Difference between revisions of "544: Pep Talk"
(→Explanation: Realising that in the former interpretation "perceptive" may refer to those describing Cueball's team, that makes sense to me. I've still added an additional interpretation however. Apologies for cutting it out the first time.) |
(→Explanation: Rewrite to encompass the two main readings. And open up the possibility of more. Short of confirming with Randall what he really meant by it, it's wide open field, and anybody could win. Except chess-players coached by Cueball.) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
He could have tried to get a {{w|Time-out (sport)|time-out}}, but still he would not have been allowed to take his team down to the locker room. | He could have tried to get a {{w|Time-out (sport)|time-out}}, but still he would not have been allowed to take his team down to the locker room. | ||
| − | The title text parodies a common plot of, especially US, {{w|List_of_sports_films#Basketball|sports movies}} in which {{tvtropes|UnderdogsNeverLose|an inexperienced team (and sometimes coach) still manage to win}} a title after a highly motivational pep talk (see for instance {{w|Hoosiers (film)|Hoosiers}}). These pep talks usually take place during regular pauses of the game, and can lead to a come back from a seemingly insurmountable deficit. | + | The title text parodies a common plot of, especially US, {{w|List_of_sports_films#Basketball|sports movies}} in which {{tvtropes|UnderdogsNeverLose|an inexperienced team (and sometimes coach) still manage to win}} a title after a highly motivational pep talk (see for instance {{w|Hoosiers (film)|Hoosiers}}). These pep talks usually take place during regular pauses of the game, and can lead to a come back from a seemingly insurmountable deficit. |
| − | + | ||
| + | It can probably be presumed that this is still Coach Cueball talking, but the precise meaning of the phrase depends upon who "they" are, or even if it's the same "they" in both instances. The classic interpretation might be that the both "they"s are his own team's detractors, possibly even the opposing team of {{w|National Basketball Association|NBA}} professionals, who have been trash-talking Cueball's team's chamces by pointing out that {{w|chess}} players don't have any innate qualities to make them transfer well into high-level basketball, especially when the person trying to train them to do so (Cueball) explicitly has no basketball experience. Rather than this being a case of overturned expectations, even Coach Cueball has come to realise that the detractors' predictions have been very accurate. | ||
| + | |||
| + | An alternative reading is that the first "they" are people who have been assessing the ''opponents''' chances. Coach Cueball is, in this scenario, playing against a team of chess-players with an inexperienced coach of their own. Yet even with these possible disadvantages (Cueball's players may even be legitmate NBA basketballers, although Cueball's misunderstanding of when to depart the court imply he's at least as bad at organising such a team, and his people seem like they would do better with no coach at all), the opposing players (the "they" in the "they're") have overcome their 'obvious' disadvantages, and appear to have been able to use their (chess-playing?) observational skills to good effect. And not just currently triumphing against the poorly-led players we see, but at least on a par with the rest of the NBA circuit. Regardless of how well Cueball's team normally competes in the more general competition.<!-- editor's note: I personally think this is too much of a stretch; somehow two 'wildly off beat' teams, yet with completely different fortunes (both subverted and enforced expectations), managed to sneek into mainstream competition like this... It's neither a realistic outcome nor a standard fictional trope. But a prior author seemed to primarily read it this way and want to commit to this stranger version, and (for the sake of all parties) it looked like it needed vastly more explaning to make sure all perspectives were acknowledged. --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Further different nuances may apply if it is ''not'' Coach Cueball speaking the title text. But,whichever way it is meant, this supposed 'pep' statement ends up by admitting that the situation is hopeless, rather than the typically expected imparting of optimism and drive to try (however unlikely) to inspire a final victory. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Revision as of 14:27, 6 April 2026
| Pep Talk |
 Title text: Listen! They said a team of chess players coached by someone with no understanding of basketball would never be competitive in the NBA! Well, it turns out they're pretty perceptive. |
Explanation
Another comic where Randall takes a less than serious look at sports.
The halftime pep talk of a basketball game is commonly used by coaches to inspire their team to either turn the game around, or to defend the lead, and to make strategic changes that will help them do so. Unfortunately, the basketball coach Cueball has absolutely no fundamental understanding of the sport, and has pulled his team (of Cueball-like players) into the locker room while the game is still in progress, not during halftime, enabling the other team to score at will.
He could have tried to get a time-out, but still he would not have been allowed to take his team down to the locker room.
The title text parodies a common plot of, especially US, sports movies in which an inexperienced team (and sometimes coach) still manage to win a title after a highly motivational pep talk (see for instance Hoosiers). These pep talks usually take place during regular pauses of the game, and can lead to a come back from a seemingly insurmountable deficit.
It can probably be presumed that this is still Coach Cueball talking, but the precise meaning of the phrase depends upon who "they" are, or even if it's the same "they" in both instances. The classic interpretation might be that the both "they"s are his own team's detractors, possibly even the opposing team of NBA professionals, who have been trash-talking Cueball's team's chamces by pointing out that chess players don't have any innate qualities to make them transfer well into high-level basketball, especially when the person trying to train them to do so (Cueball) explicitly has no basketball experience. Rather than this being a case of overturned expectations, even Coach Cueball has come to realise that the detractors' predictions have been very accurate.
An alternative reading is that the first "they" are people who have been assessing the opponents' chances. Coach Cueball is, in this scenario, playing against a team of chess-players with an inexperienced coach of their own. Yet even with these possible disadvantages (Cueball's players may even be legitmate NBA basketballers, although Cueball's misunderstanding of when to depart the court imply he's at least as bad at organising such a team, and his people seem like they would do better with no coach at all), the opposing players (the "they" in the "they're") have overcome their 'obvious' disadvantages, and appear to have been able to use their (chess-playing?) observational skills to good effect. And not just currently triumphing against the poorly-led players we see, but at least on a par with the rest of the NBA circuit. Regardless of how well Cueball's team normally competes in the more general competition.
Further different nuances may apply if it is not Coach Cueball speaking the title text. But,whichever way it is meant, this supposed 'pep' statement ends up by admitting that the situation is hopeless, rather than the typically expected imparting of optimism and drive to try (however unlikely) to inspire a final victory.
Transcript
- [Coach-Cueball stands at the end of a double row of benches in the players locker room. He speaks to his team of five Cueball-like players, two are sitting with towels on the left bench, one stands behind them, and two are sitting on the right bench, one of them resting his head on his hands.]
- Coach-Cueball: Okay, team. We're sixteen points down. If we want to come back from this—
- Offscreen: Woo!! Score!!!
- Coach-Cueball: Okay, now we're eighteen points down. ...Listen—I'm starting to think we should only take these breaks at halftime.
Trivia
- In 1392: Dominant Players Randall compares basketball with chess.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
There is a community portal discussion of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since there is only one Cueball that "talks" it is obvious to keep him listed as Cueball. Just made a note that the other guys also looks like Cueball. --Kynde (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Cueball plural should be Cueballs. 162.158.123.103 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) Anonymous May 8 2020
This explanation is definitely incomplete. Someone add tag please. 172.70.85.15 18:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
- You can do that. Assuming somebody hasn't just removed even the newest comic's tag, go and look at the current format (or, even if they have, see what 'THE BOT' put in the new-page edit) and use that as inspiration if you aren't sure of the markup format. But it's basically
{{incomplete | ...your reasoning for the incompleteness... }}at the simplest. Or check the {{incomplete}} template page for the definive explanation. - Also, you (and Anonymous, above) seem not to have signed with the ~~~~ markup. Might be intentional, or you edited your configuration, but always nice to see linkable username attributions. As well as (what you did manage) a proper timestamp. 172.70.163.109 00:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, I didn't know exactly what you needed to type to add an incomplete tag and that thought didn't cross my mind. I thought I did sign my comment correctly but apparently not, thanks for telling me 172.70.85.15 00:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- When you sign with the four ~s, it puts a valid form of "who, and when" (whether you're an anon-IP, like us two, or a signed in user like Kynde, above "My 8" anon's item).
- For this post, four tildes (which I'll repeat at the end) give me "172.68.205.92 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)".
- I could also have done three tildes, to give me "172.68.205.92" (just the "who" bit) or five tildes, to give me "01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)" (just the "when" bit). A common error is to mis-duplicate the tapped-in tildes. Although you can (and maybe you even originally did) do "NAME WROTE THIS" and the five, to give "NAME WROTE THIS 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)". It's not exactly wrong, but it's a kind of a claim to identity that you really can't ever back up.
- And this is always the current "who" and "when". I've let you get away with the "new who" of replacing the awkwardly signed "This explanation is definitely incomplete..." statement with a new four-tilde magical replacement, but (if anyone cared to look at it), it looks rather odd to have a comment timestamped as sometime on 8/Dec/2024 being replied to by one timestamped as a 3/Dec/2024 contribution. If you forget to sign, immediately realise and then go back to add in a signature then it really doesn't matter too much. But understand that the back-end replacement of the tildes with the timestamp (especially, but also possible the identity in some other cases) isn't really something you want to do when it's 'already history'.
- If you want to be totally correct when back-correcting, check the "diff" page for the edit which added the (originally) unsigned/mis-signed comment and copy the timestamp (and identity, if necessary) from there. It's also what I do when I add {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned ip}} details to something, but that's another lesson. For things you know to be 'yours', obviously you just want to make it 'better looking', not to add a reminder to yourself that you should have originally used the ~~~~ signature. And it's because of the apaprent self-awareness you now have already gained of your initial error that I'm not using the "unsigned" pester-tag. But I have put it back to indicating when it was originally written (a certain time on 2/Dec/2024). And decided to try to make sure that your understanding of how to correct your errors isn't itself slightly in error. ;) It's all a bit pedantic, I know, but I only have explained it more fully because you seem willing to get it right.
- ...the simplest way to "get it right" is, of course, just to remember to use the four tildes to sign any (Talk-page) contribution. It becomes almost second nature. And if you do momentrily forget, you (or someone else) can easily do something about it. Perhaps in a way that nobody actually realises that it was ever not-quite-right in the first place! ;) 172.68.205.92 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Add comment
