Mediaboss Marketing

"Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not," Keith Miller, the great Australia allrounder once said.

If it is accepted that the results of sporting contests require a dose of perspective now and again, it wouldn't really be sport if there wasn't the talk of pressure.

It abounded at Eden Park on Friday as New Zealand and South Africa prepared for the deciding one-day international (although AB de Villiers started it straight after the Hamilton defeat). Perhaps the series was always destined to finish this way.

If either side hoped that they could finally move on from that semi-final two years ago - New Zealand are no doubt happier for the memories to linger - then they will have been disappointed. It was a frequent topic around the T20 two weeks ago; this time it has a little more relevance.

New Zealand are defending a record of seven straight home ODI series wins (and eight trophies counting the Chappell-Hadlee that was on offer for the World Cup match against Australia) and South Africa need to win to regain the No. 1 ranking that they lost after the Hamilton defeat. So who is the pressure on?

"Us for playing big moments, and New Zealand as home team with a very good record of maintaining home series'," Faf du Plessis said. "They would be very disappointed to not keep that record strong. For us it is the pressure of playing a big game and trying to come out on top."

Victory in the opening match of this series gave South Africa a run of 12 wins on the bounce, but New Zealand have pushed them harder than either an under-strength Australia or the overpowered Sri Lanka managed on home soil.

While the series win and No. 1 ranking are of great importance to South Africa, the significance of this match does not extend to that of a Champions Trophy or World Cup knockout game. Since that semi-final at Eden Park, South Africa have faced five deciding ODIs: against Bangladesh, New Zealand, India, England (coming from 2-0 down) and in the Caribbean triangular last year. They won the middle three of those, losing to Bangladesh and being knocked out in the final group match in West Indies.

That is a mixed bag of results, but winning in India and coming from 2-0 down in a five-match series is not to be sniffed at. However, it does suggest that for all the baggage of Eden Park there won't really be much learnt by the outcome, although du Plessis was willing to play his part and give the "pressure" value a tweak.

"Definitely from pressure point of view, since [the World Cup], this could be the one that has most value to it," he said. "Other series have gone 5-0, 5-0, so for the relevance of getting into a big moment, this is big in terms of that."

New Zealand's success rate in deciding matches since the World Cup, where it should be remembered they did not handle the pressure of the final very well, is a mixed bag. Wins against Zimbabwe, Australia and Pakistan (although the latter was effectively just a two-match series) have been countered by defeats at the hands of England, South Africa and India. While du Plessis did not attempt to downplay the decider much, Tim Southee acknowledged the World Cup semi-final but also how New Zealand never try to elevate one game above another.

"A few guys were involved but we are just looking forward to going out in a deciding match against the best side in the world," Southee said. "The excitement level lifts a little bit. But I think that was one of our strengths through the World Cup. No matter what stage we were at throughout that tournament, our preparation and levelness around the group didn't change. The guys will be naturally excited, there's a little bit more at stake, but we'll prepare the same way."

View original post here:
Teams return to the pressure of a must-win at Eden Park - ESPN

Relegation-threatened champions dismiss manager, nine months after winning Premier League titleFriday, March 3, 2017

Even by the standards of modern soccer management mayhem, the vertiginous rise and equally stunning fall of Leicester City coach Claudio Ranieri takes the breath away.

The Italian was sacked by the Premier League club last Thursday, less than 24 hours after his team battled to a creditable 2-1 defeat in the first leg of a Champions League last 16 knockout game against European specialists Sevilla.

Leicester and the Champions League in the same sentence is not something fans of the Midlands club would ever have thought about before last year, let alone a brilliant group stage campaign they swept through as winners with a game to spare. The club are three points, three places and millions of pounds better off than they were at this stage of the Premier League campaign two years ago.

There is also the little matter of writing one of the most amazing stories in the history of world sport as they defied odds of 5,000-1 to win the title and enter the lexicon of the English language as people now talk of doing a Leicester.

So, of course, having had such amazing success after a century of mediocrity, at the first sign of trouble, the manager had to go.

After all that Claudio Ranieri has done for Leicester City, to sack him now is inexplicable, unforgivable and gut-wrenchingly sad, the clubs former striker-turned pundit Gary Lineker said in comments echoed across social media.

PERIPATETIC CAREER

Moving on is something Ranieri is used to, of course, having led and now left no fewer than 14 clubs and one country during his peripatetic 30-year coaching career. Not small clubs either as he has led Napoli, Roma, Atltico Madrid, Juventus, Inter Milan, Monaco and, of course, Chelsea, where he was and still is universally loved by the fans.

He led the Londoners to a second-place finish in the league, their best for 49 years, and the Champions League semi-finals. New owner Roman Abramovich, however, decided he was not a big enough name and Jos Mourinho arrived to develop the team Ranieri built and reap the glorious returns.

More European wanderings, including a short spell as manager of Greece, brought him yet more friends, but little tangible success the theme of his career. Although his CV was glittering in terms of location, it was less so in terms of trophies, with a smattering of domestic cups and lower-tier titles to show for his efforts.

So, there was hardly dancing in the streets of the East Midlands when he was appointed as Leicester boss to succeed Nigel Pearson, who was sacked despite engineering one of the all-time great escapes in the last weeks of the 2014-15 season.

Most Leicester fans would have been happy with another season of survival, with the club having climbed out of the Championship two years earlier. Little did they know the lovable Italian was about to take them on the ride of their lives.

Strong start

Leicester started strongly last season and then defied the almost weekly predictions that they would fall away.

In much the same way Brian Clough turned second division Nottingham Forest into European champions almost 40 years ago, Ranieri fashioned a team of also-rans into a tight unit with unquenchable spirit who played incisive counter-attacking football.

Journeymen like Jamie Vardy and Danny Drinkwater suddenly became England internationals, while Riyad Mahrez and NGolo Kante, barely noticed as they plied their trade in the French lower leagues, were catapulted into the world- class bracket.

As early season promise developed into a top-of-the-table New Year, Ranieri was a picture of Kiplingesque calm, dealing with the impending, and rare, triumph in the same way that he had so often accepted its twin imposter of disaster. With every win came the question: Can you win it?, followed by a smile, and his answer: Why not?

But Leicester did not just win the Premier League, they cantered to the title, finishing an incredible 10 points clear in a fairytale success toasted in every corner of the soccer world. Nobody expected a repeat this season, and the fans were happy to continue enjoying more heady nights with a deeply impressive first Champions League campaign.

But Citys slide down the Premier League table spooked their Thai owners. Like so many before who have had a taste of the high life, the shadow of normality meant the man they described on Thursday as the clubs most successful manager had to go.

Go here to see the original:
Leicester City sack Ranieri, ending an unforgettable dream - Buenos Aires Herald

I want you to stand in front of a mirror.

Now I want you to imagine Barack Obama is 40 days into his presidency, and that during his campaign he repeatedly and inexplicably praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Next imagine that late in the campaign and in the weeks that followed the election that brought Obama into office, American intelligence agencies determined conclusively that Russia had hacked the Republican National Committee and released thousands of stolen emails that were damaging to Obama's opponent.

And that Obama's campaign vigorously denied any contact with Russian officials before or after the election.

Then, imagine that not long after the inauguration, Obama's national security adviser was found to have lied about having contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He in fact spoke with the ambassador in December, the day the outgoing president issued sanctions against Russia for interfering with the election.

The adviser was fired.

Questions persisted. More evidence began to surface that people connected to Obama had been in contact with the Russians during the campaign.

Imagine that President Obama continued to deny there was any issue and brushed off reports as "fake news," criticizing the intelligence community for leaking information to the press.

As calls for an investigation into the Obama campaign's connections to Russia grew louder, news broke that Obama's new attorney general had been less than honest during his confirmation hearing when asked if he had contact with the Russians. He said he hadn't, but it turns out he had met twice with the Russian ambassador, one of those times during the Democratic National Convention.

Imagine the attorney general said his meetings were part of his work as a senator, but then news came out that the trip to the convention was paid for through the then-senator's campaign fund.

Under pressure, Obama's attorney general finally recused himself from investigations into issues surrounding the campaign and Russia.

Now imagine at this point, which again is in Obama's first 40 days as president, you learn that the fired national security adviser actually met with the Russian ambassador at Obama's house in Chicago, along with Obama's son-in-law. (You also have to imagine that Malia Obama is married and that a staffer in Obama's White House recently tried to push Malia's clothing line in a nationally televised interview. I know this is hard, just keep that imagination going.)

Next you learn that an Obama campaign official who made a change to the Democratic Party platform during its national convention, a change Russia would like the only change that candidate Obama's campaign requested also met with the Russian ambassador during the Democratic National Convention.

Imagine all of these things. And remember that President Obama and members of his campaign all said specifically and repeatedly that there had been no contact with Russia.

Imagine.

Now look into that mirror in front of you.

If this were true, would you think there should be an independent investigation into contacts between the Obama campaign and Russia? Are you angry?

If you answered yes to either of those questions and you don't feel the same way right now about the connections between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, you need to ask yourself: What is the difference between these two men?

Now look in the mirror again, long and hard. Because you have one last question to ask yourself.

And I think you know what it is.

rhuppke@chicagotribune.com

Continue reading here:
Trump's Russian connections: What if it were Obama? - Chicago Tribune

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats continue to snub President Trump by slowing down Senate confirmation of his Cabinet appointments. Their underlying goal is to allow remaining Obama-appointed bureaucrats to do as much damage to the Trump administration as they can before leaving.

CNN reported last week that Trump is noticeably behind the last three presidents when it comes to securing the confirmation of his Cabinet and other top appointments that require Senate approval.

The Senate confirmed Governor Rick Perry on Thursday to lead the U.S. Department of Energy, leaving only former Governor Sonny Perdue and Alexander Acosta awaiting confirmation to lead the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor respectively.

But Schumer is only stalling top cabinet picks to further block the appointments of nearly 2,000 other political vacancies within the administration. CNN said as of February 23, Trump had 1,987 vacancies throughout his administration.

Many of these positions are empty. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that much has happened at the Department of Justice in the three weeks hes been in office, and he wished more of his staff had been confirmed by now. To be clear: Senate Democrats are keeping the Department of Justice from functioning at full capacity.

But other seats are currently filled by Obama appointees quietly working behind the scenes to sabotage Trumps efforts by continuing their previous leaders agenda while Schumer works to hamstring Trumps presidency. These include deputies, managers, and political appointees who are meant to keep the government running while a new administration comes into power.

A clear example of this is occurring in the Department of Education, where bureaucrats are continuing what the Washington Post called Obamas ideological crusade on for-profit colleges.

During President Obamas term, his administration forced ITT Technical Institutes out of business after the school helped train American workers for half a century. This left about 40,000 students displaced and about 8,000 employees jobless, according to a September 20, 2016 Washington Post editorial.

And two months before the end of Obamas term, his education department abruptly stripped authority from the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which is one of the oldest national accreditors of academic institutions in the country.

The Obama administration took this action without giving the ACICS a standard 12-month grace period to address the Department of Educations complaints and imposed intentionally unattainable deadlines on private colleges and work training programs accredited through ACICS.

Secretary Betsy DeVos is now leading the Department of Education, but Obama-appointed lawyers in the department are still enforcing these unreachable mandates for career training institutions.

One such deadline requires 690 privately-owned schools to prove they have applications to other accreditors by March 12. Not only is this forcing private schools to leave ACICS before its appeal is adjudicated, but not meeting this deadline will mean these schools will lose the ability to receive federal Title IV funding, which is bureaucrat-speak for federal student aid.

This means more than 600,000 students at 725 schools will have to either quickly find other educational programs and restart their degrees or certificates; pay off their federal loans with their own money; or find a private lender to accept their debt. All of these options are terrible and punish hard-working people. And the last resort is having taxpayers cover the cost of forgiving the now-useless loans.

The Obama administration made a mission out of demonizing private for-profit colleges and universities, but many of these students are single parents or people who were failed by college-focused federal education policies.

Pulling the rug out from under organizations like ACICS is a blatant, misguided effort by Obama administration bureaucrats who are focused on destroying this industry.

Many of these students are working adults who are trying to improve their lives for the sake of their children. Not only will these Obama-led efforts hurt Americans, but without these colleges and career training programs, our ability to fill the jobs President Trump is working to bring to this county will be severely hindered.

Senate Republicans should make every effort to break the Democrat blockade, so President Trump can swiftly fill these positions. And then the presidents cabinet members should take a close look at Obama staffers who have burrowed in by moving from appointed positions to career jobs.

The Washington Times reported in November that there were 69 Obama political appointees who moved into career jobs from 2010 to 2015, and 17 of them didnt receive the required approval from the Office of Personnel Management.

The bold changes President Trump is bringing to the federal system will require complete loyalty within the ranks of the executive branch. Republicans in the Congress and the Presidents cabinet should work doubly hard to ensure the administration is at top working order as soon as possible.

Newt Gingrich is a Fox News contributor. A Republican, her was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on Twitter @NewtGingrich.

Continue reading here:
Newt Gingrich: Schumer's plan to Keep Obama appointees in power - Fox News

March 3, 2017 Since leaving office, former President Barack Obama has stayed largely out of the public eye. In May, however, he will be invited back into the spotlight to receive an award for his political service.

On Thursday, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation announced that Mr. Obama would be the 2017 recipient of its John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award. Obama is being recognized for a number of principled stances he took as president, including his action on climate change, expansion of health care under the Affordable Care Act, and work to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Though its unusual for a president to be presented with the award so soon after leaving office, the Kennedy family and the selection committee agreed that Obama was the logical choice for this year, the centenary of President Kennedys birth.

"President Kennedy called on a new generation of Americans to give their talents to the service of the country," Kennedy's daughter, Caroline Kennedy, said in a statement. "With exceptional dignity and courage, President Obama has carried that torch into our own time, providing young people of all backgrounds with an example they can emulate in their own lives."

The John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award has been presented annually since 1989. It is named for the late presidents Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which tells the stories of eight US politicians who stood up for their principles even if it meant risking their careers. The award is given to politicians who follow their conscience in making similarly controversial decisionsand is typically awarded for a single act.

Obama, however, is being celebrated more broadly for "his enduring commitment to democratic ideals and elevating the standard of political courage in a new century," the foundation said.

Obama is not the only former president to receive the award. Gerald Ford was selected in 2001 for his controversial decision to pardon Richard Nixon, while George H.W. Bushs decision to roll back his campaign pledge of No More Taxes and work across party lines to reduce the deficit made him the 2014 pick.

But why is Obama being recognized so much sooner after leaving office than other presidents? The selection committee was trying to do something different this year as a way to honor the centenary of Kennedys birth, foundation selection committee chairman Al Hunt, a Bloomberg columnist, told BuzzFeed News. Choosing Obama, whom they see as carrying on Kennedys legacy, fit the bill.

The selection is, perhaps, not surprising: Obama is already being recognized as a successful president. He enjoyed high approval ratings as his second term drew to an end, and last month debuted at #12 on C-SPANs presidential rankings, which rate presidents on leadership qualities ranging from economic management to moral authority.

Ms. Kennedy, who served as US ambassador to Japan under the Obama administration, and her son, Jack Schlossberg, will present the award on May 7 at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. At the ceremony, Obama is expected to give one of his first speeches since leaving office.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

More here:
Obama to receive 2017 Profile in Courage Award - Christian Science Monitor