To a middle school student, science is a clear category; it’s a subject you take, along with history, language, or P.E. You have a science teacher; you read a science textbook. You learn about the scientific method. In the real world, though, categories are not always so clearly delineated. In fact, the leading science journal, Nature, seems to be asking some fundamental questions about the methods and materials of its very reason for being. This week, Nature presented a debate between two cancer researchers on whether scientific research should proceed “hypothesis first” or “data first.” The controversy has arisen, in part, by the technology available. Large-scale genomic surveys are now possible, and funds are being focused away from traditional methods toward obtaining vast databases of genetic information. Robert Weinberg is alarmed at the trend; he argued that mere data collection without understanding is pointless and that the funding shifts are discouraging small research projects from which major insights have been traditionally been made.1 Todd Golub argued that patterns in complex phenomena become apparent only when there is sufficient data available.2 It takes a lot of data to separate signal from noise; therefore data collection is essential before new hypotheses can be generated. The interesting thing about these articles is not who won the debate, but that a question so basic about the scientific method needs to be asked nearly 400 years after Francis Bacon. To what extent is the question a consequence of the sheer volume of data that can be accumulated and stored? The scientific method was devised when data was written with a quill on parchment. Peer review is another focal point of dispute. Last week, Nature applauded a British research council that is cracking down on the practice of flooding review agencies with grant applications.3 Because the odds of winning a grant are low, “low success rates lead researchers to submit more applications in the hope of securing at least some funding, overburdening peer reviewers,” the editors explained. “The system ends up rewarding safe, short-term research proposals that meet everyone’s approval, at the cost of the innovative suggestions it should be supporting.” The council now says that if you don’t secure funding, you are limited to one application the following year. They feel the council’s new “‘blacklisting’ rule is a radical, unpopular but courageous effort to address a crisis in the peer-review system.” But will the cure be worse than the disease?The consequences of the revised policy are uncertain. Thanks to other peer-review changes, applications have already been cut by about a third since last year, and success rates are up. But the new policy’s threat of exclusion may further discourage adventurous funding bids. The EPSRC also runs the risk of alienating its community, making it harder to find peer reviewers – who are in increasingly scarce supply.The rule has already generated inequities and complaints. Nature still thinks it was a good move that requires fine-tuning. No one is sure at this point what will happen. Could luck play a role in who gets in the game? “Other scientists have worried that an application is marked ‘unsuccessful’ if it falls below the halfway point on a list of proposals ranked by panels of peer reviewers � a criterion that not only seems arbitrary, but also risks taking out good researchers who are simply unlucky.” Imagine if the loser in this process had been a young new Isaac Newton. The editors left it open if the council’s “gutsy gamble” will work, and noted that other councils are watching what happens. Letters to the editor are often interesting to read. Three biologists from three widely respected scientific institutions wrote Nature last week in a huff, challenging the editors’ definition of science. As a follow-up to the Human Genome Project, now 10 years old, Nature’s editors had written that it is “Time for the epigenome” project.4 The three scientists were “astonished” at that editorial,5 claiming that it seemed to “disregard principles of gene regulation and of evolutionary and developmental biology that have been established during the past 50 years.” Their complaint was not just about disagreements on traditional practices, but about Nature’s acceptance of the idea that the epigenome has a “scientific basis” at all. Undoubtedly the editors would take umbrage at challenges to their ability to judge what constitutes science. The internet age is shifting the dynamics of scientific practice. However comfortable the world was with the peer-reviewed publishing paradigm, times have changed. Instant internet access is democratizing science in many ways. Nature has read the tea leaves and is adjusting. In a dramatic move, Nature’s editors are opening up their once-impregnable editorial fortress and letting the peasants in. “Nature’s new online commenting facility opens up the entire magazine for discussion,” the Editorial announced this week.6 They have some concerns about signal to noise; comments will be vetted and monitored to weed out libel, obscenity or unjustified accusations – but not trivia. They will review their approach after a few months. Nevertheless, the popularity of internet blogs has not been lost on Nature and they are seeing the value of interesting and lively dialogue. It appears from the comments to this editorial that many think it’s a great idea. Perhaps the best way to evaluate good science is with some form of measurement. Alas, another paper in Nature pointed out serious failings in that regard. In an Opinion piece last week,7 Julia Lane proposed, “Let’s make science metrics more scientific.” She wasn’t discussing better ohmmeters or ammeters – the subtitle explained, “To capture the essence of good science, stakeholders must combine forces to create an open, sound and consistent system for measuring all the activities that make up academic productivity, says Julia Lane” She described the problem in stark reality:Measuring and assessing academic performance is now a fact of scientific life. Decisions ranging from tenure to the ranking and funding of universities depend on metrics. Yet current systems of measurement are inadequate. Widely used metrics, from the newly-fashionable Hirsch index to the 50-year-old citation index, are of limited use. Their well-known flaws include favouring older researchers, capturing few aspects of scientists’ jobs and lumping together verified and discredited science. Many funding agencies use these metrics to evaluate institutional performance, compounding the problems. Existing metrics do not capture the full range of activities that support and transmit scientific ideas, which can be as varied as mentoring, blogging or creating industrial prototypes. The dangers of poor metrics are well known – and science should learn lessons from the experiences of other fields, such as business. The management literature is rich in sad examples of rewards tied to ill-conceived measures, resulting in perverse outcomes. When the Heinz food company rewarded employees for divisional earnings increases, for instance, managers played the system by manipulating the timing of shipments and pre-payments. Similarly, narrow or biased measures of scientific achievement can lead to narrow and biased science.Whether Lane’s suggestions will solve these is another question. The fact that she opened them up for discussion in Nature should be enough to raise eyebrows among those who think of science as an unbiased enterprise. Lane’s paper did more to elaborate on the problems than to solve them. Moreover, her solutions sound like an internet-age Web 3.0 pipe dream:How can we best bring all this theory and practice together? An international data platform supported by funding agencies could include a virtual ‘collaboratory’, in which ideas and potential solutions can be posited and discussed. This would bring social scientists together with working natural scientists to develop metrics and test their validity through wikis, blogs and discussion groups, thus building a community of practice. Such a discussion should be open to all ideas and theories and not restricted to traditional bibliometric approaches.Something “should” be done, she ended: “Some fifty years after the first quantitative attempts at citation indexing, it should be feasible to create more reliable, more transparent and more flexible metrics of scientific performance.” She claimed “The foundations have been laid” but it’s evident that little is being done yet. That means all the problems she listed are today’s risks and realities. Someday, over the rainbow, “Far-sighted action can ensure that metrics goes beyond identifying ‘star’ researchers, nations or ideas, to capturing the essence of what it means to be a good scientist.” It’s clear that science is evolving, as it always has. But what is it evolving from, and what is it evolving toward? If science itself is not stable, has it ever been – or will it ever be – a reliable method of gaining understanding?8 1. Robert Weinberg, “Point: Hypotheses first,” Nature 464, 678 (1 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/464678a; Published online 31 March 2010.2. Todd Golub, “Counterpoint: Data first,” Nature 464, 679 (1 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/464679a; Published online 31 March 2010.3. Editorial, “Tough love,” Nature 464, 465 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464465a; Published online 24 March 2010.4. Editorial, “Time for the epigenome,” Nature 463, 587 (4 February 2010) | doi:10.1038/463587a; Published online 3 February 2010.5. Ptashne, Hobert and Davidson, “Questions over the scientific basis of epigenome project,” Nature 464, 487 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464487c.6. Editorial, “Content rules,” Nature 464, 466 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464466a; Published online 24 March 2010.7. Julia Lane, “Let’s make science metrics more scientific,” Nature 464, 488-489 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464488a; Published online 24 March 2010.8. “Understanding” is not the same thing as explanation, prediction, and control. Scientific theories can provide those things and still be wrong or lacking in understanding of reality. See the 3/17/2010 commentary.Science is mediated through fallible human beings. It is not “out there” in the world, to be retrieved in some unbiased way. Human beings have to figure out not only what nature is showing us – they have to figure out what nature is, and what science is. At every step there are decisions to be made by creatures who don’t know everything and who weren’t there at the beginning. We must divest our minds of the notion that science is an unbiased method that obtains incontrovertible truth. That is certainly not the case to an evolutionist. If blind processes produced human beings, we have no necessary or certain access to external reality. Some philosophers have tried to defend “evolutionary epistemology” – a notion that if evolution had not put us in touch with reality, we would not have survived. That’s a self-referential fallacy that assumes reality is real and that evolution is capable of addressing philosophical questions. Science is supposed to be a systematic attempt to discern and understand the natural world, but all attempts to define science in ways that keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out have failed. Take any definition of science and you will find examples: is science methodologically rigorous? So is astrology. Is science restricted to repeatable observation? Better not talk about dark energy or black holes. Does it make predictions? Some sportscasters score better than the 5% confidence level considered statistically significant in scientific experiments. Is it the consensus of the learned? Astrology, alchemy and Ptolemaic astronomy had long and established credentials. Is it restricted to explanations based on natural law? So much for chaos theory, probability and any explanation invoking contingency, like evolution. Is it restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena? Read creationist journals and you will find much of this, yet the scientific establishment routinely excludes their views. Consistent philosophers of science have had to agree that by any normal definition, creation science is scientific – or else you wind up excluding other approaches the establishment doesn’t want to give up. No two philosophers of science agree completely on what science is, let alone what scientists should be doing. Philosophers differ wildly on the nature of scientific discovery, the nature of scientific evidence, and the nature and propriety of scientific explanation. The whole field is riddled with deep and unresolved questions. If you resort to an operational definition, it becomes circular: What is science? Science is what scientists do. What do scientists do? Science. In practice, “science” is often defined as whatever those in power take it to mean. As shown by the letter to Nature above, they sometimes can’t agree among themselves. The practice of science has changed considerably over the centuries. In the early 18th century, interested amateurs like James Joule worked independently and discussed their findings at local scientific societies that were little more than clubs. Today there is rapid, instantaneous conversation via the internet – some good, some bad, some ugly. Science has become a human social phenomenon wielding immense political and economic power. Many individual scientists do their work honestly; they really want to figure out the truth about some phenomenon, find a cure, bring clarity to a question about nature, organize our accumulating data in a useful way. At every level, though, human frailty is an intrinsic factor. Consider these very practical issues that each require decisions based on fallible human opinions:Who gets funding.How one increases the odds of getting funding.How much funding is needed (meat over gravy).How much one has to go along to get along.What school one goes to, and how it affects prestige.How one’s work is perceived by one’s peers.The availability of peer reviewers.Whether the peer reviewers are unbiased or potential rivals.How many peer reviewers are enough.Whether a glass ceiling exists for women researchers.Whether the good-old-boys club keeps out young or female entrants.Whether a consensus represents confidence or inertia.To what extent a consensus muscles out the mavericks.Whether a maverick has a view worth hearing (who decides?)The effect of tenure or the lack of it on objectivity.Whether corporate funding biases the findings.Whether government funding biases the findings.Whether individual hubris biases the findings (think Mesmer).The influence of one or more strong personalities in a field (think Freud).Whether quantity of research activity correlates with significance.Whether number of published papers correlates with understanding.Whether volume of writing on a subject correlates with its value.The extent to which references reinforce dogma (see 03/17/2006).How long it takes for new knowledge, or falsified theories, to become generally known (01/15/2010).Whether public comments provide signal or noise.Whether an expensive project provides value.How a project’s perceived value is to be measured.How the quality of scientific activity or results is to be measured.At what point a project outlives its usefulness.Whether the issue being investigated is a scientific question.These and other issues raise an interesting thought: is a kid doing a science project she loves, or a citizen scientist pursuing a question out of his own interest and curiosity, closer to the pure scientific ideal? But if so, how would they ever afford to build a Large Hadron Collider? The expense of large scientific research programs has created a monstrosity of institutions, political processes and issues about what it is science is trying to do and why. It might be compared to how San Francisco became a boom town to support the gold miners. A lot of ancillary activity emerged (including crime and saloons) whose relevance to the activity of mining was questionable. Nevertheless, we’re stuck with Big Science. Whether more openness to public visibility via the internet will keep it honest (or make it honest) remains to be seen.Exercise: Add to our list of non-epistemic factors that must be considered in evaluating the nature and results of science.(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
About the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Real Madrid boss Zidane hails Valverde performanceby Carlos Volcano20 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveReal Madrid boss Zinedine Zidane was left satisfied with Fede Valverde’s showing for their 4-2 win over Granada.The Uruguayan impressed again for Los Blancos, helping them to get back to winning ways after their midweek slip against Club Brugge.”He is quite a modern player,” Zidane said afterwards”I’m happy for him.”He’s very good and he’s always shown that.”He’s growing.”He always moves forward, he wants the ball and he’s been key for two goals today.”But it’s a team game and our first half today was phenomenal in every way.”
They shared the stories behind their iconic songs, including “American Woman” and “No Sugar Tonight,” and poked fun at each other about getting older.“This is the way they sounded when they were being written — before they became records,” Cummings, 71, explained before kicking off the 90-minute set of stripped-down takes without a backing band.“This is sort of like Randy and me inviting you into our living room in the old days.”For the audience of roughly 200 people at the dinner and concert fundraiser — which went for $2,500 per seat — seeing Bachman and Cummings on friendly terms was a rare delight.The Winnipeg-bred musicians have long battled over their personality differences and last performed together in 2009. Bachman wrote in his 2014 book “Tales From Beyond the Tap” about what he considered inequitable distribution of publishing profits between the two songwriters.None of those squabbles were apparent as the musicians sat on opposite sides of the stage while chatting about their spot in Canadian history at a event that doubled as an announce of the next generation of Walk of Fame inductees.Among the names who will be honoured this year are the late “Mr. Dressup” children’s entertainer Ernie Coombs, actor Will Arnett, and Olympic speedskater Cindy Klassen.Bachman and Cummings are both two-time Walk of Fame inductees, once for the Guess Who and the other in Bachman’s case for his work in Bachman-Turner Overdrive. Cummings has recognition as a solo artist.Both artists acknowledged their post-Guess Who hits during the show. Bachman chose to perform songs that included “Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” and “Takin’ Care of Business” from his days in Bachman-Turner Overdrive, while Cummings sang his solo efforts “Stand Tall” and “Break It to Them Gently.”Still, neither of them could escape the fact they were reunited on stage to celebrate a certain part of their youth and the infectious classics that time inspired.Bachman recalled how “girls were crying on the front lawn” of their house after news spread that Cummings had split from his R&B band the Deverons to join the Guess Who.Their careers took off with “These Eyes,” which Bachman and Cummings co-wrote, an international hit single that Bachman acknowledged is a vocal feat that involves Cummings scaling the octaves.“It sounds easy, but if you’re trying to sing it, it just goes up and up and up,” he said.“I don’t think Celine (Dion) could sing this song. I’d love it if she tried.”By David Friend ~ The Canadian Press LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Facebook Advertisement Advertisement Login/Register With: TORONTO — Former Guess Who bandmates Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings reunited on Thursday for a charity concert of warm memories and unforgettable hits that marked their first time performing together in a decade.The on-again, off-again musical partnership reached a high note at Music Under the City Stars, a fundraiser in support of Canada’s Walk of Fame at Toronto’s landmark Casa Loma, where the duo reminisced about the good times. Randy Bachman, left, and Burton Cummings perform during a Canada’s Walk of Fame fundraising event in Toronto on Thursday, July 18, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christopher Katsarov Advertisement Twitter
APTN National NewsLove is the focus of a conference in Edmonton this week.It’s being held by the institute for the advancement of Aboriginal women.Community members are exploring what healthy love is and its power to heal and transform.APTN National News reporter Noemi LoPinto finds out that men also had a lot to do with the conference.
Members of OSU softball team. Credit: Courtesy of OSUAfter a week off, the Ohio State softball team (9-4) is set to head west to Tempe, Arizona, for the Louisville Slugger Invitational hosted by Arizona State. The Buckeyes are slated to face four opponents, three of which are ranked in the USA Today Top 25 poll. OSU’s first matchup is scheduled to begin Friday at 1 p.m. against James Madison (17-1).At this juncture in the season, the Buckeyes have faced only one ranked team, a loss to then-No. 3 LSU, so the weekend looks primed to be stuffed with a string of intense contests.“This spring trip will probably be the toughest stretch of (nine) games we will play this year before postseason play,” said OSU coach Kelly Kovach Schoenly, looking ahead to both this weekend and next week’s five-game trip to San Diego.Sizing up the opponentsJames Madison is the Buckeyes’ highest-ranked opponent this weekend, moving from its preseason ranking of No. 19 to No. 10 after its successful start. The Dukes are 4-1 against other ranked teams, including a 3-2 win over No. 3 Auburn in February.James Madison poses a threat from the mound because of the forceful duo of sophomore Megan Good and senior Jailyn Ford. Both pitchers have an ERA below 1.00, and Good has struck out 70 batters in her 13 appearances.Schoenly is cognizant of the Dukes’ powerhouse pitching staff, which will help prepare OSU’s batters for the subsequent energetic efforts from the mound.“We will be facing some of the toughest pitchers in the country over the next (nine) games, and it will be great to see who rises to the challenge,” she said.Seven Dukes are hitting above .350, five of whom have started all 18 games. Senior Erica Field is off to another stellar season after breaking four program single-season and three career records last season. The catcher’s career batting average of .359 rivals OSU senior catcher Cammi Prantl’s .342, which is the top mark among Buckeye starters.Georgetown (5-11) is OSU’s only unranked opponent in Arizona. As such, Schoenly said the Buckeyes are hoping to take advantage at the plate in Game 2 on Friday after likely having to grind out hits against James Madison’s pitching staff.The Buckeye offense will face a struggling Hoya pitching staff, which has a combined ERA of 6.83. Georgetown’s three pitchers have also walked more than twice the number of batters they have struck out.Senior Samantha Giovanniello leads the Hoyas with five home runs and 19 RBIs, which is just two short of her 2015 total.The Buckeyes’ own offensive weakness continues to be stranding runners, something that could make a difference in a tight game.“The few games we have lost, we had many baserunners during the game,” Schoenly said. “We just needed a timely hit here and there.”OSU is scheduled to play its only game Saturday against No. 23 Nebraska, which is currently ranked second in the Big Ten, while the Buckeyes sit at fourth in the conference.Cornhusker infielder M.J. Knighten leads the Big Ten in batting with 11 home runs and a .473 batting average. The junior was named Big Ten Player of the Week last month after a strong showing in Iowa. Also delivering at the plate for Nebraska (12-4) is senior outfielder Kiki Stokes with a .435 batting average, and senior infielder Alicia Armstrong with 15 RBIs.Nebraska sits in the middle of the conference in pitching and is led by junior right-hander Cassidy McClure with 33 strikeouts. The right-hander and the three other pitchers for the Huskers have a combined ERA of 3.11.The Scarlet and Gray finish their outing in Arizona with a matchup against Arizona State (18-5). The No. 19 Sun Devils have eight batters hitting over .350, half of whom have RBI totals in the double digits. Freshman first baseman Ulufa Leilua has a .903 slugging percentage, while senior infielder Nikki Girard has seven doubles and three homers.OSU’s defense has been effective in getting out of tough situations with big hitters like Leilua at the plate, something Schoenly mentioned as a key to the Buckeyes’ success this weekend.“We are looking for our pitchers to continue limiting teams to a few runs a game,” Schoenly said. “The key for our defense will be to limit the opponents’ big innings and for us to have timely hitting.”Schoenly also praised sophomore third baseman Ashley Goodwin’s constant awareness of the field to stop opponents’ offenses from scoring.Finishing strongAfter her leading performance in South Carolina, Prantl was named Big Ten Player of the Week and Louisville Slugger/National Fastpitch Coaches Association Player of the Week.The senior hit .786 over five games, including a 4-for-4, three-RBI showing against Furman.“I am extremely honored and humbled to be receiving this national award,” Prantl said in a press release. “This would not be possible without the support of my teammates and the coaching staff. Driving in runs is impossible without my teammates being on base.”Prantl has 47 doubles in her career, only 11 away from the Buckeyes’ all-time record. She had 16 doubles during both her sophomore and junior seasons, so Prantl has a reasonable chance to set a new program mark.Up nextThe Buckeyes are scheduled to face San Diego State in a single game on March 16 before facing four opponents at the San Diego State Tournament from March 17 to 20. OSU’s matchup against the Aztecs is slated to begin at 9 p.m.
When Doug Hochberg, a junior in political science, began producing a video as a tribute to the men and women who serve in the armed forces, he had no idea the sort of support and recognition his work would receive in the weeks leading up to the Buckeye’s game against Navy to kick off the football season. The idea came from a coworker of Hochberg, whose father had always taught him to root for the armed services teams. The two decided to create a tribute to the Navy football team as they entered the field at Ohio Stadium on Sept. 5. “They deserve some sort of tribute to the service that they provide for our country, to keep us safe. At least for that minute when they run out of the tunnel,” Hochberg said. What came of their efforts is a video entitled “Ohio State’s Take the Field Tribute for Navy – 9.5.09” that has taken off on Facebook and other social media sites. Once finished, the video was debuted on Youtube.com on Aug. 19. Within a couple of days the video had reached a couple thousand views, and now two weeks later the video has been played over 215,000 times. But fans weren’t the only people paying attention to the video. Hochberg was quickly contacted by the Department of Athletics who asked for his permission to play parts of the video on the screen on Saturday. “Ohio State has kind of gotten a black eye in the past couple of years, and we really know that Ohio State fans are good people, good patriotic people that can stand together for this one cause,” Hochberg said. Hochberg urges Ohio State fans to stand and cheer the Navy team just as they would the Buckeyes. He said that he is surprised at the amount of recognition the video has gained but that he is proud to be a part of a movement towards supporting the armed services. As the video profoundly states, there are more important things than football, and one of those is the daily sacrifice that men and women in the armed services voluntarily make on behalf of our country. The last time a service academy played in Ohio Stadium was in 1931.
Ohio State freshman forward Kaleb Wesson (34) high fives his brother, sophomore forward Andre Wesson (24) after scoring in the first half in the game against Maryland on Jan. 11. Ohio State won 91-69. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Photo EditorIn a crowd of Scarlet and Gray, packing the Schottenstein Center, Stephanie and Keith Wesson prepared to watch their two sons, sophomore forward Andre and freshman center Kaleb, take the court for Ohio State prior to its Jan. 22 game against Nebraska. Becoming Buckeyes was only a matter of time for the Wesson brothers. Keith, a former Ohio State player from 1983 to 1987, raised his sons in a Columbus suburb, practically preparing them to play for his former team. The two played together at Westerville South, but it wasn’t clear if that would continue at the next level.Andre and Kaleb won a state championship in 2016, playing at the Schott. A month later, Andre received an offer from Ohio State and signed his letter of intent with the Buckeyes. Now, the two play for the same team on the same court they shared that memorable moment.“I’m happy for them that all of their work paid off and it’s just truly a blessing,” their father said. “They had a lot of choices, a lot of great schools, and for them to choose Ohio State, where I played, down the street. Words can’t describe how excited and happy we are.”Even though the brothers are reunited, there have been roadblocks.In only his third collegiate game, Kaleb was suspended for the Buckeyes’ game against Texas Southern on Nov. 16 for “a failure to meet the expectations of the men’s basketball program,” according to an Ohio State spokesperson. However, after one more game, he took over the starting center position for an injured sophomore Micah Potter and has not let go of it since.Andre’s path to playing time this season has not been as clear.During the summer, Andre underwent medical tests on an unknown condition that forced him to stop basketball activity for some time, which instilled questions into his longevity with Ohio State. During this time, Andre’s father said he “literally couldn’t do anything.” He couldn’t pick up a basketball, swim or “walk fast,” according to his mother. Andre made it back to the court for the Buckeyes and has become the Buckeyes’ top forward off the bench, averaging more minutes than any other bench forward and playing at least 16 minutes in each of the team’s last six games. However, his father said the injury still slightly affects Andre, even months into the season. Keith said it was a challenge for his elder son to come back and get back into the speed of the game after months away. “An athlete who has been playing whatever sport since sixth grade, basically every day, that was really the hardest part for him,” Keith said. “And then just not knowing and not being able to do anything. It was tough on him, and it took a lot longer for him. He’s still recovering from this, especially from an offensive standpoint.”Overall, both Andre and Kaleb have made quite the names for themselves in their time at Ohio State. Kaleb has earned two Big Ten Freshman of the Week honors this season, while Andre has been praised by his teammates and head coach Chris Holtmann for his contributions off the bench.The brothers grew up highly competitive, Stephanie said. They were always fighting and were so hard on each other that sometimes their father had to step in. But Kaleb has always been Andre’s biggest fan. Their mother Stephanie said Kaleb stands up for his brother whenever a negative comment is made about him. Their parents have not missed a game this season, home or away.“I just want them to get to their highest potential, whatever that may be. I want them to leave it all out on the floor. I tell them all the time, enjoy every minute of this,” Keith said. “Having played, sometimes you get so caught up in the wins and losses and playing well or playing bad that you forget to soak in the experience; playing in Madison Square Garden, walking down Times Square, going to these great facilities, flying on a charter plane. “They get lost in the norm of how normal things appear but I always remind them that this isn’t normal.”
To the Tottenham Hotspur manager, changing players for different competitions doesn’t mean his team disrespects itTottenham Hotspur boss Mauricio Pochettino believes that he has more than just eleven players to choose from.According to him, all footballers on his squad are important.He also thinks that rotating his squad is part of football and doesn’t mean the club is disrespecting any competition by doing that.“Sorry, it’s nothing wrong with the question. But always it’s, if tomorrow Paulo Gazzaniga plays, the competition the FA Cup, or Serge Aurier, who played against Inter Milan but didn’t play against Brighton, it’s like we disrespect the competition or we don’t take it seriously,” he told Football London.“I think when Tottenham is going to play tomorrow, it’s going trying to win. When you sign players and you have 24 players in your squad, you need to respect all the players.”Virgil van Dijk praises Roberto Firmino after Liverpool’s win Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Virgil van Dijk hailed team-mate Roberto Firmino after coming off the bench to inspire Liverpool to a 3-1 comeback win against Newcastle United.“If not, if they’re going to have the possibility to play and show their quality, why do you pay their salary, why do you provide the food every day at the training session and at the training ground?” he added.“Sorry, but for me, it’s so difficult to understand, that obsession about why one or another plays. It’s like all the managers want to lose.”He also commented that “No-one wants to win, or like the competition in the Copa del Rey in Spain, if Real Madrid is going to play against someone and they used to rotate, it’s like Real Madrid don’t want to win.”“I think it’s crazy and the problems sometimes is not from you, because I understand you.”“But sometimes some people who play football and were professionals, their opinion is similar and it’s difficult to understand because I was a professional player and now a manager, and you need to understand that to deal with 24 or 25 players is not easy,” he thinks.“To give the possibility to play to all the players always is so important because they need to feel the confidence and trust. They need to challenge the players they believe are ahead of them. In the end, for me, it’s about the squad. It’s about being a team.”
The Portuguese manager has come under a lot of pressure after Manchester United’s worst league start in 29 yearsManchester United is in the 8th position in the English Premier League with only 13 points after eight matches.This is the worst start for the Red Devils in the Premiership in the last 29 years.And these results have put a lot of pressure on United’s manager Jose Mourinho, and he should not stay according to former Premier League striker Chris Sutton.“It’s been a disastrous season for United,” Sutton told BBC Radio 5 live’s Monday Night Club.Virgil van Dijk praises Roberto Firmino after Liverpool’s win Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Virgil van Dijk hailed team-mate Roberto Firmino after coming off the bench to inspire Liverpool to a 3-1 comeback win against Newcastle United.“What is Mourinho doing to help the situation? All he does is play the victim. All the nonsense after the game – the Brexit, he gets blamed for everything – I don’t get it.”“Every press conference he goes in and is negative, negative, negative – obstinate, awkward. He should have drawn a line under things,” he added.“There has to come a time where there is a line drawn in the sand and he has to stand up and say ‘enough is enough.’”“All this ‘I’m being persecuted’ all the time – he’s not doing himself any favors,” he continued.“Mourinho isn’t the right man to take United forward and 15 minutes shouldn’t paper over the cracks and the way he has behaved this season.”