Before we get to the late Queen, mourning precedence for me goes to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last top leader of the Soviet Union. His time in his nation's throne of power was much more brief than Queen Elizabeth II's time in her throne of display, but more consequential on the whole. Even if the gains in global security from the end to the USSR vs. USA Cold War are fading rapidly, he gets the thanks of history for his instrumental role in the sudden fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Communist dictatorship at home. Sad that so many long for its return there.
I have never lived when there was another reigning monarch in Great Britain, yet the story of that monarchy is as close as ever to our history, separated by only a couple hundred years. Not even; lands near to us both north an south still profess loyalty to the throne (at least so far; let's see how they take to King Charles III). Elizabeth was a worthy heir to the storied tradition of the British monarchy, and she took to her duty proudly. If she seemed to be the moralistic bourgeois scold, maybe we failed to remember that, in the royal family, affairs of the heart are really affairs of the state. She was just doing her job, like making sure she had a nice long list of male heirs when she died. We can be sure she brought a sharp intelligence to it, and according to many, a keen sense of humor. Above all, she observed the limits, and did her part to make sure others did, too.
She doesn't deserve from the British any of the Gorbachevian blame Russians assign to him for the diminution (or end, depending on how you see it) of the Russian Empire. When she took over the role (1952), the biggest piece of her one, India/Pakistan, had already sheared off, and much more was already in progress, peacefully or not. She was expected to preside over a whole bunch more of independence-minded colonial subjects cutting her loose, to a greater or lesser extent. The Commonwealth thing was a mostly well-intentioned effort to keep British fingers in the pie and reduce lingering resentments felt toward the former masters. She did her best to keep a good humo(u)r about it all: More than how she felt about so-and-so, I would be interested in her attitudes at the time toward this somewhat hopeful, but also tragic, experience driven by necessity. Like, what about Africa?
Britain politically is in deep trouble, not that Charles can do anything about it. By coincidence, the change of government nearly coincided with the Queen's passing, so the new Prime Minister had to meet with His Excellency. 'Best of luck', I'm sure was his counsel (a command?). Maybe the grieving period will find some sort of new resolve for the pandemic-stricken nation. In the meantime, Liz Truss, well-supported (if only within her own party's membership), will lead a patchwork clique of rightist Brexiteers right over the electoral cliff two years away. Or maybe she won't. Last that long, I mean.
None of this matters much in its relation to US foreign policy toward Europe, which is deterministic under the current wartime circumstances--they need us, and we will support any of them. Even the neo-fascist-tending new government likely to arise from Italy's next election, because it will be pro-US.
As for 'This here' nation, with two whole months left until Election Day, we are firmly fixated on our navel. What women see then is disturbing them. What has changed? A little of everything, but mostly the Supreme Court's decision. The Patriarchy is a real target. The play to make the election a referendum on a failed Biden Administration has itself been played out. There's a choice, and it's Biden vs. Trump, though neither is on the ballot. Those are real changes, but mostly in our moods; all of these have been in the cards, now played on the table.
As for the all-important Senate contest, I continue to say that 50-50 is the most likely outcome, though there is more chance of 51-49 D than 49-51. I firmly expect Democrats to hold AZ and win PA. GA is not likely to be decided Election Night, and NH may be too close to make an early call, so then the focus should be on NV (most vulnerable Dem incumbent), NC (open seat), and WI (most vulnerable Republican incumbent). If the Democrats can win one of those three, it may be clear Election Night and thus make continued Democratic control somewhat assured (50-49 in that scenario, with GA determined later). The way things look now, it may take a couple days before the outcome of enough House races are clear in order to determine control there.
Changes...in Sport
Major League Baseball released its rules changes for 2023 today. Long under consideration, their general objective is a game played more swiftly, with more "balls in play" (not just a strikeout, walk, or home run). One is a fixed time between pitches, with some reasonable allowances for either the pitcher or hitter (to briefly perform essential functions, like grabbing his crotch or spitting); the second is a larger base for the runner to touch (more about that in a moment). The third, and most controversial, is the creation of a restriction on the positioning of the defense. Infielders need to be positioned at the start of the play with two on either side of an imaginary line going from the home plate, through the pitching rubber to second base, and they also can't start the play in the outfield.
I'm against this rule. I don't like that major league teams can successfully employ extreme shifts in their defensive alignment, but if it works, it's because hitters aren't able to take advantage of them. The all-or-nothing swing has combined with the sharp breaking stuff pitchers are coming out with to create record low batting averages. But why constrain the strategy of teams to something less-than-optimal? I foresee a lot of issues with fielders running laterally with the pitch to get into a better position or angle to defend where the batter is known to hit. For me, a good compromise would draw from the volleyball "libero" position which solved the problem: one fielder would be able to position himself anywhere in fair territory--he'd probably be the shortstop, but not necessarily so.
The 'expanded bag' decision is a reform I agree with entirely. It will promote safety and make stolen base attempts significantly more attractive. And more successful: the secret reason for the change is to cut down on that odious play where the fielder takes the throw after the base-stealer has just reached the bag, holds a tag firmly down on the runner and hopes he loses contact with the bag for an instant as he decelerates. Increasing the square length from 15" to 18" saves the runner only three inches (something that was mentioned, telling me that the length between bases is not so sacrosanct) but increases its surface area more than 40%.
Which brings me to my radical idea to improve batting averages, and to get hitters to think not just about slugging, but hitting: I suggest reducing the distance from home to first, by the proverbial "half a step". Now, that will improve the infamous, stubborn BABIP (Batting Average on balls in play), more than this set of changes! Some other time I may fly that "kite" in a fuller exposition.
Tennis gets next mention for its change, generational in nature. The current US Open men's tourney is cementing it. Frances Tiafoe and Nick Kyrgios winning over Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev signaled rapid movement away from the Big 3 era of men's tennis, and even from the recent transitional, pandemic-era Three or Four Guys Chasing the Big 3 Era*. The symbol of the New Order just officially begun was the 5 1/2-hour Jannik Sinner vs. Carlos Alcaraz quarterfinal the other night, so good I couldn't turn it off at whatever a.m.
Alcaraz stands out as the one who will define this New Age. If he completes his run in the US Open by defeating spectral nice-guy Casper Ruud, he will become the youngest ATP #1-ranked men's player in history--by a couple of years. His athletic ability is truly off all charts of normal distribution, and he shows a lot of tactical tennis smarts and even strategic acumen. And no sign of getting tired, however many five-set matches. I don't know how long he could keep that combination intact, but for that amount of time he is always going to be nearly impossible to defeat, the way Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal have been, except when playing each other.
As for the women's game, an unusual amount of order is developing. The period since the decline from the near-total domination by just-retired Serena Williams, some five years long, has been chaotic. There have typically been four different champions in the four Grand Slam events, each coming seemingly from nowhere. Then it looked like Naomi Osaka would dominate, but she freaked at the tsunami of fame. Ash Barty had a firm grip on #1, but then almost immediately dropped it for other interests (like getting married, it turns out). We now have Iga Swiatek, humble but consistent, taking on talented Tunisian Ons Jabeur, with Coco Gauff in the wings, nearly ready for her time on central stage. Some pretty amazing diversity going on there, at the top of the women's game.
I have only one relatively minor radical suggestion for tennis. Since the men's Grand Slams insist on being 3-of-5 sets throughout, while the rest of the season is 2-of-3, make the sets to five games instead of six. It would be less a battle of attrition and would get to the point--the tie-breaker--in those sets where there is no edge emerging. Better TV, too, or should I not mention that?
I give NCAA college football credit for recognizing what is better TV and going with it. The expansion in their playoffs (the CFP, get used to the TLA^) from four teams to 12 that they have announced recently is impressive, and it puts to shame all those conniving conference con artists with their empire-building schemes (the SEC and "Big 10").
The lesson, quite simply, is that more playoffs, with more teams, is better. The NBA reminded us of this recently as its already-bloated 16-team playoffs expanded even further with the Play-In improvisation during the pandemic, which is now permanently in place. Major League Baseball also bumped its playoff participant number once again, though this year it doesn't seem to be adding more pennant races, just more teams with postseason participation, their aspirations soon to be crushed by the Dodgers and Astros.
In general, the further down the ranking that the cutoff between the Interested and the Uninteresting may lie, the better for league health. Less critical press, more engaged fans.
*The Three or Four Guys I'm thinking of are Dominik Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Daniil Medvedev, and Sasha Zverev. I'm hoping Zverev recovers completely to challenge the new, younger, guns.
^Three-Letter Acronym.
Posts
