

35:51

So at a more minor

35:51

point, Dave, he says, can Harland

35:54

ever find himself in a situation where he sees his name

35:56

in the headlines? You have to rule it out, really,

35:58

don't you?

35:59

any of these contexts would ever apply

36:02

to him?

36:03

No, because he's too prolific.

36:05

He's so used to having his name

36:07

up in lights. He's got an all year

36:09

round residency. I think

36:12

the only thing with him would be if he was, he'd already

36:14

scored five and he was looking to score like the Premier League's

36:16

first ever double hat trick,

36:17

there might be a chuckle of a... he wanted the

36:20

record more, but

36:23

still could be, you know, he

36:25

saw the headlines there, he wanted number six.

36:27

Yeah, maybe, maybe. So

36:29

it's a movable feast for depending on

36:31

what your benchmark is. That's fine. Okay,

36:34

this was good. This was really good. This

36:37

is Leanko heading Southampton

36:39

back into the game early in the second half against Forrest.

36:49

I've

36:51

never heard this before, Charlie. Is a substitute

36:54

goal worse than a captain's goal,

36:56

surely? Yeah, I was thinking about this. We've

36:58

discussed captain's goal before, haven't we? A substitute's

37:01

goal. I don't get

37:03

it. I don't think, I just can't imagine what it

37:05

means. Yeah, I don't... It's

37:07

a very specific thing to say, but I

37:09

can't imagine what the intention would be here. I

37:12

think it's just to quickly convey that he's scored

37:14

as a substitute. Yes. I don't think there's

37:16

really any sense that it's a particularly substituety

37:19

kind of

37:19

goal, of which we can argue whether

37:21

there is such a thing. I'm not sure there is.

37:24

This is the other part of it, Dave. I don't think there is

37:26

a substituety type of goal. Popping up

37:28

at the back post, nicking one. That could be

37:30

anybody. Yeah, it could be. Fresh

37:32

legs running through really quickly when everyone else is knackered.

37:35

Is that a substitute's goal? Maybe, possibly.

37:38

Was Torres a sub when he scored that goal at the new

37:40

camp? That looks a little bit like a substitute's

37:43

goal. I couldn't say he was. I think he

37:45

was, because that was when Drogba was so the main man,

37:47

wasn't it?

37:48

Was that a sub... He's just

37:50

on as fresh legs basically, and he shows he's

37:52

got fresh legs. He's watching and thinking,

37:55

oh, he's not attuned to the game. He's

37:57

going to fuck it up. He's not up to speed.

37:59

Wasn't there the Solskjaer thing that he was so good as a

38:02

superstar because he'd be watching, analysing

38:04

the opposition players as he went on? There's

38:06

no specific type of goal that lends

38:08

itself to it. It's just a goal by a substitute, isn't it,

38:10

Dave? Torres did come on in the 80th minute of

38:13

that game. There you go. Oh, right, so he didn't have

38:15

much time to get up to speed. There we go. Substitute's

38:18

goal. I just never heard it before, ever, ever. There

38:20

we go. Ben Wright from the same game, Dave,

38:22

says, very disturbed by forest defender Felipe

38:24

doing the geeing the crowd up gesture after

38:27

getting fouled in a defensive position in the 61st minute.

38:29

What are the most and least appropriate gee

38:32

up the crowd moments? That's very much at the

38:34

lowest end of the spectrum, I would say.

38:36

I mean, winning a foul

38:38

to eat up some precious

38:41

seconds, but even then it's the 61st minute.

38:44

So it's probably the most

38:46

tenuous situation to gee up a crowd in.

38:48

That's just relief, if anything. Is the geeing up

38:50

always related to the previous incident?

38:53

Sometimes it's just a break in play and

38:55

they're just feeling the atmosphere and they want

38:57

to just gee up the crowd. It's a

39:00

big game, big occasion, a game they

39:02

had to win, really. The ideal

39:04

of one is if you're Seamus Coleman

39:06

or someone that's already a quite feverish atmosphere

39:09

at Goodison Park and you go in with either a big

39:11

tackle, I think then you can gee them up. Out wide.

39:14

Always out wide, especially if you're

39:17

him, or they can't get out.

39:18

The opposition team just really can't get out and you go

39:20

and block them and you force a throw

39:23

deep in their own half. I think you're then going crazy

39:25

at the crowd to get on them even more. Top

39:28

notch. I think that can only be beaten

39:30

for its suitability for geeing up the crowd by

39:33

a

39:33

monumental block

39:36

in the last minute to stop a high XG chance

39:38

for the opposition. At that point

39:40

you could probably gee them up. But in that

39:43

sense you're more likely to be swamped by teammates.

39:46

You don't necessarily have the space to gee up the crowd and

39:48

you're independent. I think it is an out

39:50

wide-y thing because you're near, or if you're in the corner,

39:52

you're near the fans. And the crowd wouldn't

39:55

need geeing up in that moment either because

39:57

they're already going mental about what you've

39:59

done.

39:59

there has to be a disconnect between the

40:03

spectacle of what you've done. So I think the

40:05

Seamus Coleman out wide scenario

40:07

is good. Because it's also partly performative

40:09

in that example. It's showing like we're so

40:12

pleased with how much we're sort of stopping

40:14

you from playing out. There was a good one

40:16

at Watford when they played Spurs

40:18

in 2019, I think. Right,

40:22

of course yeah, go on. Where Troy

40:25

Deeney just shoulder-bodged Davinson

40:28

Sanchez off the pitch. Fair

40:31

challenge and I think we won a corner from

40:33

it or something. But it was just such an emphatic,

40:36

just bash off you go son. And he

40:38

then did the geeing up of the crowd. Winning in

40:40

corners. We scored from the resulting corner I think

40:42

as well. Because it was that 2018? Was that when Watford

40:44

started the season really well? Eight is the start of the season.

40:46

Yeah, they won four in a row. 18-19, yeah

40:48

it's all good. But

40:51

yeah, no, winning a corner very good for geeing up crowds.

40:53

Because you've got,

40:55

in most cases you'll have a crowd essentially

40:57

surrounding you in that situation. So it's a great

41:00

geeing up moment like conducting an orchestra. There we go. Right,

41:02

this came from Paul Elliott who was watching MasterChef

41:05

Australia.

41:05

What's the dish please? I've done

41:08

my take on a tuna tartare.

41:10

Why this dish? Well, going into

41:13

the pantry and seeing the yellowfin

41:15

tuna. I guess that's sort of the Rolls

41:17

Royce of the sea. I only included this Charlie

41:19

because I'm not convinced that the yellowfin

41:21

tuna is the Rolls Royce. It's

41:24

a huge claim. There are

41:26

other massive claimants to this

41:28

title. I mean a lobster. Am

41:31

I sort of preoccupying myself too much with

41:33

the end result as a foodstuff?

41:36

Yeah, I think that's an

41:37

interesting subplot

41:41

here. Yeah, are we talking about how

41:43

they move when they're in the sea? Or

41:46

yeah, once they are caught and prepared.

41:48

It's a huge point. Clearly the lobster

41:50

in a dining sense is more Rolls Royce

41:53

but not in a movement sense. In

41:55

a movement sense, would it be like a

41:58

killer whale or something?

41:59

I think one of the whales, humpback,

42:02

because blue's too big, blue's like a juggernaut. Yeah,

42:04

I was going to say, I don't think you want it to be one of the big beasts

42:06

of the whale world, because that's

42:09

not quite right for old roars. But dolphins,

42:11

or are they too nippy? They're

42:14

too nippy. But Porsches, they're

42:16

like Porshaped as well, aren't they? So they're

42:18

the Porsches of the sea.

42:21

Yeah it is quite... one

42:23

of the sharks, maybe.

42:25

No, you think about it, maybe the tuners are fine

42:27

then.

42:29

It's a delicious fish. So

42:32

all round is quite Rolls Royce, from

42:34

sea to plate. They are quite big, aren't they?

42:36

Tuners, quite big fish. So they do

42:38

have the size element. Yeah, big old boys.

42:41

Big boys. Fine, right, good.

42:43

Who are the basement boys of the ocean? Right

42:47

down in Mariana Trench. Yeah,

42:49

there's really weird fish at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

42:52

Genuine literal basement boys. No

42:54

keys in grey corner today, simply because

42:56

the only keys in grey material from the weekend was

42:59

a six minute video of record breaking

43:01

stuff from the Be In Sports coverage of

43:03

Keesee just laying into Eric Tenharg again.

43:07

I just didn't have the energy for it, there's

43:09

nothing more to say. I had the pleasure

43:11

of seeing Be

43:13

In

43:14

live in Germany on Sunday.

43:16

There was a big moment there. For Newcastle

43:19

against Arsenal, it was Kees, Grey

43:22

and Macateer in the studio. Separate

43:26

removing yourself from the keys in grey corner

43:28

phenomenon for a moment. Is it good coverage?

43:31

Well, I didn't see enough of it really. I

43:33

just saw them, we got in there quite soon

43:36

before the game, so it was basically just Keesee

43:38

throwing to go.