On the Killing of the Six Hostages

I have been thinking about this horror which I heard about only last night, and I am going to write what I think is going on, in blunt terms. 

The report is that the Israeli forces found the hostages already dead, and they estimated that they had been killed three or four days before.  Although the chances Israeli assaults might accidentally kill hostages are high, I find this report credible, if unproven.  

Let's go with that report and what it means.  Israel has had to send out warnings to evacuate from areas they are considering for attack in the very short term.  Not doing so would multiply civilian deaths beyond their already outrageous levels.  My supposition is that Hamas has developed a new strategy:  kill the hostages held in those areas with known risk of assault, before the IDF can get there. 

It has a cold-hearted logic, and the implications for Israeli offensive actions against Hamas are clear:  attack, and they die.  The chances for Israeli surprise rescue assaults, I would suspect, are now very few.  They are left with no good reason to continue with their generally unsuccessful posture of attacking as the best way to get the hostages free, in the context of Hamas intransigence.  I am sure they don't have any good leads about how to take out the top Hamas leaders, regardless of the cost, or they would have done so.

It is time for Israel to declare a unilateral cease-fire, for a period of a couple of weeks or so, with the expectation Hamas would move during that time to make the cease-fire continue by releasing their hostages or making commitments to do so immediately.  If they do that, Israel would not renew hostilities so long as Hamas does not do so. 

I see no risk whatsoever for Israel to do that, beyond the damage Hamas will likely cause when they break the cease-fire with Israel still mobilized for active defense.  It won't even require Netanyahu to resign, if he can pull it off.  If Hamas refuses to release their hostages (something they have offered to do, but under relaxed security conditions Israel would not accept at the time) they would just go back to killing each other--nothing has been lost.  Israel would have to be somewhat stoic with their unilateral cease-fire until Hamas/Islamic Jihad violations inevitably cool down and avoid retaliation, or make that retaliation extremely limited and targeted.  They have the ability to do that.

If Hamas does not agree, it is time for the women of Gaza to slit the throats of their oppressors while they sleep. 

Inflection Point

 President Biden (praise be!) would typically cite the phrase in speeches in discussion of the US' place in history and of the status of elections in our constitutional republic.  I think that, typically, the phrase was not really getting across to the public in that fashion, and especially to those swing voters he was trying to attract.  

An inflection point can be described as a change in the direction of a graphical curve. In a broader sense, it means a turning point. Biden believes that 2024's election is such a turning point.  I suggested something similar in my rant about the "precipice" at the beginning of the year.  This election can clearly be seen as the climax of something, this battle of our political norms vs. Trumpism. On behalf of all, even the Trumpists, there is a belief that this election will be decisive.  

I can clearly see an inflection point, and it is not on Election Day (at least not yet, it could still happen) but it already happened, on July 21, when Biden chose to announce he would end his campaign for re-election and suggest Vice-President Harris for the party's nomination. Before that, Biden's standing v. Trump was trending downward, slowly, but seemingly without any positive inflection in sight (first derivative negative, second derivative=0).  Since then, a month with a favorable sequence of events, all evidence shows steady improvement in the public's view of the Democrats' ticket.

Where does Kamala's trend go from here?   My estimate of the gain since 7/21 is 3-5%, from down 1-2% (Biden or Harris vs. Trump) to up 2-3%.  One change that contributed to the gain since 7/21 was the collapse of RFKJR's candidacy, which, along with Harris replacing Biden, has made this much more a head-to-head, two-person race. Roughly speaking, the popular vote now looks to be about 48-46 Harris-Walz over Trump, with some 3% insisting on another individual and 3% undecided.

Those 3% are probably more like "don't know", meaning that they don't know anything about it that they will admit to knowing.  Those particular folks may not end up voting, unless something really grabs their attention (like a war threat).  Regardless, some combination of changes will bring the numbers up to 100% total (with the 3% 'other').  There isn't more than that amount (3%) of downside to the current percentages I suggested, for either candidate, if that much.  Trump's popular vote floor I would say is 43%, and Harris' 45%, which is where Biden was when he stopped.  I will say, though, that a 3% downward move for either from the current level would absolutely lead to a landslide.  So, the time is one of vulnerability, avoiding harm, even as Harris may gain even a bit more during her campaign's post-convention afterglow. Another debate looms; another inflection point is likely before November, though that could be an acceleration (less likely), a reversal--let's hope not, a plateauing (most likely). Or maybe not, just a steady increase, all the way. Sounds good.

 

Graph of the Predictit market for Democrats winning Presidential election by 35-64 Electoral Votes, from May 26 to August 25, 2024.

Is National Popular Vote Irrelevant?

Clearly I don't think so, as that's what I've been discussing--using its estimator, the polling averages.

I often see it suggested as being meaningless by Republicans who are on the defensive because they would lose by that measure every time these days.  (2004 the only recent exception)  I would argue that, instead, it is a measure for which there is ample data and one that, broadly speaking, can be used to provide a key measure useful to predict outcome in the critical states. .     

If we look at the percentage vote for one of the parties in the Presidential elections within these states, it is not at all static.  It rises up and down with the relative fortunes of the party.  However, there is less movement relative to the overall popular vote, and even moreso if one looks at the order of these states on that measure.  

To take an example, North Carolina's popular vote percentage margin for Democratic presidential candidates, as compared to the overall US popular vote margin, resulted the following in the last four elections:  -7.0 (2008), -5.9 (2012), -5.8 (2016), and -5.9 (2020).  (Note:  2008, the worst of the four data points, was the one when the Democrats won the state!)  So, you could estimate that the US Democratic margin nationally should be above 6% to favor their chances. 

Let's look at that measure, which also shows some distinctive trends in individual states vs. the national voting, and some conclusions that may be drawn from it: 

 

State	2008	2012	2016	2020	Comment
Nevada	+5.2	+2.8	+0.3	-2.1	Negative trend; projects to -4
Michigan	+9.1	+5.6	-2.3	-1.7	Projects to -2
Pennsylvania	+3.0	+1.5	-3.1	-3.3	Projects to -3
Wisconsin	+6.6	+3.0	-2.9	-3.9	Projects to -3 or -4
Arizona	-15.8	-12.9	-5.6	-4.2	Improved rapidly; projects to -3
Georgia	-12.5	-11.7	-7.2	-4.3	Changing rapidly toward D; projects -3 to -1
Florida	-4.5	-3.0	-3.3	-7.7	Not out of reach if Dems +4; 2020 looks like an outlier

In terms of rank order of this measure, GA, AZ, and NC have consistently been lowest, MI at or near the highest, and PA right in the middle.  With all these swing states below the national average in 2020--a high turnout year like 2008, and like 2024 is likely to be, it is clear that those who say Harris-Walz will need a clear lead in the popular vote, like 3 or 4%, have the recent data on their side.  At the same time, though, a lead of 5-6% might lead to an Electoral Vote "landslide" of 100 EV or more, and much more if FL flips. 

This model doesn't take into account specific variations and their possible causes; I would suggest the outlook in Wisconsin looks more favorable than this because of the Walz effect.  Turnout nationally, and its effect on the US national popular vote, will be up for Democrats because New York and California are so critical for regaining control of the House and will get extra attention, which will boost the Democratic vote margin, without doing much in some of the swing states. 

With a 50-45 popular vote margin, which I think is quite likely, this projects to a 297-219 lead for Harris-Walz, with Nevada and North Carolina too close to call and Georgia, once again, somehow on the Democrats' side.  On the other hand, if it finishes 49-47,by this model Harris would lose Pennsylvania, where Democratic turnout totally matters, and most likely the election as well.  The margins are fine. 

Unfortunately, though exit polls might help, the popular vote takes days to assume its final shape.  So we are left to lean upon the unwieldy support of the polling averages. That is, if we don't want to go by the even more inconsistent measure of polling averages in the several states.

 

 

The Politics of Joy

You will surely hear the phrase more times as journalists try to chronicle the sensational roll-out of the Harris-Walz ticket through the Democratic party convention.  It is accurate, and Walz has presented it to us in his praise of VP Harris' gift of joy in rising to meet her great challenge.  I don't think he's declared the phrase as such, either, so let's get that out of the way. 

We shouldn't take it too far, though:  after all, it is the theme given to the failed candidacy of another VP nominee selected under special circumstances, the "happy warrior" Hubert Horatio Humphrey (HHH).  That itself is a title which both VP Harris and Gov. Walz would gladly assume. 

It's the emotion of the season, and there's plenty of need for it. Wall Street failed to intrude upon it with a sizable single-day drop, Trump and Vance flail ineffectively in the face of it, collapse of the peace initiative in the Mideast cannot break through it, though it may try. 

 We must resolve, in the face of it all, to

 Learn from history and elect Humphrey, not Nixon, this time.

 Do not let the tragedy of '68 become the farce of '24.

There is no better, nor easier, way to express politically this long-awaited euphoria than through the high drama of the summer Olympics we have been able to experience right now. There is almost too much--even if we just limit ourselves to gold medal winners just from Team USA.   There is no reason to limit our excitement just to the winners of gold, nor just those competitors from our country. 

That nationalism--the inevitable need to take our side, to the detriment of the other--is the part of the Olympics I like least, despite my pride and my rooting interest for our team.  At least I can say that they have been so busy on the network they haven't had time to bore us with the national anthem, over and over again. Though I'm glad I have some chance to avoid it,  I have some sympathy for those who have to cover it, anyway.  I would choose to exempt everyone from enduring it until the final day of the meet, in the case of swimming, gymnastics, track and field.   That would be something, hearing all the different national anthems of the various countries of the winners, with all the medal winners present. 

Anyway, Cole Hacker. Katie Ledecky.  LeBron James. Quincy Hall. Leon Marchand. Kenneth Rooks.  Grant Holloway. Noah Lyles. Simone Biles. Mijan Lopez Nunez.  Daniel Roberts. Grant Fisher. Kristen Faulkner. Hampton Morris. Rai Benjamin  Shinnosuke Oka. Matt Anderson. and Roje Stona, of course.  Those were just the ones whose exploits I saw, live (or I thought so:  those network guys are tricky, but nothing in prime time was live). 

To sum up this year's Olympics experience, I would use the words greater depth and breadth.  More sports have more competitive teams or individuals.  Similarly, the USA team broadened the range of events in which they were competitive.  And, of course, Paris.  The Olympics should settle upon a set of 8-10 cities with all the facilities and history of hosting (maybe adding one in Africa, somewhere safe?), and Paris should be one of them. 

What's Missing in this Olympics? 

Well, baseball.  Also softball.  Partly, the problem is that the Olympics event is in the middle of the baseball season, but the Winter Olympics manages it with ice hockey, and  MLB could be induced to allow international players to take a couple weeks off. 

 I watched some of several of the less-celebrated sports:  Archery showed amazing skill, table tennis matches were long but often dramatic, with great audience support. Water polo is a brutal game, like wrestling but underwater, and it is one of the games in which the shooter has the edge over the goalie.  Same is true of team handball, which is a lot like basketball but with a much bigger goal. The other extreme is hockey (also known as field hockey), where the ball hugs the ground and the sticks are great for ball control but not for beating the goalie.Tennis (also known as lawn tennis, though they played on clay in Paris) got a raw deal from the network.  Yes, matches are long, but there were a lot of channels with very little of interest going on.  (The best TV of the Olympics was in these off-channels, where they would use as filler after events some shots from the pool of critical moments in matches, and then with interviews with medal winners, without narration.)

As one who loves the long, lead pass, team handball sometimes has some nice ones, but it seems that mostly it is breaking down defenses in set positions.  Water polo has some nice one-touch cross-pool passes, executed with one hand above the surface, but the long passes just kind of end up sitting on the water.  The sport which would please me most if it were added for the Los Angeles Olympics would be Ultimate Frisbee.  It's a lot like some of the other sports (like soccer) where skllful passing moves the "ball" down the field.  Because of the frisbee's aerodynamic qualities, it lingers in the air longer, allowing some incredible lead passes. Like in football, just as long, but better.

A Little More on Baseball

 About 30% of the regular season remains.  Enough time for a lot to happen, but the scope of possible outcomes is limited by performance year-to-date. 

It's now understood that, in the current expanded playoff format, just making it into the final 12 (six in each league) is the main task.  Any of those teams can make it into the World Series by getting hot and getting some good starting pitching in short playoff series.  The bye and home-field advantage that the top two division winners get don't seem to provide much advantage against a hot wild-card team that has already taken a series. 

Still, it's better to be safely in the playoffs; the teams with their spot booked can experiment with lineup changes and get their pitching rotation exactly as they want.  Not many teams are in that position, though: the Phillies, Brewers and the Dodgers have division leads in the NL which should hold up, while the two  top AL records,  AL East teams the Yankees and Orioles, should have safe berths, though the division title remains a close contest.. That's about it .

Recent weeks have produced some hot teams that may monopolize most of the remaining wild card slots.  In the NL West, the Padres have the team and have emerged as the leading wild-card candidate, with last year's World Series runner-up, the Diamondbacks, close behind.  That would leave one spot, and about seven or eight teams trying to get it.  The Braves should be favored for it, but the Mets could take it.  NL Central also-rans the Cardinals and Pirates are getting attention for rebounding from poor 2023 seasons and playing at least .500 ball (winning half their games), but they will probably need to be 8-10 games above to make it.  In the AL Central, the Royals and Twins are the teams that have emerged as leaders for the second and third wild cards, even challenging the Guardians (nee Indians), who've led the division by a goodly margin most of the season.  In the AL West, surprisingly weak performance means only one team is likely to make it, and that team is surely going to be the Houston Astros, with early leaders the Mariners and last year's World Series champion Rangers left out. 

It's been an exciting season, with two standout slugging performers:  Aaron Judge for the Yanks and Shohei Ohtani for the Dodgers.  Many records are in danger from those two. 

I will close with mention of Billy Bean, a former major leaguer who became a groundbreaking baseball team General Manager.  He helped bring serious statistical approaches to the management of major-league baseball teams.  I will leave the fuller eulogies for Bob Costas, or better, Michael Lewis, who studied his accomplishments more. 

Note:  Some updates added in Comment 8/24....

Biden Out...For Real!

 First, I refer all to my previous post from last September, "Biden Out", if you haven't already looked upon it. It was a good effort at creative prognostication: I had some things right and some wrong; most notably I never thought President Biden could be convinced that someone else would have a better chance than he to defeat Trump, which was the critical consideration.  Though it would seem at this moment that it is clear which scenario we will have all the way to November, and I certainly don't expect Biden to return to active campaigning for the nomination, it  is still possible for a "Trump Collapse" to occur, for Trump to join Biden on the sidelines, or for "Chaos" to take over the campaign (as it might have done if Crooks' bullet had found its presumed mark, or if the Democrats' attempt to improvise a Harris bandwagon loses its wheels). 

Next, I give full credit to our President for realizing that the dynamics were pushing him inevitably toward dropping out.  The poll numbers did not move immediately after his debate failure, but they were moving, consistently, and his deficit was getting beyond the margin of error.  He commissioned polling on VP Harris to run against Trump, and I'm guessing it was a couple points better than his numbers.  Then, to top it off, he got back out on the campaign trail and immediately came down with Covid, which was being stubborn and which no doubt changes one's mood.  The rebellion of insecure Democratic Congresspeople paused for a few days but was once again mobilizing against his continuing on. In spite of all this, he deserves a huge salute for being willing to do the right thing, and for immediately endorsing his VP. 

There will be a process, and some fool may even stand up to oppose Harris' nomination, but she will get it. There's no time for developing any organized resistance, there's no sign of it yet, and there's no real reason for it.  She can go out and "prosecute the case against Trump" (as everyone has noted, indirectly referring to the prosecutor jobs which made her career) while Biden continues on as President.  I see no chance he will not complete his term unless he has a total physical collapse; he really wants to nail down the end to the carnage in Gaza. 

Initially, she will only get a small bump, if any, but the downward momentum will stop. The campaign will generate a lot of new money, which will make a difference down the road.  I see a lot of potential to bounce right over Trump in the popular vote, though the Electoral College is still going to be a great challenge, and the Senate even more so.  The change will help in particular the desperate effort to get control of the House, the only vestige of Federal power the Democrats are likely to have unless they can defeat Trump. It wouldn't be much, but it would keep some very bad laws from coming into effect.  (If laws even matter, if Trump wins.  I'm trying not to think that way, though, at least today.)

I'd like to see Kamala make a statement Biden was never willing to make (though some falsely accused him of saying it) and announce that she would only serve the one term from 2025-2029.  That would first of all ensure that those hungry Democratic governors who were planning to run in 2028 would not make the mistake of challenging her now; it would keep the focus on defeating Trump, and it would put a finite end on the Obama/Biden/Harris succession and provide some fresh air for the future campaign (which would begin in 2025, no doubt). 

Personally, I have been advocating for candidates for President to show a willingness to serve one term only.  The evidence is pretty strong that second-terms bring poor government; the self-limiting nature of such a decision as President Biden has made is a perfect example for the future.  Generally, anyone who wants to be President all that much (as Trump does, frankly to keep himself out of prison) should never be considered. I would support a constitutional amendment to make the Presidency a single term, of five or six years, and further to create a permanent office with significant powers able to investigate any of the branches of the Federal government, independent of the Department of Justice.  (The New FBI?)

This was a tough day for Joe Biden, but a good day for America.  And that means a bad day for Trump-Vance. 

This Is The Day...

 of our maximum discontent.

There is literally nothing I will allow myself to watch tonight, so I have sworn not to turn it on.  (That includes streaming, which I basically don't do anyway.)

Not even the All-Star Game, which in baseball terms is something less than the real thing--that was over a couple nights ago, providing a few moments of relief.  Regular baseball action starts back up tomorrow.   

The Cups--of Europe and of the Western Hemisphere--of soccer have concluded--congratulations to Spain and Argentina.  It was a big test, before the World Cup in 2026, for coaches' ability to put functional teams together.  Some passed the test, others will lose their jobs. 

Wimbledon is over.  Alcaraz established himself as King of the Hill, though there will be a multi-sided effort to dethrone him at the US Open in a couple of months.  Sinner is still the points leader, but Carlos is on the warpath.  On the women's singles side, chaos continues to reign at Wimbledon.  Swiatek hasn't figured the grass out quite yet, and Sabalenka bowed out. The title went to Barbora Krejcikova of Czechia, for her this was not her first chaotic rodeo victory. 

The Olympics - not yet. I'm not so hardcore that I have to watch NBA Summer League. MLS (Major League Soccer) doesn't tend to hold my interest for long. 

And then there's the news, which I am strenuously avoiding, all week.  Not interested in watching the selected Republican bootlickers, nor in seeing the nominee's speech, or the discussion of it before, during, or afterwards.  I am certain that Trump profiled his new con:  pretending to be a normal political candidate in a constitutional republic.  Don't believe it. 

As for President Biden, he took up the challenge to go out on the road and campaign actively for a few days, as I suggested.  The result was Covid, and I am now of the opinion that it is time for him to admit his limitations and bow out of the race (though he does not need to resign his position). He should vigorously endorse his VP Kamala Harris and offer his ongoing counsel to the Democrats, particularly should they win and hold the White House.  With our thanks.  

I have thought a bit about the attempted assassination of Trump over the weekend.  As for the young Republican incel gun nut who shot at him, nicking Trump's ear but killing one in the audience and wounding two others, he was following in the footsteps of other fools who think their act of stochastic violence would provoke a general mass uprising.  It's failed many times before.  Clearly, there was a slip-up by the Secret Service and local authorities allowing someone with a long rifle to post up less than 200 yards from the stage. 

Say, Hey!

The photo here is of the 1964 Strat-o-Matic card for the great baseball star Willie Mays, who died recently at the age of 93.  The card, frankly, was the main way I knew him:  he was playing on the West Coast then, and the Game of the Week (the only game on TV) was usually the Yankees and someone, and the SF Giants came around to Cincinnati (my team) about once a year.  1964 was a very good year for him, near his top (1965 was his second Most Valuable Player year), as he led the league in homers with 47.  His .296 batting average was near his lifetime average.  He was consistently at the top of the league from 1954 (when he returned from military service) until the late '60's.  

We saw more of him later, as he began to decline.  He was in a race with Henry Aaron for the second-most home runs for a while, but he retired and Aaron stayed on for several more years, eventually catching Babe Ruth for the all-time lead.  On the subject of the All-Stars, he was named 20 times to it. Certainly one of the greatest of our lifetimes. 

I will mention here the comedian Bob Newhart, who passed away even more recently at the age of 94.  I remember the early version of him, when he did a sort of nerdy, white-guy stand-up comedy (air-traffic controller sketch?).  What most will remember of him, though, was his starring role in the Bob Newhart Show, much later, when he played a normal guy reacting with good humor to his unusual neighbors (in Maine, was it?). His deadpan, accompanied by laugh track, was a good formula for situation comedy for several years. 

 

 

On the 3-0 and the Lead Pass

That Sports Follow-up I Somewhat Promised

My concern for the Celtics' NBA Finals victory I had predicted was unfounded:  they won comfortably in Game 5 to wrap it up.  Next year will be a whole new thing, as the difficulty of defending the Association title will once again be demonstrated with top teams gearing their rosters to defeat the champions:  Exhibit A, the 76ers signing of Paul George. 

The 3-0 lead the Celtics had over the Mavericks, and the simultaneous 3-0 lead the Florida Panthers had over the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals, illustrated an interesting phenomenon in modern major sports seven-game series (Major League Baseball's World Series being the other one).  Marketing loves the seven-game series and, from a competitive aspect, it's a valid test for these teams.  The 3-0 lead, though, is bad for ratings. The drama is basically gone, with the final outcome all but assured.  The historic performance of teams down 0-3 is even worse than chance should allow.  Fortunately for ratings, that 3-0-leading team tends to slacken and lose, allowing for at least one more televised game.  I will not draw unseemly conclusions but comment that motivation truly does affect outcomes, and the underdog down 3-0 has strong motivation to avoid the embarrassment of a sweep.  Game 5 usually wraps it up, usually back at the home court of the favored and leading team (as with the Celtics' win), but if they drop that one Game 6 becomes a battle, and Game 7 a war.  Somehow, though, that team that led 3-0 almost always comes out on top (as happened with hockey's Panthers).

I have been loving the Euros, but the Copa America not so much (and not just because of Team USA's first-round flame-out).  It's been all too evident in both tournaments that well-disciplined defensive units can shut down most offensive efforts, and toward the end of the round-robin portion teams had little desire to expose their defenses with much offensive effort.  So my inerest lies in those teams that can rise above, offensively, and especially if they can do it more than just episodically.  Still, it has been the accidental goals, and the desperation ones at the end of game time, that have predominated.  The instinct of defenders to go back to help out when the ball is bouncing around inside the goalie box has been punished frequently.

A little complaint about how these random brackets are working:  The two best teams in the Euros' group stage, Germany and Spain, met yesterday in the quarterfinals.  Two of the three best teams in the Copa America, Brazil and Colombia, were in the same group!  The former produced a fantastic game, worthy of a final, while the Brazil-Colombia game occurred with both teams having clinched success in moving to the next round:  the only incentive was the marginal difference between playing Uruguay and the US-Panama survivor (it turned out to be Panama).*  The two rivals scrapped and kicked each other but did not have the real passion: that will be in their likely semifinal rematch. 

Copa America's tournament rules differ from the Euros' in one important facet--the Western Hemisphere one eschewed the "Extra Time" added on after a tie score in regulation, in favor of going immediately to a penalty kick shootout.  The results showed yesterday, as the Spain-Germany game was dramatically resolved in the final minutes of the 30 minutes of extra time through an sudden, unexpected goal.  The Canada-Venezuela game last night, probably the best so far in the Copa tournament, just went to the loaded-coin flip of penalty kicks, as did the Argentina-Ecuador one.   I preferred the Spain-Germany outcome, but recognize that, too often, the ET play is desultory, exhausted. 

As for the pre-tournament Euro favorites: as I write, exactly halfway through the quarterfinals, England will have to improve its game to defeat  Switzerland, and, in the next round, while France must better its game to defeat Spain. The really interesting game is later today, between Netherlands and Turkey.  The Dutch finished third in their group, and both teams have already raised their play to the level required for the knockout rounds.  

Go Long! 

 In soccer, most passes are directed at a stationary teammate, one with an opening to receive the ball.  The more beautiful passes, though, are to a place where a teammate has not yet arrived.  A stationary pass recipient will not generally have a "look" (as they say in basketball) at the goal, as defenders will move to block that view, or more to the point, the line of a shot toward goal.  The pass to a moving player, though, can create an opening.  It is a fine skill to place the ball where the teammate should be, without using your hands. For me, that aspect is what "the beautiful game" mode of playing soccer is all about. 

 American football's great beauty in modern times is exactly that downfield pass with perfect timing, to catch that moment when the receiver will have a free direct line from the arm of the passer.  In either case it is the dynamism and flow in the lead pass which creates the drama; it also brings more risk, in the sense that a longer pass to a moving player is less sure to end up with its target.  That risk is why soccer coaches love the strategy of playing the ball forward from player to player rather than sending it long and American football coaches like the short "possession" pass or running plays.  But the long bomb is where it's at. .

The long pass in soccer works best when the receiver is unencumbered by a defender; then the receiver can bring it down or under control, ideally right in stride.  When it's contested on the receiving end, though, then it becomes a physical battle to meet the ball with the head.  That contact usually will send the ball away from the receiver and defender, so the skill is to direct the ball so a teammate can get "the second ball'.  Strategies are developed around that combination; I expect soon they will be developed around controlling "the third ball".  

Basketball is another game that combines the fixed point-to-point passing with some of the more dynamic plays (catch and shoot, alley-oop, pick and roll).  Hockey is a game where the players move so fast that the player with the puck must be thinking ahead always, to the next connection, physical contact, or deflection.  Baseball, on the other hand, is more with stationary points and less movement; when it has movement (the play is live) the ball's target is still a stationary one (with the exception of the rare rundown play, and in contrast with the kids' game of kickball, where you can throw out the runner by hitting them with the ball).

We are All Sinners, Now 

Tennis, and some other head-to-head sports, have an opposing method in dynamic passes in play with their rackets (or other tools), which is to send the ball in an arc away from its recipient, such that they can't get at it ("the passing shot"). 

Speaking of tennis, another bracket beef:  in the men's Wimbledon tournament, as with the French Open, the most critical match is likely to be, not the final but the semifinal between #1 seed Jannik Sinner and #3 seed Carlos Alcaraz.  I feel, though I may be proven wrong, that either Sinner or Alcaraz can handle their likely finals opponent, the mighty Novak Djokovic, who is beyond his peak but still able to compel submission from most. 

So why this #1 vs. #3 in the projected semifinal (and the #2 vs. #4--Zverev the #4 seems like a perfect foil for Djokovi in the semis)?  I prefer he NCAA basketball's approach, where #1 is projected against #4 (or #5) and #2 and #3 are set up to battle in the semifinal. 

At any rate, looking ahead to the renewal of the Sinner-Alcaraz rivalry, the grass surface of Wimbledon is a good challenge to each.  Sinner has shown remarkable improvement over the last 18 months to reach the top ranking, but despite that success he is only on par with prodigious Djokovic and prodigal Alcaraz.  I will be rooting for the Northern Italian, but I have to admire the variety of Alcaraz and his sunny disposition.  They appear to be embarked on a lengthy, profitable contestation; I hope so for the sake of us all. 

P.S.  The Netherlands-Turkiye game was all that I hoped for.  I will be rooting for the Dutch over England--which showed its character for about 5 minutes when behind but still seem less than present--and for Spain over France--which has looked just as listless as England.  And for Colombia, to top both Brazil/Uruguay and Argentina.

Official reminder that the Paris Olympics will start soon!  I will be a consumer and not a predictor.

*Not to disrespect Uruguay's team, and they may well defeat Brazil. * However, neither team was subject to the real penalty, which would have been to move over to the Argentina bracket.