Bastian Schweinsteiger Plays His Final International Match In A German Uniform

Bastian Schweinsteiger Plays His Final International Match In A German Uniform

In his last international game, Germany beats Finland 2-0.

It's official: Bastian Schweinsteiger has played his last international game. The German soccer player, 32, has officially retired from international play after Germany's 2-0 win against Finland. Schweinsteiger has made his country proud for the last 12 years: playing in over a hundred games while donning a German uniform.

Schweinsteiger played on Germany's national team from 2004-2016 and proved to be an important asset from the very beginning of his soccer career. Since his addition to the team over a decade ago, Schweinsteiger has accompanied Germany to every major tournament that they've played in. In 2014, Schweinsteiger was an invaluable player in taking home the World Cup for Germany.

After the game ended on August 31, Schweinsteiger was presented with a bouquet of flowers and given a standing ovation from the crowd. Schweinsteiger is currently signed to Manchester United but is rumored to have fallen out of favor with a new manager, José Mourinho. While Schweinsteiger has denied that there is any tension between himself and Mourinho, a lot of fans are skeptical because Mourinho has yet to put Schweinsteiger into a single game.

As a new Premier League season begins, we hope to see Schweinsteiger back on the field with Manchester United soon!

Cover Image Credit: 101 Great Goals

Popular Right Now

If You Wear XL T-Shirts And Shorts, You're The Woman Of My Dreams

Enough with the war on comfort!

Comfortable can be sexy, simply put.

For some reason there are people complaining out there about the Southern college trend that has been happening the past few years: big t-shirts and shorts, also known as the "srat uniform." There seems to be a clash between the girls who dress "nice" most of the time and girls who dress for comfort. As a guy, I don't see what the big deal is?

For college in the South, there are two reasons to dress up: college football (Roll Tide) and date parties. Any other time, you can find a majority of the female population in shorts and a big t-shirt that makes it look like they're not wearing pants. As a man, I personally don't see anything wrong with this. I love being comfortable as much as the next person, and most guys find the baggy t-shirt and shorts outfit to be cute. There's always a time and place for dresses and rompers.

But for all the haters out there that call these girls in XL t-shirts and shorts lazy, you've got it all wrong.

There are 4 reasons why the girls who don the "srat uniform" have it all figured out.

1. Girls have it rough.

See, it's tough being a girl. I don't know from experience, but I hear it enough and I've seen it enough to know it's true. When girls aren't dealing with f***boys, periods or having to do their hair and makeup routinely, they are being overly criticized by our society. I think society owes girls a break, and that break comes in the comfortable baggy t-shirt and shorts.

2. Southern Not-So-Comfort(able) weather.

Also, for all of the haters, maybe y'all haven't noticed that it's hotter than Satan's balls in the South! Tight, dressy outfits and pants constrict the body and cause you to sweat. I'd rather see a dry girl in a baggy t-shirt than a girl drenched in sweat trying to look cute with her outfit.

3. Perfect doesn't exist.

It's admirable when a girl can unapologetically be herself. A girl in an XL t-shirt and shorts is a girl that is saying "yes, I may have just rolled out of bed and brushed my hair, but I'm here dammit." Social media tells us we all have to be the dolled up, most "perfect" version of ourselves all the time, so it's nice to experience that reality check.

4. Guys think it's cute, regardless.

9 times out of 10, guys in college do not care what you're wearing. Trust me, we aren't doing much better. You could probably put on a garbage bag and we still think you're cute. Any guy that dates a girl that dates a girl only because she dresses nicely all of the time is a shallow man. You're cute, you're comfortable, and that makes for a much better vibe. We all win.

So, in the battle of dressing "nice" and dressing comfortable, I think that the girls who wear an XL t-shirt and shorts chalk up a win in my record book. No, I'm not bashing on girls who have a true sense of style and wear nice clothing... that's a great thing in itself! But, this is college and there are more important things to focus on besides what we're wearing.

Ladies, wear your srat uniform with pride. Some us think it's cute :)

*I want to thank the beautiful ladies at the University of Alabama for inspiring this article.*

Cover Image Credit: Pinterest

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Thanks, but no thanks

The Celtics have been named as a team LeBron may have a conversation with, but I'm all set.


The NBA Finals are now over so this means it's time for the off-season to begin. One of the biggest storylines going into this off-season is where is LeBron going? If you haven't seen it yet, ESPN's Stephen A Smith said LeBron will meet with seven teams and one of these teams is the Boston Celtics. Granted, Smith is the only one who has reported this so naturally all of Boston was sent into a frenzy about the possibility of James coming here. Whereas just a couple weeks ago these same people were saying wait until next year with this team and keep them intact, now blow it up? Come on Celtics fans, let's be smarter here. The massive roster reconstruction it would take to bring James here may leave the Celtics with less than what they started. At 100% health, this lineup (even without LeBron) is the clear favorite to come out of the East next season and a legitimate challenger to the NBA Champion Golden State Warriors. I mean we've only seen the starting five of Horford, Tatum, Hayward, Brown, Irving for a total five minutes. Let's take this thing out for a spin and see what it can do. Speaking of gutting the lineup, LeBron actually does not make his teammates all that better as some may think. Don't believe me? You'll find out later on.. Finally, how do you plan on affording Lebron? With the Celtics cap situation, you're going to have to get really creative if you'd want him here such as a sign and trade (we'll get into this later).

Let's start with how our starting 5 was only on the floor for 5 minutes. That lineup for sure will contend next year and something you don't want to tinker with. With everything we've seen from Ainge over the last few seasons, it's clear he has a vision how he wants his team to line up in terms of age. He wants to contend now, and also 5-10 years from now. As constructed, he currently has the roster to do just that. The Celtics rebuild is not a situation like Houston where the addition of Lebron aligns with their win now mode. You look at their roster and you can see why the GM Morey will try his best to figure something out. Whereas with the Celtics roster, you have all this young talent locked up for the foreseeable future and most of the young talent is on rookie deals so they are on the cheap. Based on how your roster is constructed it is in such a way that will allow the team to maintain this core for years to come if Ainge continues to play his cards right. With Lebron, you bring him in and you can say goodbye to all that. The development of Boston's beloved young wings Jayson Tatum & Jaylen Brown (along with everyone else on the floor) would be reduced to spot-up shooters. Making most of the roster especially Brown and Tatum change their games to be spot-up shooters is just not their game. Brown and Tatum love to get to the hoop and Tatum create his own shot so having LeBron here will prevent that since his game is mainly drives to the hoop or drive and kick out. Iso ball is not what this team does, they like to pass it around and create a good shot so having James here will completely change how the Celtics play and that's not what got them to where they are. LeBron would also impact the development of Brad too because as we all know, LeBron is a notorious coach killer (and we love our coach.) Do you really want to see LeBron ignore, undermine and emasculate Brad Stevens on a nightly basis? Then talk about what he needs to do better to get his team prepared after losses? If you tell me "oh but LeBron never had a coach of Brad's caliber so he would never undermine him!", you're lying to yourself. LeBron's ego is almost as big as his missing hairline there is no way he would EVER change his ways because it's always about him and everyone else around him needs to be better. Having LeBron undermine Brad's coaching will impact him in a negative way since he won't be able to run his scheme and will just have to be LeBron's which this team is not at all constructed for.

Speaking of the team, would LeBron actually make the teammates better? From the eyeball test seeing how this team plays, no he would not. He would definitely impact them negatively as you just read. But don't take my word for it, take ESPN's Kevin Pelton's. Pelton defines how a player makes his teammates better by "With the exception of the occasional situation in which a player is inspired to improve his game by the example of a star teammate, we don't actually mean that the teammates become better players. What we mean is they perform better because of the playmaking provided by or defensive attention drawn by a star". Therefore, if a value metric is well-calculated, that uptick in performance should be credited to the star player through his assist and usage rates. As for any improvement in their efficiency would be offset by a decline in their usage rates and an uptick in assisted field goals. Take a look at the chart below:

LeBron James Teammate Usage RatesESPN

Shockingly though, Jose Calderon, Kyle Korver, and Jeff Green performed well being on a minimum salary along with Larry Nance Jr's usage rate increase compared to his time with the Lakers. Thompson also became better when LeBron came back too. However, on average these new James teammates, weighted by minutes played have performed 6.3 percent worse than forecast. Taking a further look into this, Pelton breaks it down by looking further at their component statistics in terms of the ratio of their actual and projected performance:

• 2-point percentage: 1.021
• 3-point percentage: .978
• Offensive rebounding percentage: 1.079
• Defensive rebounding percentage: .967
• Assist percentage: .805
• Steal percentage: .890
• Block percentage: 1.183
• Usage: .937
• 3-point attempt percentage: 1.070
• FT attempt percentage: .946
• Turnover percentage: 1.011

These results seem to offer an important takeaway for any team that signs James this summer (including the Cavaliers). While some additional shot creators are necessary, particularly in a playoff setting, any team with James must be careful not to invest too many resources on players who are best with the ball in their hands (like the Celtics). Instead, the focus should be on finding role players whose games will mesh well with LeBron's. Last time I looked at this Celtics roster, not many role player type of guys there so having LeBron apart of your team based off these stats, will make them worse.

Finally, comes the part everyone really seems to be talking about. How can we afford him? Obviously, the Celtics don't have the cap space to sign Lebron outright once he opts out of his deal, meaning the only way to make it happen is through a sign and trade. You will hear fans throw out the idea they should unload Horford or Hayward or Kyrie in order to make this happen. Here's the problem with that whole idea. First, if you trade Hayward, and Kyrie does not opt in because he hates LeBron, what are you left with exactly? If you want to move Kyrie, why are the Cavs going to do whatever they could to help the Celtics again after everything with Kyrie? Obviously though, Horford/Hayward's salaries would bring you close money standpoint but you'd need to throw in more to make it all line up. My question is why would Cavs want Horford when they have Love/Thompson (unless they trade Love first w/ Lebron gone). You would be crazy if you think Ainge would trade Hayward this summer for a number of reasons. There's the whole Brad Stevens thing, the fact that he's really good, how it would look to potential free agents, the list goes on and on. Not to mention if you trade other pieces besides Kyrie, why are we risking the fact even more that Kyrie may not resign by bringing in Lebron? I mean just recently Kyrie said he's only living in the moment which isn't entirely awful but not a full on commitment to next year. Bringing in LeBron would just make the odds of Kyrie coming back way worse. Say you do bring him in though, he holds your franchise hostage by signing short-term deals. Then he becomes your defacto GM (and we love our GM) forcing you to trade away your assets (and we love our assets to) for only LeBron approved players. Ask yourself this, who do you want making the deals LeBron or Trader Danny?

Now, this situation is something that is fun to talk about on the internet, but when you really think about it, it doesn't make all that much sense given everything Ainge has done. Why would you want to potentially give up pieces that could be major factors for the next 5-10 years just so that you can maybe have 3 of Lebron if that? Personally, the potential damage isn't worth it. Think about it too, the damage ranges not only from the players but the team as a whole. When it comes to free agency, nobody would want to come here seeing how 'loyal' your team is after you'd trade away Hayward or Kyrie. Why do Celtics fans have the sudden urge to blow the team up? This group already showed their ability to compete, and they are just getting started. So thanks but no thanks LeBron. You're obviously the best player of this and maybe any generation, but you can take your talents elsewhere. We'll stick with what we've got.

Cover Image Credit:

Related Content

Facebook Comments