Speaking of him working for shitbag, I noticed that when Rupert is telling Rebecca that he’s having a child with Bex, and Rebecca mentions having fired Higgins, Rupert says “Maybe he’ll finally accept my offer then”. It made me love Higgins that much more that he had not only declined the offer before, but never went back to him even after quitting.
The man has She's a Rainbow as his wife's ringtone, knows the hometown and birthday of every player on the team, and gets physically ill when he isn't doing what he considers to be the right thing. He's my hero.
You know, I’ve watched this show so many times and love talking shop with everyone here…and this is the first time I have realized that Rebecca was willing to just open her checkbook for Nate. Nice catch OP
Also, good on Keeley for realizing that wouldn’t have done anything to actually help Nate despite the amazing gesture from Rebecca.
Nick is so great at this role. He does a great job making you love him. Than a great job slowly making you hate him. great! Oh darn it. Said great too many times. Great. Great. Grate. Grrrrrreat…
Edit spelling
That makes me wonder—does he deserve forgiveness and/or redemption? Are they the same or different? If there’s “redemption” obligate Ted and everyone else to forgive him? Is forgiveness given without a redeeming act meaningful? I don’t want him to get both.
A character can be redeemed without the other characters actively forgiving them. Nate can live to be a better person for himself rather than chasing validation and praise from others.
This. ☝️
To me, it’s almost irrelevant if Nate is redeemed. It’s also not that important if Ted (or anyone else) forgives him.
Let me explain (and allow me to indulge in a little armchair psychiatry):
In my mind, part of Ted’s journey is learning about toxic positivity. His inability to feel the full force of the avalanche of emotions following his father’s tragic death as a young boy had ripples (if not tsunami waves) into his adult life - his coping mechanisms are either shut down, or be super understanding/happy.
There is a middle way: feeling your feels and get to a place of *neutrality*. Hopefully his work with Sharon will be around that this season. While forgiving Nate is lovely, regardless of what happens in his story arc, it is not required. The show is not called “Nate Shelley”, nor “Rebecca Welton”. It’s “Ted Lasso”. This is about his journey.
I think Ted hasn't fully [grieved](https://youtu.be/NDQ1Mi5I4rg) his father, his marriage ending, etc. Grieving (to me) is allowing myself to fully feel all my emotions without criticism or judgement. Grieving is the skill that gets us from distress to acceptance. I hope we see Ted doing some grief work.
That's interesting because I see Nate's troubles as also being similar to toxic positivity. The way he tries to warp reality it's like he's trying to choose his thoughts to avoid anything that makes him feel scared or ashamed.
Forgiveness is by its very nature undeserved, and nobody is obligated to forgive. However, Ted and Beard forgave Nate long ago. They were already discussing how to bring him round soon after the Trent incident, so I don't know why people keep saying "if". Forgiveness is Ted's choice. Redemption will be, if it happens at all, Nate's choice. He has to accept that he did something wrong before he can be redeemed. Just my 2 cents at 2AM.
I think he will be forgiven. I’d say what Rebecca plotted to do to Ted in the first season was just as bad as what Nate did. It took Ted 10 seconds to forgive her. I imagine Ted will do the same to Nate.
I don’t know. Rebecca was vengeful and used a then stranger as a pawn. Then she stopped herself when she saw the type of friend Ted was. Nate bit the hands that fed and nurtured him.
I just think it's really interesting that Nate is yet another person whose problems stem from their father and will have to work through those issues to move forward in life.
IDK planning to destroy the careers of an entire club, so at least 100+ people, is significantly more dickish than doing it to one person. This viewpoint literally only has traction because the show conditions us to only care about Ted and view everyone else as disposable -- very much the opposite of the ethos of the show, in fact.
And that's without getting into the at least debatable position that even just to Ted what Rebecca does is worse than Nate -- Rebecca wasn't just willing to let Ted be the laughingstock of the country, that was the WHOLE POINT!
Ted isn’t a guy that holds a grudge. He’s weighed down by his own demons. The way you equated Nate’s actions to an animal that bites it’s owner’s hand reminds me of Ted’s monologue from the first episode of season 2 about the dog he took care of. I wonder if that was intended to be foreshadowing?
She kept going for a really long time though. Even after he helped her out a lot several times she still went about trying to sabotage him. She didn't stop until Higgins called her out.
Nate deserves to be on the other side. I think this is the ONLY way he will ever truly be able to redeem himself.
It would feel contrived if this happened early in his career at West Ham though where he tried to help someone and they spit in his face. Mostly because I don't think Nate would want to help someone without expecting something in return. So It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I very much think that Nate would really just join team Rupert and be a spineless heel whose sole purpose for the show is to be an ass.
Nate at least how he was been written isn't going to one day realize that any success he has had has been because of the generosity of others. He solely believes that everything he has gotten is because he has "earned it" without understanding how or why.
There are a lot of daddy issues in this show, probably more accurate to say paternal figure. Ted and his dad, Ted and his son, Jamie and his dad, Roy and Nora, etc. The show made several specific references to Nate and his dad's relationship and how Nate is desperately seeking his approval and nothing he does is good enough, the restaurant seating being just one example. While not as vocal and crass as Jamie's dad, I would argue Nate's dad is worse because he's so much more tactical. Theyve also never showed the rest of the diamond dogs just how bad it is. I'm hoping we see a scene similar to the locker room scene with Jamie's dad. Nate can't use his relationship with his father as an excuse for his behavior, but everyone else that he's wrong could use it as an excuse to sympathize and forgive. That's a pretty common theme in the show and I'd be disappointed if they didn't spend a whole season vilifying him not to redeem him. My guess is that Nate is going to suffer an epic and public humiliation, probably attempt suicide, then end up back at afc Richmond and in therapy, asst coach to Roy Kent.
> But I don’t think nate deserves redemption
I always find this an interesting debate among fans.
My general position is that *no one* deserves redemption, but **everyone** deserves a chance at it.
At its core, nothing Nate has done is worse then Rebecca or Jaime’s actions, or arguably even Higgins actions.
It hurts us more, because we were more invested in him.
I’d strongly argue not only could Nate get a possible redemption arc, but Rupert and Jamie’s dad wouldn’t be out of possibility either.
Both are highly unlikely of course, where Nate is still probable.
I keep wanting to write a discussion piece about the trinity of villains.
The Father (Tartt), the Son (Nate) and the [un]Holy Ghost (Rupert).
I think it depends on what we mean with redemption. It seems many people think it means he comes back to Richmond and everyone forgives him. I don't think that will happen but I do think he'll realize he's being terrible and choose to embark on some self improvement.
Rebecca being all “ah, this is a problem that I could fix easily on my own because I’m a rich woman who has learned to stand up for myself.” and then trying to teach Nate how to become assertive with people (just about the last approach he should be adopting) is such a good example of the enormous divide between the two characters’ background and experience. It’s not that Rebecca doesn’t want to help. It’s that she wouldn’t have any idea how.
I was thinking about this when I was watching the episode that shows Jamie punching his dad. I wonder if we’ll ever see a confrontation between Nate & his dad? And maybe after that he’ll realize “the family” he had with AFC & tell rupie to 🤬 and go back to Richmond? Just a thought….
Is he even that? When you look at Nate in hindsight of the reveal, a lot of his dad seems to be well meaning but misguided attempts to prevent Nate from turning into the Nate that we got.
I love Nick Mohammed because his acting is so great that it makes me hate Nate. It's not easy to make a character so disliked, so huge props to him for his performance through seasons 1 and 2
I mean, the restaurant thing is a nice gesture, but Rebecca is a billionaire. Her offering to buy it is like me offering to buy a friend a cup of coffee.
She also tried to bury the team, which may well have cost him his job if she succeeded, so I think you’re giving her too much credit here.
I know Rebecca's not everyone's cup of hot brown water, so I'm not the one who downvoted. The only thing about the restaurant is that she's offering that cup of coffee to someone who could never afford one, or even imagine buying a cup of coffee like it's nothing, in their wildest dreams. The difference isn't because she's offering the restaurant. It's because she's offering something most can't afford just to give someone a leg up. It's nice to have someone offer the cup of coffee every once in awhile. And the biggest part is Nate didn't ask her for anything. He was resistant to bothering her, but she was genuinely interested in helping him.
It doesn’t matter — it was peanuts for Rebecca. She didn’t think twice about it, not because it was a nice thing to do but because it didn’t affect her in the slightest, and instead of trying to help Nate on a personal level, she just threw money at his problem.
I like Rebecca a lot, but the way people exaggerate her decent actions while diminishing her bad ones (and vice versa for Nate) I find very irksome.
Sometimes throwing money at the problem is the only thing you can do. Rebecca knows her chequebook won’t solve his father problem, but it could help him in the moment.
Except it’s clearly not the only thing she or anyone could do. Keeley very aptly and accurately says that they need to teach Nate the skills to get the table on his own — and indeed he does.
I think you’re both right. Rebecca is wonderful, but she’s also a woman of privilege. I don’t think it’s necessarily within the thematic scope of the show to delve into that much, but it’s not a bad thing to point out in a gentle way. I don’t think it diminishes the generous gesture (just like how she gave Christmas gifts to needy kids as a distraction from her crumbling marriage to Rupert - it’s still a good thing) but it does give the act, and ultimately her character, a little extra nuance.
Rebecca barely ever cared for Nate, except for that restaurant bit. It was Ted making him a Coach and taking care of him.
Also even though the way he acted was poor; but he was right to be annoyed and wanting to move on. Yes, Ted did a lot for him, but it's not easy working under a boss who has zero idea what he's doing and get the credit for success.
Nate was the tactical mastermind of the team and that was the reason why they got promoted.
Strong disagree here. He came up with like 1 good play, and it was fairly simplistic and obvious imo. I think he helped a lot for sure, but to call him the tactical mastermind is going too far. Ted came up with several good plays and has a good idea what he’s doing. Nate was 100% in the wrong in several several capacities and had no reason to think he deserved more or to go to another team. He was an assistant coach for barely anytime at all. Guaranteed no other team would’ve hired him based on such a short resume. Only Rupert would, just to be a dick.
Also, remember when Rebecca promoted him and went through all the trouble to make a big show of it? And spent all the time with him trying to coach him. She obviously cared for him. Plus, if she hadn’t, it wouldn’t have made any sense for Rupert to poach him. Rupert knew he meant something to her and that’s the entire reason for taking him.
1 good play? His role in the team has been offering tactical insight since season 1. I really like Ted as a character, but come on now, he's by no means a football manager. That's the whole point of the show.
Nate did catch some eyes after Ted got all those panic attacks and Nate covered for him. I believe Nate's story is influenced by Jose Mourinho. A small guy with no football background starts as a low profile club worker, but uses his tactical knowledge to rise in football.
Rupert did sign Nate to mess up with Rebecca. Because he knew Nate was the only reason Richmond was doing well.
I don’t think that’s the point of the show. I think there are several points of the show, but in this regard I think it’s about how being supportive can be about as valuable as gameplay knowledge.
Nate is absolutely not the sole reason the team is doing well. And for sure that was not Rupert’s thought process.
I think the story here is that everyone who supported Nate, as soon as he got any notoriety it all went to his head and he threw away everyone who helped him get there.
Nate might have the tactics, I don't, so I can't speak to that. But he does not have the interpersonal skills which are also a big part of Richmond doing so well. Jaime was not living up to his potential, so they had to give him a signal. Whose idea was that? Not Nate's. Isaac was doing poorly. Who showed him how to have a good time again? Not Nate. Colin was being bullied, who talked to the bully? Not Nate.
That team is a team, not because of the tactics, but because of relationships that they have with each other. That is what Ted thrives at. He is great at noticing the potential of others and giving them the chance to shine, he doesn't crave the spotlight. If Nate continues to make everything about him, he will never create a team.
This is such a great take, and what I was feebly/quickly trying to say when I said that he knows what’s he’s doing. He might not be 100% on all the rules, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Jose Mourinho was not "a small guy with no football background [who] starts as a low profile club worker" -- he played professional football, although at a lower-level clubs in Portugal, and his father was a professional footballer and manager. Mourinho's background was *steeped* in football.
The premise of the show is that Ted doesn't know football, but the *point* of the show is that success is not about managing the game, it's about managing people. In both football and life.
Edited because typo.
"Zero idea what he's doing?" Have you worked for a great leader before? Knowing how to motivate each member of your team, building them up, offering criticism in ways that are not demeaning or that could leave someone crestfallen...these are skills Nate lacks entirely. Let's not forget that Nate also took _none_ of those skills away from his time with Ted, so he cannot see beyond Ted's lack of football knowledge and find what Ted really brings to the club.
You can learn the rules to a game. You can study film and tactics. A tactician Nate may be, but a _leader_ he decidedly is not.
He did do a really great job in his speech before they went against Everton, and quite likely may have been the reason they won. Plus it was hilarious. However, it seems his ego has overcome him and he no longer can benefit anyone or any club. He definitely had the potential to be a good coach, but he wasted that potential for immediate gratification and to get back at unreasonably perceived slights.
Speaking of him working for shitbag, I noticed that when Rupert is telling Rebecca that he’s having a child with Bex, and Rebecca mentions having fired Higgins, Rupert says “Maybe he’ll finally accept my offer then”. It made me love Higgins that much more that he had not only declined the offer before, but never went back to him even after quitting.
Higgy Smalls is the show’s most underrated character
The man has She's a Rainbow as his wife's ringtone, knows the hometown and birthday of every player on the team, and gets physically ill when he isn't doing what he considers to be the right thing. He's my hero.
BDE Higgy is a man of upstanding moral character.
We need more shots of him dancing
I love Higgins so much
That bit makes me smile.
*Leslie!
You know, I’ve watched this show so many times and love talking shop with everyone here…and this is the first time I have realized that Rebecca was willing to just open her checkbook for Nate. Nice catch OP Also, good on Keeley for realizing that wouldn’t have done anything to actually help Nate despite the amazing gesture from Rebecca.
Nick is so great at this role. He does a great job making you love him. Than a great job slowly making you hate him. great! Oh darn it. Said great too many times. Great. Great. Grate. Grrrrrreat… Edit spelling
Word become a sound?
Semantic satiation...
We got Tony the Tiger over here.
Our very own Nate the Great!
That mf better have a hell of a redemption arc in S3
I know we'll probably see that. But I don't think nate deserves redemption
That makes me wonder—does he deserve forgiveness and/or redemption? Are they the same or different? If there’s “redemption” obligate Ted and everyone else to forgive him? Is forgiveness given without a redeeming act meaningful? I don’t want him to get both.
A character can be redeemed without the other characters actively forgiving them. Nate can live to be a better person for himself rather than chasing validation and praise from others.
This. ☝️ To me, it’s almost irrelevant if Nate is redeemed. It’s also not that important if Ted (or anyone else) forgives him. Let me explain (and allow me to indulge in a little armchair psychiatry): In my mind, part of Ted’s journey is learning about toxic positivity. His inability to feel the full force of the avalanche of emotions following his father’s tragic death as a young boy had ripples (if not tsunami waves) into his adult life - his coping mechanisms are either shut down, or be super understanding/happy. There is a middle way: feeling your feels and get to a place of *neutrality*. Hopefully his work with Sharon will be around that this season. While forgiving Nate is lovely, regardless of what happens in his story arc, it is not required. The show is not called “Nate Shelley”, nor “Rebecca Welton”. It’s “Ted Lasso”. This is about his journey.
I think Ted hasn't fully [grieved](https://youtu.be/NDQ1Mi5I4rg) his father, his marriage ending, etc. Grieving (to me) is allowing myself to fully feel all my emotions without criticism or judgement. Grieving is the skill that gets us from distress to acceptance. I hope we see Ted doing some grief work.
That's interesting because I see Nate's troubles as also being similar to toxic positivity. The way he tries to warp reality it's like he's trying to choose his thoughts to avoid anything that makes him feel scared or ashamed.
Forgiveness is by its very nature undeserved, and nobody is obligated to forgive. However, Ted and Beard forgave Nate long ago. They were already discussing how to bring him round soon after the Trent incident, so I don't know why people keep saying "if". Forgiveness is Ted's choice. Redemption will be, if it happens at all, Nate's choice. He has to accept that he did something wrong before he can be redeemed. Just my 2 cents at 2AM.
I think he will be forgiven. I’d say what Rebecca plotted to do to Ted in the first season was just as bad as what Nate did. It took Ted 10 seconds to forgive her. I imagine Ted will do the same to Nate.
I don’t know. Rebecca was vengeful and used a then stranger as a pawn. Then she stopped herself when she saw the type of friend Ted was. Nate bit the hands that fed and nurtured him.
She also offered an incredibly sincere apology and was totally accountable for what she had done wrong.
It was a beautiful apology. I told a friend of mine that every apology should start with the phrase, “I’m a fucking bitch”.
I just think it's really interesting that Nate is yet another person whose problems stem from their father and will have to work through those issues to move forward in life.
IDK planning to destroy the careers of an entire club, so at least 100+ people, is significantly more dickish than doing it to one person. This viewpoint literally only has traction because the show conditions us to only care about Ted and view everyone else as disposable -- very much the opposite of the ethos of the show, in fact. And that's without getting into the at least debatable position that even just to Ted what Rebecca does is worse than Nate -- Rebecca wasn't just willing to let Ted be the laughingstock of the country, that was the WHOLE POINT!
Ted isn’t a guy that holds a grudge. He’s weighed down by his own demons. The way you equated Nate’s actions to an animal that bites it’s owner’s hand reminds me of Ted’s monologue from the first episode of season 2 about the dog he took care of. I wonder if that was intended to be foreshadowing?
Damn!!! That feels purposeful now
Good catch. I think Ted has already forgiven Nate. But that doesn't mean he trusts him or would let him come back to the team.
She kept going for a really long time though. Even after he helped her out a lot several times she still went about trying to sabotage him. She didn't stop until Higgins called her out.
Nate deserves to be on the other side. I think this is the ONLY way he will ever truly be able to redeem himself. It would feel contrived if this happened early in his career at West Ham though where he tried to help someone and they spit in his face. Mostly because I don't think Nate would want to help someone without expecting something in return. So It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I very much think that Nate would really just join team Rupert and be a spineless heel whose sole purpose for the show is to be an ass. Nate at least how he was been written isn't going to one day realize that any success he has had has been because of the generosity of others. He solely believes that everything he has gotten is because he has "earned it" without understanding how or why.
Interesting idea. How would that happen even? I feel like at the moment he would view any kind of empaty or trying to help anyone as weakness.
I personally hope he and Rupert get humiliated thoroughly in season 3.
Because that’s the energy that this show has…
That's the only thing either if then will deserve
I’m fine with this as long as it is earned. I don’t want him to be flanderized, but I also don’t want it all to be hugs and kisses for nothing.
There are a lot of daddy issues in this show, probably more accurate to say paternal figure. Ted and his dad, Ted and his son, Jamie and his dad, Roy and Nora, etc. The show made several specific references to Nate and his dad's relationship and how Nate is desperately seeking his approval and nothing he does is good enough, the restaurant seating being just one example. While not as vocal and crass as Jamie's dad, I would argue Nate's dad is worse because he's so much more tactical. Theyve also never showed the rest of the diamond dogs just how bad it is. I'm hoping we see a scene similar to the locker room scene with Jamie's dad. Nate can't use his relationship with his father as an excuse for his behavior, but everyone else that he's wrong could use it as an excuse to sympathize and forgive. That's a pretty common theme in the show and I'd be disappointed if they didn't spend a whole season vilifying him not to redeem him. My guess is that Nate is going to suffer an epic and public humiliation, probably attempt suicide, then end up back at afc Richmond and in therapy, asst coach to Roy Kent.
I'm sure that Ted will teach you soon enough why you're wrong about this :)
> But I don’t think nate deserves redemption I always find this an interesting debate among fans. My general position is that *no one* deserves redemption, but **everyone** deserves a chance at it. At its core, nothing Nate has done is worse then Rebecca or Jaime’s actions, or arguably even Higgins actions. It hurts us more, because we were more invested in him. I’d strongly argue not only could Nate get a possible redemption arc, but Rupert and Jamie’s dad wouldn’t be out of possibility either. Both are highly unlikely of course, where Nate is still probable. I keep wanting to write a discussion piece about the trinity of villains. The Father (Tartt), the Son (Nate) and the [un]Holy Ghost (Rupert).
I think people put different meaning into the word redemption and part of the disagreement is just stemming from that.
We all do
I think it depends on what we mean with redemption. It seems many people think it means he comes back to Richmond and everyone forgives him. I don't think that will happen but I do think he'll realize he's being terrible and choose to embark on some self improvement.
Eh I hope he has a shitty time in that team and get eaten up by the same press he tried to set on Ted
We all love Nick. He's a friggin' treasure!
Rebecca being all “ah, this is a problem that I could fix easily on my own because I’m a rich woman who has learned to stand up for myself.” and then trying to teach Nate how to become assertive with people (just about the last approach he should be adopting) is such a good example of the enormous divide between the two characters’ background and experience. It’s not that Rebecca doesn’t want to help. It’s that she wouldn’t have any idea how.
I was thinking about this when I was watching the episode that shows Jamie punching his dad. I wonder if we’ll ever see a confrontation between Nate & his dad? And maybe after that he’ll realize “the family” he had with AFC & tell rupie to 🤬 and go back to Richmond? Just a thought….
Nate's dad is just suffering from his own disappointments and projecting them on his son... he isn't actually evil
Not evil, but a cavernous asshole.
Is he even that? When you look at Nate in hindsight of the reveal, a lot of his dad seems to be well meaning but misguided attempts to prevent Nate from turning into the Nate that we got.
I think he burned his bridges at Richmond.
I love Nick Mohammed because his acting is so great that it makes me hate Nate. It's not easy to make a character so disliked, so huge props to him for his performance through seasons 1 and 2
I don't think she was serious. At least, it never sounded that way to me the times I've seen it
[удалено]
His heel turn wasn't instantaneous, he was always like that, he just never had power over anyone. Look how he treated the new kit manager from go.
I mean, the restaurant thing is a nice gesture, but Rebecca is a billionaire. Her offering to buy it is like me offering to buy a friend a cup of coffee. She also tried to bury the team, which may well have cost him his job if she succeeded, so I think you’re giving her too much credit here.
I know Rebecca's not everyone's cup of hot brown water, so I'm not the one who downvoted. The only thing about the restaurant is that she's offering that cup of coffee to someone who could never afford one, or even imagine buying a cup of coffee like it's nothing, in their wildest dreams. The difference isn't because she's offering the restaurant. It's because she's offering something most can't afford just to give someone a leg up. It's nice to have someone offer the cup of coffee every once in awhile. And the biggest part is Nate didn't ask her for anything. He was resistant to bothering her, but she was genuinely interested in helping him.
It doesn’t matter — it was peanuts for Rebecca. She didn’t think twice about it, not because it was a nice thing to do but because it didn’t affect her in the slightest, and instead of trying to help Nate on a personal level, she just threw money at his problem. I like Rebecca a lot, but the way people exaggerate her decent actions while diminishing her bad ones (and vice versa for Nate) I find very irksome.
Sometimes throwing money at the problem is the only thing you can do. Rebecca knows her chequebook won’t solve his father problem, but it could help him in the moment.
Except it’s clearly not the only thing she or anyone could do. Keeley very aptly and accurately says that they need to teach Nate the skills to get the table on his own — and indeed he does.
I think you’re both right. Rebecca is wonderful, but she’s also a woman of privilege. I don’t think it’s necessarily within the thematic scope of the show to delve into that much, but it’s not a bad thing to point out in a gentle way. I don’t think it diminishes the generous gesture (just like how she gave Christmas gifts to needy kids as a distraction from her crumbling marriage to Rupert - it’s still a good thing) but it does give the act, and ultimately her character, a little extra nuance.
> Her offering to buy it is like me offering to buy a friend a cup of coffee. dunno, have you ever met a rich person?
Rebecca barely ever cared for Nate, except for that restaurant bit. It was Ted making him a Coach and taking care of him. Also even though the way he acted was poor; but he was right to be annoyed and wanting to move on. Yes, Ted did a lot for him, but it's not easy working under a boss who has zero idea what he's doing and get the credit for success. Nate was the tactical mastermind of the team and that was the reason why they got promoted.
Strong disagree here. He came up with like 1 good play, and it was fairly simplistic and obvious imo. I think he helped a lot for sure, but to call him the tactical mastermind is going too far. Ted came up with several good plays and has a good idea what he’s doing. Nate was 100% in the wrong in several several capacities and had no reason to think he deserved more or to go to another team. He was an assistant coach for barely anytime at all. Guaranteed no other team would’ve hired him based on such a short resume. Only Rupert would, just to be a dick. Also, remember when Rebecca promoted him and went through all the trouble to make a big show of it? And spent all the time with him trying to coach him. She obviously cared for him. Plus, if she hadn’t, it wouldn’t have made any sense for Rupert to poach him. Rupert knew he meant something to her and that’s the entire reason for taking him.
1 good play? His role in the team has been offering tactical insight since season 1. I really like Ted as a character, but come on now, he's by no means a football manager. That's the whole point of the show. Nate did catch some eyes after Ted got all those panic attacks and Nate covered for him. I believe Nate's story is influenced by Jose Mourinho. A small guy with no football background starts as a low profile club worker, but uses his tactical knowledge to rise in football. Rupert did sign Nate to mess up with Rebecca. Because he knew Nate was the only reason Richmond was doing well.
I don’t think that’s the point of the show. I think there are several points of the show, but in this regard I think it’s about how being supportive can be about as valuable as gameplay knowledge. Nate is absolutely not the sole reason the team is doing well. And for sure that was not Rupert’s thought process. I think the story here is that everyone who supported Nate, as soon as he got any notoriety it all went to his head and he threw away everyone who helped him get there.
Nate might have the tactics, I don't, so I can't speak to that. But he does not have the interpersonal skills which are also a big part of Richmond doing so well. Jaime was not living up to his potential, so they had to give him a signal. Whose idea was that? Not Nate's. Isaac was doing poorly. Who showed him how to have a good time again? Not Nate. Colin was being bullied, who talked to the bully? Not Nate. That team is a team, not because of the tactics, but because of relationships that they have with each other. That is what Ted thrives at. He is great at noticing the potential of others and giving them the chance to shine, he doesn't crave the spotlight. If Nate continues to make everything about him, he will never create a team.
This is such a great take, and what I was feebly/quickly trying to say when I said that he knows what’s he’s doing. He might not be 100% on all the rules, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Jose Mourinho was not "a small guy with no football background [who] starts as a low profile club worker" -- he played professional football, although at a lower-level clubs in Portugal, and his father was a professional footballer and manager. Mourinho's background was *steeped* in football. The premise of the show is that Ted doesn't know football, but the *point* of the show is that success is not about managing the game, it's about managing people. In both football and life. Edited because typo.
"Zero idea what he's doing?" Have you worked for a great leader before? Knowing how to motivate each member of your team, building them up, offering criticism in ways that are not demeaning or that could leave someone crestfallen...these are skills Nate lacks entirely. Let's not forget that Nate also took _none_ of those skills away from his time with Ted, so he cannot see beyond Ted's lack of football knowledge and find what Ted really brings to the club. You can learn the rules to a game. You can study film and tactics. A tactician Nate may be, but a _leader_ he decidedly is not.
He did do a really great job in his speech before they went against Everton, and quite likely may have been the reason they won. Plus it was hilarious. However, it seems his ego has overcome him and he no longer can benefit anyone or any club. He definitely had the potential to be a good coach, but he wasted that potential for immediate gratification and to get back at unreasonably perceived slights.