Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
🚨 ATTENTION EVERYONE 🚨 THE SHARKS WON THEIR FIRST GAME OF THE SEASON
Clark Attacks Emmitt - Superman & Lois 3x04
(Spoiler warning)
In case you needed any convincing here’s a powerpoint I made.
Bonus:
Here’s what it would look like if they kissed
The point people are missing about battinson is that the thing that makes him hot is the same thing that made 2005 Mr. Darcy hot- big dude with crippling social anxiety
You know, I’ve been thinking. There’s this pervasive idea in Ted Lasso fandom that Ted is wrong about his “winning isn’t everything” mentality. And I admit, I’ve shared in that idea too.
This is going to be pretty incoherent, because my thoughts are kind of all over the place.
I’ve talked a lot about All Apologies on my blog, and one thing I’ve noticed that I’ve said a lot is that Beard is right when he talks to Ted about the importance of winning, even though he’s very harsh about it.
But now I’m thinking about it: IS he right?
I mean, obviously, winning is important to these men. This is their livelihood and their career after all. But I’d argue that the hyperfocus on “winning” or “performance” was more of a cause for Richmond’s downfall in season one than anything Rebecca Welton managed.
Jamie Tartt was, until Dani Rojas anyway, the single most talented player on the field. And his talent was such that he could run roughshod over his team, without any kind of consequences. He approved of the mistreatment of Nate, and his own bullying of Sam was pretty obviously a factor in the latter’s extreme homesickness and performance issues. Tan Lines showed exactly how Jamie’s behavior negatively effected the entire team.
It wasn’t until Ted was willing to pull him off the field, and keep him off, that Jamie’s behavior started changing. And honestly, it says something that while Jamie going back to Man City was sad for the show (and fed into their loss at the end), the team’s performance DID improve when one of the aces was gone.
I think Roy is an interesting case, because for most of the season, we really didn’t see any sign of his performance declining. What we DID see was someone who had initially been checked out entirely. When Roy was engaged, he’d win. And while he may not have been physically capable of starting by the end of the season, he still managed to take down Jamie pretty awesomely.
The problem with Roy, ultimately, is that he was so wrapped up in his identity as a footballer, that he had no idea who he was without the game. And this was a problem that persisted regardless of whether or not Richmond won or loss. The real MVP of course, is Keeley and Phoebe, but Ted’s own efforts to support Roy mattered too.
And of course there’s Sam. Sam’s initial bad performance led to folk thinking that he just wasn’t cut out for the league. Even later in season 1, when things improved, there were folk like Rupert and the wanker gang who wanted him put back into defense. But Ted knew better. He knew what the real problem was and he gave Sam the opportunity to prove himself, and he was right, so much so that Sam became one of the stars of season 2 both on the team and as a character.
Richmond lost. They got relegated. But they stayed together. That’s probably unrealistic, but it’s also an indicator of how much Ted’s philosophy reached these people.
And in season 2, Richmond rocked it. Of course, we didn’t SEE most of that. We saw the nervewracking ties. We saw the loss in Do the Rightest Thing - but that wasn’t the key takeaway of the episode. Sure, they lost. But Sam got to step up and speak out for his country. The team got to act in support of Sam. Jamie got to prove that he’d turned over a new leaf. The morale boost that they received from this one lost, undoubtedly helped their later success.
The Roy Kent effect helped too. Bringing Roy back, as a coach, was a brilliant move. And their success, if you keep an eye on the white board throughout the season, it becomes really obvious, just skyrockets from there.
I think about the game in Man City a lot. They lost. They lost hard. And it was brutal. The weaknesses in Ted’s coaching style were very obvious, and no one really knew what to do. But I think it’s also fair to say that the characters who WERE more focused on winning (like Nate and Beard) weren’t any MORE useful.
One interesting thing when you watch Beard After Hours is that Beard is constantly criticizing himself for not speaking up against Ted, and for not pushing a more defensive strategy. Thing is, if you rewatch Man City, Beard WASN’T the one pushing for a more defensive strategy. It was Nate. Nate, who managed to get himself banished to the bleachers. (Beard on the other hand didn’t actually get banished to the bleachers. He just left in frustration and anger. Which…also didn’t help their victory chances either. He’s always known Ted’s weaknesses as a coach. And he left him there alone.)
Beard spends an episode punishing himself for their loss and for what? What did that accomplish? We criticize Ted for not taking this stuff seriously, but his Benny Hill routine did break the tension. And we can go by white board again and note that, this defeat aside, their upward momentum doesn’t stop.
It’s probably also worth noting that a Champion Team even making it to a semi-final match like Man City is actually a pretty big deal and something to be proud of in their own right.
And Ted DOES care about winning. He wouldn’t have offered to quit at the end of season if he didn’t. He knows this is important to everyone. We’ve seen how the pressure weighs on him in season 2, in particular. It’s just not the sole thing that matters to him.
Ted’s weaknesses as a coach are in his technical ability and understanding, but that’s why he’s got Nate, Roy and Beard. (And we forget that choosing Nate was a gamble in and of itself. Remember Trent’s reaction to learning that Ted was trusting the team’s tactics to the KIT MAN? That’s not something a “winning is everything” coach would have dared. But Nate helped win them a lot of matches.) His holistic approach to coaching, however, is his strength. Ted prioritizes his players over the scoreboard, and that works, because healthy players are strong players and strong players win more games.
Basically, Ted’s right. And we should all learn from him. (Though maybe not when it comes to dealing with personal trauma.)
Jane Austen was really out there 200 years ago writing lines like “If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more” that to this day are still so swoon-worthy.
I don’t know if it’s that deep, but I suddenly realized the difference between why Steve became Captain America and why John Walker became Captain America, and how that relates to Sam so well.
Steve never got picked for the serum because he was particularly tall or strong or skilled or smart, he got picked because Erskine saw something good in him, something special he knew would become even greater with the serum.
Erskine specifically didn’t pick the obvious choice he was pressured to pick by others, which was Hodge at the time. Like Col. Phillips said, “Hodge passed every test we gave him. He’s big, he’s fast and he obeys orders. He’s a soldier”, does that remind you of someone?
John Walkers is big, fast, and he obeys orders. He’s a soldier.
Steve never chose Sam because he was big or fast or a good soldier, he chose Sam because of why Erskine had chosen him; his good heart and the determination to do what’s right. He saw that in Sam, the goodness of his heart, his determination and the strong will to help others no matter the cost.
That’s why Sam is Captain America, even without the shield. The shield is not Cap, the heart is. The shield is a tangible symbol, one you can hold up and claim as yours, but the “not a perfect soldier but a good man” metaphor of Erskine is what’s most essential, and that can’t be forced by governmental support or flashy public stunts.
John Walker with his missions and skills and orders may be a perfect soldier, but Sam is a good man.
A good man who kicks assAnd that’s why Sam Wilson is Captain America.
Not to get back on my anti Tony tirade, but it’s so validating to see both Wandavision and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier show the negative affects the blip had on the everyday people of the mcu and ultimately how selfish it was of Tony to decide for the entire team that they weren’t even going to attempt to prevent the snap from happening in the first place.
Yes Morgan meant a lot to him but he could’ve had her again because she was born in the future and didn’t have to sacrifice the happiness and stability of millions of people to bring everyone forward to the same timeline.
And don’t even start with me on the bullshit of “you can’t change the past” because Endgame ignored that rule so many fucking times in the movie itself it’s not even funny, not even including the bullshit on whether or not Steve changed the past or not by going back in time.
if steve rogers hadn’t Did What He Did in endgame & just retired, he could have publicly handed the shield over to sam and been his mentor, and no one would have questioned that decision, and he would have fought anyone who did. sam wouldn’t be alone in trying to navigate taking up the mantle, he’d have steve on his left. bucky would still be in therapy, but at least he’d have the bff he knew from six years old, the one who promised to be with him til the end, the one with similar trauma and experience. don’t get me wrong, I’m excited for sam and bucky to exist on their own without steve, but …..
Page 1 of 2404