Associate professor of football + researcher @nih_sognsvann Uefa A Coach researchgate.net/profile/Mar…

Stockholm /Oslo
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
"El físico tiene un límite, la comprensión del juego no". Seirul·lo. ¿Cuántos entrenadores siguen diseñando tareas priorizando los contenidos condicionales sobre las necesidades del juego? La preparación física es importante, pero debe estar al servicio del juego, no al revés.
17
89
3,629
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
Un pase completado no siempre es un buen pase. Y un pase fallado no siempre es una mala decisión. En un deporte colectivo, los números no explican por sí solos lo que sucede. ¿Podemos evaluar el rendimiento de un futbolista sin comprender qué provoca en sus compañeros y rivales?
2
8
53
3,684
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
We’ve had better players and bigger stars, but not many have been as interesting. James McClean is a good person. And his book (with Daniel McDonnell) is absolutely superb.
39
9
152
34,325
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
I don’t usually join panels, but given the news and my presence on the ground, I was asked to weigh in. Here’s my response to a panelist who appeared to be defending Vladimir Putin amid Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine: “Do you want to save Ukrainian civilian lives, or would you rather hinder and kneecap what’s supposed to be your ally in its fight for survival against Russia? That’s simply what it comes down to now.”
624
1,249
7,038
392,644
Hey @SkyNews when will you be issuing an apology to both Sally Rooney and the entire island of Ireland for Adam Boultons comments?
33
238
2,054
55,708
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
Lisandro Martínez did NOT hold back after United's loss to Atletico 😬👀
2,290
16,211
138,891
19,746,295
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
LISANDRO MARTINEZ CALLS OUT THE MANCHESTER UNITED BOARD😂😂😂
22
49
1,273
111,815
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
VIKING DRAW AGAINST BAYERN MUNCHEN. 👑 A result to be extremely proud over, congrats to all Viking players, staff and most of all the fans. Enjoy it. HEIA NORGE. 🇳🇴
5
119
1,568
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
Feliz y agradecido de poder estar rodeador de tanta calidad humana y profesional. Un reto ilusionante el de poder acompañar a futuros compañeros de profesión. ¡Vamos a por ello!
Arranca la II edición del CSU en Dirección Metodológica Aplicada al Fútbol, con la misma convicción: seguir creciendo y acompañando a profesionales que quieren transformar su contexto. Gracias a @rfef y @AcademiaRFEF. Preinscripción hasta el 29/10: academia.rfef.es/fed/OF4VYpR…
1
10
686
DK7 - Heart Like A Demon (remake) - based on Bahai’s- Bela Lugosi is dead open.spotify.com/track/40rUj…
488
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
I am a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. There are five of us. Five people, appointed by a parliament most of the planet could not find on a map, who decide, once a year, which human being the world has agreed to call good. I know. I know. I think about it on the tram. We meet in a building on Henrik Ibsens gate, a street named after a man who wrote almost exclusively about people discovering they are frauds, which nobody on the committee finds funny except me. There is a room with a long table and the portraits of the dead laureates looking down, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, a great many earnest men in spectacles, and one portrait we do not discuss, which is Kissinger, 1973, awarded while the bombs were still falling, after which two of our predecessors resigned and the satirist Tom Lehrer said political satire was now obsolete. We keep him on the wall. A reminder. Every family has the uncle. It is October in Oslo, which means the sun gives up around four in the afternoon like a civil servant, and it rains the particular Norwegian rain that isn’t quite falling, just hanging there, judging you. I arrive with wet shoes. I always arrive with wet shoes. There is coffee, because this is Norway and there is always coffee, we drink more of it per person than almost anyone alive, and someone’s wife has sent kanelboller, the cinnamon buns, and we sit, five Norwegians, damp, caffeinated, sugared, and we decide the moral standing of the entire species. Let me tell you how it actually works, because the world imagines a cathedral and it is, I promise you, a book club with a mandate. 287 nominations this year. 208 people, 79 organizations. Anyone can nominate, that’s the secret nobody understands: a professor, a parliamentarian, a former laureate, so the “nominee” list is meaningless, it’s a suggestion box, and every autumn some congressman nominates his own golden retriever and the press writes “SHORTLISTED.” Nobody is shortlisted. There is no short list the public ever sees. There is us, and the coffee, and the rain, and the portraits, and a Norwegian stubbornness that is older than the prize itself. We read reports. The institute’s advisers write them, thick dull documents, and we argue. Our chairman told the BBC once that in the final meeting “there is a high temperature.” High temperature, for a Norwegian, means someone slightly raised an eyebrow and then apologized for it. We don’t do high temperature. We do a long silence, and then Kristin says “well,” and everyone knows exactly what “well” meant, and it’s settled. That’s our shouting. “Well.” You’d have to be raised here to hear the violence in it. Now. This year. I will not say the name, because we never say the name, but you know the name. A certain head of state wanted this prize the way a child wants a thing in a shop window, which is to say loudly, and in public, and with the full belief that wanting it was itself the argument. He said he deserved it. He said he’d ended eight wars, a number that grew most times he said it, like a fish. He had other heads of state phone us. Israel’s prime minister posted it on the internet, “Give him the Nobel.” The leaders of Cambodia and Pakistan announced they’d nominated him, as though announcing it were part of it, as though we tally mentions. A man flew around the globe collecting endorsements for a Norwegian committee the way you’d collect signatures for a petition to the council about a noisy dog. And here, uff da, is the detail I treasure, the one that makes me smile into my coffee. The nomination deadline is the 31st of January. He took office on the 20th. So for all the phone calls, all the posts, all the gilded lobbying, the only nominations that could possibly count for this year’s prize were filed in the first eleven days of his term, before he had, by his own arithmetic, ended a single one of the eight wars. He campaigned all year for a prize whose window had shut while he was still hanging up his coat. We didn’t have to reject him. The calendar did. We just watched. Norwegians are very good at watching. We have long winters. People think we sit there weighing his deeds. We don’t. That’s the thing I can’t make the world understand. We’re not grading his homework. We don’t owe anyone the prize for a ceasefire, however real, however loud the announcement. “He made peace” is not a sentence that ends in a medal, the way he believes it does, the way he believes every good thing ends in his name on it. The will of a dead Swede says the prize goes to whoever did the most for fraternity between nations. A dead Swede, I should add, who made his entire fortune inventing dynamite and selling arms, and spent his last years horrified at his own obituary, which called him a merchant of death, and so bought his way to immortality as a man of peace. The whole prize is one guilty arms dealer’s attempt to launder his name. We are, all of us, administering a dead man’s public relations. I find this clarifying. It keeps me humble. It should keep everyone humble, and it keeps, by my count, no one humble at all. So who did we give it to? An eighty-five-year-old woman. A judge. Born in Durban, under apartheid, granddaughter of a Tamil man who came to South Africa as indentured labor, a bus driver’s daughter from the poor Indian quarter, who became the first non-white woman to run a law practice in her province, who defended Mandela’s people when defending them was dangerous, who sat on the Rwanda tribunal and the court at the Hague, and who, at eighty-five, is right now a judge weighing whether a genocide is a genocide. When we told the world, our chairman said the rule of law “underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace,” and that “peace requires justice.” She wasn’t even in Oslo. She was in Nuremberg. In courtroom 600. The actual room where they tried the Nazis. You cannot stage that. God staged that, and God, it turns out, is a better satirist than any of us. She did not phone us. She did not post. No prime minister demanded it for her on the internet. She had, as far as our deliberations are concerned, the one qualification the loud man could never manufacture, which is that she wanted the work and not the medal. The medal finds those people. It flees the ones who chase it. This is not a rule we wrote. It’s just the only pattern the hundred-odd years of our mistakes has ever shown. The reaction from across the ocean was immediate. His spokesman posted that we “place politics over peace.” Ja. Perhaps. We’re five damp pensioners in a rainy city; of course it’s political, it was always political, it was political when we gave it to a sitting American president nine months into his first term for the promise of things he had not yet done, and we have been quietly embarrassed about that one for fifteen years, so believe me, we had a particular reason this year to prefer a woman with fifty years of verdicts behind her over a man with eight wars in front of him and a deadline already behind him. Here is what he will never understand, the thing I’d tell him on the tram if he ever took one. We are the one prize he cannot buy, cannot post his way to, cannot have a friendly dictator phone in for him. Not because we’re incorruptible, nei, we’re as vain and wrong and human as the portraits on our wall. But because the entire point of the thing, the only power a small cold country’s book club has ever held, is that it goes to the person not performing the wanting. The moment you demand it, you’ve proven you don’t understand what it’s for, and proving that is itself the disqualification. He ran the most expensive campaign in the history of the prize and the campaign was the reason. He was never losing to Navi Pillay. He was losing to the concept. It’s dark now. Four o’clock dark. The buns are gone. Kristin said “well” an hour ago and we all went home. I’m on the tram with my wet shoes, and somewhere across the water a very powerful man is explaining to a camera that the prize is rigged, that we’re corrupt, that he’ll win it next year, and he genuinely might, we’re only five idiots and we’ve been wrong before, Kissinger is still on the wall. But not this year. This year an old woman in Nuremberg, in the room where the law once stared down the exact kind of man who thinks wanting a thing loudly enough should make it his, got a phone call she didn’t ask for. That’s the job. We don’t reward the man who ends the war and announces it. We reward the woman who spent fifty years deciding what a war was. He’ll never see the difference. That’s rather the whole point of him. Takk for i dag. I have to change trams.
2,185
10,546
44,694
5,188,818
Thanks to @StinkInk for opening his radio show with two new Mighty Quark tracks - making music again for the first time in 19 years - 95bfm.com/bcast/stinky-groov…
1
2
578
Interesting fact: the ICC has NO cases or investigations involving US citizens. But the Court has an ongoing investigation and at least 2 arrest warrants out for Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu
Marco Rubio: Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC. And we expect our allies, many of whom are part of the ICC, and that rely on American service members for their defense, to rein in this rogue court. If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC, piece by piece, until Americans are threatened no longer.
83
2,847
12,341
168,316
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
The moment Breandán Mac Cionnaith broke the news to Gervaghy Road residents and supporters:
88
281
1,855
124,031
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
Replying to @markstkhlm
Insightful and easy to read. For Irish Football read junior hockey in England. Systems don’t rise to the level of their goals, they fall to the level of their design. So true…
1
1
494
Mark O'Sullivan PhD retweeted
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide. One of the main reactions to that report [was] paying tribute to me for my courage.. why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Navi Pillay upon winning the 2026 Nobel peace prize
182
3,841
10,349
439,779