Category: News

The surge in heart attacks affecting young people rose to the top of the headlines again on Tuesday, July 25, when Bronny James, the 18-year-old son of NBA superstar LeBron James, suffered cardiac arrest while practicing with his college team, the University of Southern California.

He was taken to the hospital, and a family spokesperson says he is now in stable condition.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, heart attack deaths have become more common in the United States, and the largest increase has been among younger people. According to a September 2022 study by Cedars Sinai Hospital, heart attack deaths among those aged 25 to 44 rose 29.9% over the first two years of the pandemic.

---

The same study showed that over the first two years of the pandemic, adults between 45 and 64 years old saw a 19.6% relative increase in heart attack deaths, and those 65 and older saw a 13.7% relative increase.

“Young people are obviously not really supposed to die of a heart attack. They’re not really supposed to have heart attacks at all,” Dr. Susan Cheng, a cardiologist at Cedars Sinai and co-author of the study, told Today.com.

Cheng attributes the rise in heart attack mortality to the COVID-19 virus.

“It appears to be able to increase the stickiness of the blood and increase…the likelihood of blood clot formation,” Cheng said. “It seems to stir up inflammation in the blood vessels. It seems to also cause in some people an overwhelming stress—whether it’s related directly to the infection or situations around the infection—that can also cause a spike in blood pressure.”

A study by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2022 backs up Cheng’s claim. It states that people who had COVID-19 face increased risks for 20 cardiovascular conditions, including heart attacks and strokes.

In addition, the American Heart Association says that people can suffer from heart problems many months after a COVID-19 infection.

“More recently, there is recognition that even some of those COVID-19 patients not hospitalized are experiencing cardiac injury. This raises concerns that there may be individuals who get through the initial infection, but are left with cardiovascular damage and complications,” Chief of the Division of Cardiology at UCLA Dr. Gregg Fonarow said. “The late consequences of that could be an increase in heart failure.”

After the James incident, many on social media, including Elon Musk, declared that the COVID-19 vaccine may cause a rise in heart attacks among younger people.

The tweet was accompanied by a fact check which was soon deleted.

We cannot ascribe everything to the vaccine, but, by the same token, we cannot ascribe nothing.

Myocarditis is a known side-effect. The only question is whether it is rare or common.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2023

“Studies show that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher after an actual Covid infection than with the vaccine. Among adolescent boys, the risk of myocarditis following a Covid infection was approximately twice that of the risk following the second vaccine dose,” the fact check read. It also cited two articles by CBS News and Yale Medicine.

The lingering heart conditions caused by a COVID-19 infection are a reminder that although the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths has significantly decreased over the past year, the effects of the pandemic are far from over.

About 16 miles east of Brookings, Oregon, stands a unique coastal redwood tree. It has been growing there since 1992, when the Japanese pilot who had dropped bombs on that very spot 50 years before planted it with his own hands.

Nobuo Fujita remains to this day the only foreign pilot to ever bomb the U.S. mainland. On September 9, 1942, Fujita flew a seaplane, launched from a floating catapult on a Japanese submarine in the Pacific, over the woodlands of southern Oregon. Along with the 30-year-old pilot and the bombs he was ordered to drop, the aircraft also carried a 400-year-old samurai sword—a prized family heirloom Fujita took with him on every flight.

Fujita was a bit disappointed with this bombing mission. He had wanted to bomb San Francisco or Los Angeles to take revenge on the U.S. for dropping bombs on targets in Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka, Nagoya and Kobe in the Doolittle Raid just a few months before. Instead, this mission was to use incendary bombs to start a forest fire that would engulf nearby towns like Brookings, divert resources and instill terror into the hearts of U.S. citizens.

---

But as anyone who has gone camping on the Oregon Coast can attest, starting a fire there isn’t easy, especially just after it has rained. The bombs Fujita deployed basically fizzled after hitting the ground, only starting small fires and creating enough smoke for the forest service to see them and act quickly to snuff them out.

Fujita returned home to train other pilots, and three years later, World War II ended after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War and forgiveness make strange bedfellows, but they always seem to find one another eventually. And for Fujita and the town of Brookings, “eventually” came in a fairly swift and dramatic fashion.

In 1962, less than 20 years after the war ended, a group of Jaycees in Brookings had the idea to invite Fujita and his family to be an honored guest at the town’s Azalea Festival as an act of goodwill and reconciliation. Not everyone was thrilled with this idea, however. Townspeople argued bitterly over it. Over 100 residents signed onto an op-ed opposing the idea, which read in part, “Why stop with Fujita? Why not assemble the ashes of Judas Iscariot, the corpse of Atilla the Hun, a shovel full of dirt from the spot where Hitler died….” For many, it probably have felt too soon, especially since many of the town’s citizens had fought in the war.

But the Jaycees were undeterred and admant that it was the right thing to do.

For his part, Fujita was worried he might be attacked, pelted with eggs or even put on trial for war crimes after he arrived, and he was prepared to end his life with his samurai sword if it came down to it. Instead, the day after he and his wife and son arrived in Brookings and found a warm welcome, Fujita presented his precious family heirloom to the city as a peace offering.

Brenda Jacques, a retired reference librarian, told Oregon Public Broadcasting about the significance of that Fujita giving the city his sword. “Would I be able to give something that had been that important to my family away?” she said. “It was a tremendous act of contrition.”

Fujita was presented with a key to the city and was given the opportunity to fly a plane over the bombing site. But the mutual goodwill didn’t end there.

Fujita would spend the rest of his life nurturing a friendship with the Oregon town he had once tried to burn to the ground. He and his employees donated thousands of dollars for a multicultural book collection at the Chetco County Community Public Library in Brookings. He organized a group of high school students to come to Japan for a cultural exchange.

In 1992, Fujita returned to Brookings and planted the coastal redwood tree—which he called “a symbol of friendship and peace”—where he had dropped bombs five decades before.

Just a few days before his death in 1997, the city of Brookings made Nobuo Fujita an honorary citizen.

The following year, his daughter came to fulfill his last request—to have some of his ashes buried at the bombing site.

Nobuo Fujita’s story is a moving reminder that the people charged with killing and terrorizing one another in wartime are never truly enemies, and that we all have the potential to be peacemakers if we choose to.

And hopefully, stories like this one will help humanity learn to avoid the war part altogether and jump straight to the goodwill and sharing of friendship across cultures part that we all love to see.

Following Sinead O’Connor’s death at age 56 this week, the streaming services surely saw an unprecedented amount of people simultaneously fire up “Nothing Compares 2 U.” As well, Pink and Brandi Carlile performed a cover of that same song, and people fondly recalled the time that O’Connor blasted Piers Morgan after he extended multiple requests to interview her.

Additionally, Neil Gaiman has shared a coincidence that occurred when he went to sign some books at Golden Notebook in Woodstock, New York. As The Sandman maestro related, employees gave him an apparently signed copy of Why Sinead O’Connor Matters by Allyson McCabe. This happened only a few hours prior to the announcement of O’Connor’s passing.

As Gaiman further related, he did not personally select the book, but “[t]hey chose it for me.”

Here’s the synopsis of McCabe’s book, which delves into Sinead’s activism on behalf of children who were abused by Catholic priests. It was a battle that went high-profile with her SNL protest and subsequent fallout:

In 1990, Sinéad O’Connor’s video for “Nothing Compares 2 U” turned her into a superstar. Two years later, an appearance on Saturday Night Live turned her into a scandal. For many people — including, for years, the author — what they knew of O’Connor stopped there. Allyson McCabe believes it’s time to reassess our old judgments about Sinéad O’Connor and to expose the machinery that built her up and knocked her down.

Why Sinead O’Connor Matters was quite recently published in May 2023, and the book landed in Gaiman’s hands with even more haunting timing.

GOP Representative Nancy Mace has made headlines recently for her role in the subcommittee hearings investigating the existence of UAPs — UFOs as they’re more commonly known. And it seems like the South Carolina lawmaker is eager to hold onto that spotlight just a bit longer because she made a wild, “TMI” remark in front of a bunch of Evangelicals that practically guaranteed she’d be trending on social media.

Mace, who got engaged to her partner Patrick Bryant last year (in a totally not staged moment that she turned into a campaign video), gave a speech at Tim Scott’s prayer breakfast where she bragged about turning down some hot, morning premarital sex in order to break bread, or at least some cold eggs and a few stale croissants, with her Christian base.

“When I woke up this morning at 7, I was getting picked up at 7:45. Patrick, my fiancé, tried to pull me by my waist over this morning in bed and I was like, ‘No, baby, we don’t got time for that this morning. I got to get to the prayer breakfast and I got to be on time,” Mace bizarrely boasted before adding that it may have “been a little TMI.”

But, as bizarre as it was to hear a conservative Christian lawmaker give us a peek inside her bedroom, Mace followed that up with an even more WTF omission.

“He can wait,” after Mace got some chuckles when she admitted to blue-balling her fiance. “I’ll see him later tonight.” Now, we’re not prudes and we’re certainly not concerned with how premarital sex violates the tenets of certain religions, but the people in the audience sure are what makes this whole thing even stranger.

But hey, congrats to the happy couple!

We don’t have the time to list all the reasons why HBO’s The Righteous Gemstones is one of the best shows on TV. But here’s a partial list: naked fights, monster trucks, Danny McBride’s hair, Skyler Gisondo in a neck brace, the sentence “that ain’t no Babadook, that’s Mama,” the Smut Busters, literally every scene with Edi Patterson, and so on. But the number one reason why Righteous Gemstones belongs on year-end lists is Baby Billy’s Bible Bonkers.

Earlier today, HBO announced that The Righteous Gemstones has been renewed for a fourth season. That’s wonderful news… but nowhere in the press release does it mention Baby Billy’s Bible Bonkers, the game show (it’s like Family Feud, or “Family Feuds,” but for Bible trivia) hosted by Walton Goggins’ Uncle Baby Billy, with accompaniment from Valyn Hall’s delightful Tiffany. If HBO releases a standalone episode of Baby Billy’s Bible Bonkers, I vow to never call Max “HBO Max” again.

“The way in which Baby Billy’s story starts off in a clamshell, doing 24 performances a day, beside a pool at the Gemstone Resort, was exhausting, but it was so much fun. I had no idea that it was gonna start off in an imaginary music video that was gonna end with ripping off Family Feud,” Goggins told Collider. He added, “Secretly, that’s always been a dream of mine, to do something like that and to infuse it with a certain amount of late show humor.”

Give us what we want: Walton Goggins saying “Baby Billy’s Bible Bonkers.”

When your toddler has a meltdown, it’s perfectly natural to want to fly off the handle.

There’s nothing more infuriating than a small human repeatedly demanding something that’s physically impossible for you to give them, or wailing because you had to punish them after repeatedly telling them to knock it off.

“I CREATED YOU, YOU LITTLE MONSTER. I CAN DESTROY YOU,” you might want to say (though you never would). You love your kids — of course you do — but damn if they aren’t the best at pushing you to your breaking point.

---

As tempting as it may be to raise your voice, yell, and keep ramping up the punishment to ridiculous levels, some parenting experts say there’s a much better option.

Vanessa Lapointe, a mom and professional psychologist, suggests something called “discipline without damage.”

Lapointe defines this practice, sometimes called “compassionate parenting,” as an intervention that reinforces connection, not separation — in other words, staying calm and kind while setting firm boundaries for kids in a way that doesn’t dampen their spirits or preach obedience above all else.

This isn’t just some new-agey, feel good stuff: Lapointe says it’s all based on science and the way children’s brains develop.

“Our job as parents is to grow up children who are hardy. Not children who are hardened,” she explained in an essay for The Huffington Post. “Children who are hardy can weather the storms of life. Children who are hardened cannot, and instead tend to shut down and have ineffective coping strategies.”

Lapointe recently released a nifty “Discipline Cheat Sheet” that offers some simple changes to the words we use when faced with a meltdown that can completely change the tenor of the situation for the better.

Here’s how this technique might play out.

Say your toddler colored on the wall with bright green crayon.

Instead of screeching something along the lines of “What were you thinking?!??!” Lapointe recommends using a kind and compassionate tone and saying something more like, “You know I don’t want you coloring on the walls. We need to get this cleaned up.”

“No!” your kid might respond, with a stomp of a tiny foot. “I don’t want to!”

“Come on,” you say, keeping your voice calm. “I’ll show you where the cleaning supplies are and help you get started.”

Now, ideally, that would be enough. Your toddler would calm down and gladly help you clean the walls. When it comes to toddlers, however, parents know things are rarely that easy.

What if by then he’s too upset and has thrown himself to the ground in protest, banging fists against the floor? Instead of finally breaking and losing your temper, it’s time to try a different tactic from the cheat sheet.

“I can see this is tricky for you. We’re going to solve this later. Let’s get a drink of water,” you can say.

He may agree or not. But eventually, he will calm down (every parent knows that they always do), and you can show him how to get the crayon off the wall.

When the wall is finally clean, turn to him and say, “Let’s find a better place to keep your coloring supplies so this doesn’t happen again.”

The whole conflict may take a while, and you may have to go back to the cheat sheet to try many of these different techniques, but in the end, you get what you want (a clean wall) without yelling at, frightening, or physically forcing your toddler to clean it up. At the same time, your kid learns that their actions have consequences.

The reality is that most toddlers are nearly psychologically incapable of impulse control. No amount of yelling or being a strict disciplinarian can change the wiring of their brains. And though the phrases in the chart above are best for young children, the same principles of compassionate parenting apply to older kids, too.

The chart has been shared far and wide across the web, though Lapointe’s approach isn’t without its critics.

Some parents worry that her recommendations feel an awful lot like “helicopter parenting” and isn’t strong enough to teach kids about independence and feeling the consequences of their actions.

Lapointe says these people are missing the point. She spells out the difference:

“The hoverer is worried, nervous, and uncertain, and prevents their child from ever having to come to terms with the things in life that simply cannot be. The provider is confident, all-knowing, and in charge, and supports the child in regulating around their upset in coming to terms with the things in life that cannot be. “

She urges parents to remember that kids are kids and not to expect them to understand the world as adults do.

Compassionate parenting is more than just a few handy phrases.

The phrases on Lapointe’s cheat sheet are a great first step for reframing the way we react when our kids start misbehaving, but they’re not the only tool a compassionate parent can keep in their back pocket. For parents looking for an alternative to punishment and escalating behavior, however, Lapointe’s cheat sheet could be just the help they need to stay calm in the face of a toddler tornado.

Though easier said than done, a simple, “Come here, I’ve got you,” could be exactly what your kid needs to hear.

This article originally appeared on 07.21.17

When Carrie Hollenbeck needed to sell her 1996 Honda Accord, with over 140,000 lifetime miles on it, having a filmmaker boyfriend paid off. Big time.

Max Lanman had the idea to produce an actual commercial to advertise his girlfriend’s jalopy. But this wouldn’t be some low-budget production for a 4 a.m. run on the local access cable channel. Oh no. Not at all.

---

“I thought it would be hilarious to make a high-end car commercial for a really junky car,” Lanman told ABC News. “And she had just the car.”

The ad begins like any high-gloss, self-important, sleek car commercial, with a deep-voiced narrator uttering some vaguely inspiring patter: “You, you’re different. You do things your way. That’s what makes you one of a kind.”

Cut to — instead of a luxury vehicle with a slick dash, leather interior, and impeccably dressed anonymous driver — Carrie’s old Honda, complete with coffee spills, random objects rolling around in the back, and one of those cassette things you use to play your iPod in a car without Bluetooth.

“You don’t do it for appearance. You do it because it works,” the narrator adds triumphantly.

Check out the finished product:

Lanman may have intended the piece to be more silly than satire, but the faux ad inadvertently makes an important point about the car buying experience in America.

As commonplace as the ads he’s lampooning are, the majority of Americans cannot afford a new car. Things are only getting worse — the average price of a new vehicle has skyrocketed 35% since the 1970s, while the median household income is only up about 3% for the same time period.

Cars have always been a status symbol, but somewhere along the line — between the time of horse-drawn carriages and the modern era of Matthew McConaughey selling Lincolns by falling backward into an infinity pool while wearing a tuxedo — cars have become an extreme symbol of status.

Car commercials would have you believe that cars are not something you buy because of how well they can get you from Point A to Point B, but because of how they made you feel and how they make you look to other people. For every person buying a $60,000 car that fits their “lifestyle,” (or to sit in their garage, barely touched) there are dozens more people buying a used junker on Craiglist or eBay because it’s all they can afford. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Though it wasn’t intended to be, Max and Carrie’s viral ad is almost a digital middle finger to those who want the rich to get richer and income disparity to get worse. It reminds us to be proud of our ability to successfully live our own lives, even if it’s not always pristine or glamorous. This ad … is practical and real and … well, it’s all of us.

“Luxury is a state of mind,” the narrator bellows at the end. Finally, a car slogan everyday Americans can get behind.

This article originally appeared on 11.09.17

If you haven’t heard actor Justin Baldoni’s name, you at least probably recognize him.

Best known for his role as Rafael on “Jane the Virgin,” Baldoni is the epitome of Hollywood’s “tall, dark, and handsome” stereotype. He is every bad boy with a sinister past. Every womanizing billionaire. Every domineering playboy.

---

In a talk at TEDWomen 2017, Baldoni joked about the string of characters he’s been typecast as (most of them appear shirtless a good majority of the time).

“Most of the men I play ooze machismo, charisma, and power,” he said. “And when I look in the mirror, that’s just not how I see myself.”

Baldoni came to realize that it wasn’t just on-screen that he was pretending. In his everyday life, he found himself trying to conform to society’s masculine ideal as well, and it all felt like a lie.

“I’ve been pretending to be strong when I felt weak. Confident when I felt insecure. And tough when really I was hurting,” he explained.

The past few years have been a journey for Baldoni, who has set out to redefine for himself what “being a man” is really all about. In his TED Talk, he shared three major realizations he had along the way.

1. “Real men” make themselves vulnerable — not just with women, but with other men too.

Baldoni’s early attempts at being more open about his emotions publicly on social media went great — until he realized almost all of his followers were women. Opening up to his fellow men was another challenge altogether.

“If it’s about work or sports or politics or women, [men] have no problem sharing our opinions,” he observed. “But if it’s about our insecurities, our struggles, our fear of failure, it’s almost like we become paralyzed.”

He recalled recently wanting to talk to his guy friends about a serious issue in his life and needing almost the entirety of a three-day guys trip to work up the courage to do it. Once he did, however, he found many of his buddies were eager to share with him, too.

“My display of vulnerability can, in some cases, give other men permission to do the same,” he realized.

(If only there were a TEDMen Baldoni could have given this talk at.)

2. “Real men” hold other men, and themselves, accountable.

As he began to engage more with other men, Baldoni started to become even more aware of toxic male behavior around him. It was everywhere.

He recalls an Instagram comment someone left on a photo of him and his wife. The random male commenter called the photo “gay shit.”

So Baldoni decided to message him.

“I said, very politely, ‘I’m just curious, because I’m on an exploration of masculinity, and I wanted to know why my love for my wife qualified as gay shit,'” he remembered.

To his surprise, the man responded thoughtfully about how his own displays of affection had been mocked as a child, and he apologized for lashing out.

“Secretly he was waiting for permission to express himself,” Baldoni said. “And all he needed was another man holding him accountable and creating a safe place for him to feel. The transformation was instant.”

3. “Real men” embrace the good aspects of traditional masculinity — with a twist.

Not everything traditionally associated with manliness is bad. Strength, bravery, and confidence are great things to aspire to (regardless of one’s gender). But Baldoni urges men to think deeply about what those qualities really mean in practice and whether, perhaps, there’s not a different way to think about spending their energy trying to achieve them.

“Are you brave enough … to be vulnerable?” he asked. “Are you strong enough to be sensitive? … Are you confident enough to listen to the women in your life? … Will you be man enough to stand up to other men when you hear ‘locker room talk’?”

Near the end of his talk, Baldoni acknowledges an important point: As bad as the “performance of masculinity” is for men, these rigid gender roles can be far worse for women.

He bemoaned that there wasn’t even enough time to get into issues like the gender pay gap, division of household labor, and violence against women — all issues created and upheld by the toxic male behavior Baldoni’s fighting against.

“The deeper we get into this, the uglier it gets,” he said.

He challenged the men watching and listening to demand better of themselves and those around them.

“If we want to be part of the solution, words are no longer enough,” Baldoni said.

This article originally appeared on 12.08.17

The term “John Doe” is normally used to hide a person’s true name or as a placeholder when their real name isn’t know. But despite her nom de plume, Chicago’s Jean Deaux is far from being just another anonymous face in the rap world. She’s plugged in with many of the Windy City’s most recognizable artists like Mick Jenkins and Saba, as well as associated acts like Smino, and well-accomplished in her own right, with five self-released projects to date.

She brings her formidable talents to bear on UPROXX Sessions, performing “Yeah Yeah” from her latest project, Heavy. A dismissive track that rides the ever-blurring line between rap and R&B, “Yeah Yeah” is an eye-rolling response to guys “runnin’ game” with nothing to back it up. “I’m every n**** muse, but I’m not amused” she boasts. “I’m out here goin’ dumb, don’t get sh*t confused.” Heavy, released in April, features seven tracks with production by trap rap mainstay Turbo.

You can check out Jean Deaux’s performance of “Yeah Yeah” for UPROXX Sessions above.

UPROXX Sessions is Uproxx’s performance show featuring the hottest up-and-coming acts you should keep an eye on. Featuring creative direction from LA promotion collective, Ham On Everything, and taking place on our “bathroom” set designed and painted by Julian Gross, UPROXX Sessions is a showcase of some of our favorite performers, who just might soon be yours, too.

For anyone else, a 1-1 draw against the Netherlands in group-stage play would be a welcome result. For the USWNT, it was a stunning upset.

With eight wins in their past 11 meetings, history was on Coach Vlatko Andonovski’s side. The US had capably handled the Dutch in the 2019 Women’s World Cup final, and eked out a win against their Oranje rivals in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Both teams have been plagued by injuries, welcomed new coaching staffs, and introduced different formations to their style of play – but the odds should’ve been in the United States’ favor.

Instead, during Wednesday night’s match, the Netherlands dominated first-half play, passing with precision, possessing with a sense of confidence, shutting down their opponent’s midfield tactics, and capitalizing on the few offensive chances they were given. The Dutch didn’t look as threatening in the attack as their American counterparts, but when they did float upfield, they made the most of their time there. Midfielder Jill Roord scored a stunning shot from the top of the 18 at around the 17-minute mark, a lead the Netherlands would hold onto until Lindsey Horan’s header off a corner kick tied the game in the 62nd minute. The US maintained control of the match after that, creating some better looks at goal that they couldn’t quite finish, but, by all accounts, they were lucky to squeak by with a draw when the whistle blew.

So, what does that mean for their future, both in group stage play and come the knockout rounds where they’re likely to face off against even tougher opponents like Spain and Sweden? Let’s break it down.

The Midfield Problem

Because this gripe isn’t anything Vlatko’s squad hasn’t heard before, we’ll just say it: The US has a midfield problem. It’s not that we don’t have talented players who can quickly transition from defense into the attack – we’ve got Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Ashley Sanchez, Savannah DeMelo … the list goes on. The issue lies with what we’re doing with that talent. Lavelle is on restricted minutes which hampers her impact, but if she can play a full 45, why not give her the start over an inexperienced DeMelo, who struggled to hold up against the pressure of the Dutch push?

Because of Andi Sullivan’s style of play, Horan has dropped back into a more defensive midfield position, which would work if we had attacking mids like Lavelle or Sanchez on the field to connect passes and make runs. Instead, the US seemed almost too defensive-minded in the first half, hesitating and giving an inexplicable amount of space to Netherland’s back three before pressing on the second pass. It might have been a good strategy, except the Dutch are too technically efficient to give them that kind of time on the ball. Instead of shutting down those second and third passes, our midfield was left to run themselves ragged, trying to cut off passing lanes and roadblock the Netherlands’ offensive attack. We wasted energy and ended up paying for that complacency early on. What’s worse, it felt like we abandoned a key element of the American game: our tenacity and aggression. By letting the Dutch control the tempo of play, it felt like the fight was sucked out of the US – and we wouldn’t find it again until the second half.

Sub Strategy

The USWNT has, arguably, the deepest bench of any team in the FIFA Women’s World Cup at the moment. And yet, the only sub Vlatko made happened at the start of the second half, when Lavelle replaced a tired and beaten DeMelo in the midfield. That substitution made a clear and immediate difference, but the choice to ignore his bench in favor of keeping tired legs on the field was likely the most confusing game tactic we’ve seen the USWNT coach make during his tenure. After Horan’s goal, the momentum shifted and more opportunities in the final third were popping up. The problem? Trinity Rodman was gassed after hounding the ball to help our defense during the first half, as was Alex Morgan, who seemed to be the only player interested in pressuring the Dutch’s defense all game. Sullivan had slowed, Crystal Dunn had made mistakes as the left back – a position she really shouldn’t be restricted to at this point given how fantastic she is in the midfield for her club team – and Sophia Smith was struggling to convert on the wing.

When you have Lynn Williams, one of the fastest strikers and defensively prolific players in the game, an equally quick Kelly O’Hara, an experienced and confident-on-the-ball Megan Rapinoe, and a scrappy Kristie Mewis on your bench, why wouldn’t you deploy them? Especially when the temperature of the match had shifted and a win was within your grasp?

Vlatko told reporters after the match that he was worried any sub would take a couple of minutes to adjust to the gameplay and throw off the team’s rhythm, which makes absolutely no sense given these are professional athletes, but even so. Is one to two minutes of adjustment for fresh legs and the chance of another goal worse than 20 minutes of tired forwards exhausting themselves further just for a draw that means we’ll need them in top form against Portugal?

The Front Three

There’s no easy way to say this, but something just isn’t clicking with the USWNT’s frontline. Each player – Smith, Morgan, and Rodman – are individual powerhouses, but their chemistry is noticeably off. Not because they can’t play well together, but because they’re being asked to play in positions and styles that don’t cater to their strengths as strikers. Smith is at her best when she’s attacking central, running at defenders, shooting from the 18, and passing to the wings before accepting a cross. Rodman is terrific on the flank, but she’s only there to score goals. The minute some defending or pass connections must be made, her game lags. And Morgan, who Vlatko has dubbed a playmaker, is stuck up top, in the middle, with two less-experienced wingers whose focus is less on the buildup and more on the end result being the back of the net.

No amount of extra minutes playing together is going to solve the fundamental problem – this lineup wasn’t built to work.

Youth vs. Experience

So much has been made about diversity when it comes to the age of players on the USWNT. Alyssa Thompson is the baby, an 18-year-old superstar in the making while Rapinoe is the team’s oldest member, a “cool Gay aunt” in her words who knows how to dictate play and come up big in key moments. If we were leveraging both, the age gap might not be an issue. But, as it stands, Vlatko seems to prefer young, fresh, untested talent in big matches. Sometimes that pays off – as with Smith and Naomi Girma. And sometimes, adjustments need to be made, especially when we are facing teams like the Netherlands who have years of built-in chemistry playing together at the national level.

Would Rapinoe, Lavelle, or Williams – all players who have faced the Netherlands and beat them in big games – have made a difference if they came on, or came on sooner? Who knows. But as it stands, there seems to be a disconnect between how much Vlatko values experience versus how much stock this team is putting into its new additions. Balance feels like the key here.

Making Horan Angry

We imagine most teams watching film from the Netherlands match will have learned Daniëlle van de Donk’s lesson: Don’t make Lindsey Horan angry. You won’t like her when she’s angry. After fielding a careless and, frankly, dangerous challenge from her Lyon teammate, Horan got into a heated argument with the Dutch player, one the referee bizarrely tried to defuse by having the two hash it out on the field … during play.

As weird as the whole incident was, Horan harnessed her emotions and converted them into a set-piece goal that saved the team’s chances of advancing out of the group stage. If there’s a way to ensure a fire is lit underneath the USWNT’s co-captain each game going forward, we’d love to hear about it.