Match of the Day pundits Nedum Onuoha and Stephen Warnock analyse Manchester United’s performance after their 4-1 Champions League defeat to Como, and discuss midfielder Bruno Fernandes’ criticism of team tactics.
WATCH MORE: Champions League video on BBC Sport
Available to UK users only.
The Dodgers’ offseason began at 8:07 Thursday night. Heavily favored to win a third straight World Series, they were swept into winter by the Milwaukee Brewers.
The final score doesn’t really matter, but for the record it was 6-4 Brewers. It wasn’t really that close.
The Dodgers led in every game of the National League Championship Series. They didn’t win any of them. No team has ever done that while getting swept in a best-of-seven series. So while the Dodgers didn’t three-peat, they made history just the same.
“They were relentless with everything that they did,” Dodgers infielder Max Muncy said of the Brewers. “They just strung together good at-bat after good at-bat. That’s usually what we do.
“We didn’t do it this series and they did.”
The Dodgers’ starting rotation, the most expensive in history, gave up 16 hits and 13 runs in 18 innings for a 6.50 earned-run average. The bullpen was nearly as bad, posting a 4.50 ERA in 16 innings.
The Brewers’ relievers, on the other hand, were spectacular. Milwaukee manager Pat Murphy went to his bullpen 14 times and just twice did a reliever give up a run. All four victories against the Dodgers and all seven Brewers wins this postseason have gone to a reliever, with the bullpen posting a 1.33 ERA in 40⅔ innings.
“Pitcher after pitcher came in and executed,” Muncy said. “When one of their pitchers faltered, the next guy came in and picked up the slack.”
And each time the Dodgers took a lead, the Brewers waited no more than two innings to cut into the deficit. Milwaukee trailed 4-0 after two innings Thursday. By the top of the fifth, the score was tied. An inning later, the Brewers went ahead to stay, becoming the first team with six comeback wins in their first eight postseason games.
“They respond,” Murphy said of his players. “We’ve talked about it all year long. You have a bad week, you have a bad game, you have a bad at-bat, you bounce back.”
“I love the Dodgers. I love their players. They’ve got legendary players,” he continued. “But we came in with a group that would not be denied. They were hungry, very hungry.”
The two-time defending champion Dodgers, meanwhile, appeared to be full. They hit with runners in scoring position as often as they hit into double plays, going four for 27 and stranding 24.
“We had our opportunities. We just didn’t get the job done,” first baseman Freddie Freeman said. “We won two [titles]. We came up short on the third.
Milwaukee’s Garrett Mitchell, right, celebrates with Cooper Pratt after hitting the go-ahead home run in the sixth inning of a 6-4 win over the Dodgers in Game 4 of the NLCS on Thursday night.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
“There’s a lot of hurt at the end of the season. Sometimes you just get beat. That’s just kind of how it goes. You have to give credit to the Brewers. They played really good baseball.”
A year ago the Dodgers swept the Brewers in the NLCS. This fall the results were reversed.
“The sadness is we just didn’t accomplish our goal,” Muncy said. “The goal every year is to be the last team standing. This year we had a chance to do something historic, and we didn’t accomplish it. And every single time you’re not the last team standing, it’s heartbreak and it’s failure and it’s not what you’re looking for.”
The Dodgers’ clubhouse was closed for more than 35 minutes after the game, partly to process that heartbreak but also to give manager Dave Roberts and veteran infielder Miguel Rojas, who announced his retirement, a chance to address the team. When the doors finally opened, nearly every player was sitting in front of his locker, most still in uniform, waiting to explain what seemed to be inexplicable.
How did the greatest team money can buy wind up so flat when the stakes were so high?
“We’ve been grinding all season long,” said right-hander Tyler Glasnow, who retired the first 10 Brewers in order, but lasted just one more inning. “No one slacked off at all. Everyone just came in and worked hard. They just played a lot better than us. They were hitting on everything. It wasn’t our year.”
“Not every time it’s gonna be us,” left fielder Teoscar Hernández added through a forced smile. “It’s not fair for us to be doing the same thing over and over every year. Teams are going to learn from their losses the same way we’re gonna learn from this one.
“So hopefully we come back next year stronger.”
Speaking of next year, no one would.
Half the players on the Dodgers 26-man NLCS roster are on expiring contracts. The core of the team — Mookie Betts, Freeman, Muncy, Kiké Hernández and Teoscar Hernández along with pitchers Blake Snell and Glasnow — are 33 or older. The Dodgers could look very different when spring training starts — if spring training starts — in February.
“There’ll come a time when we think about next year,” Muncy said. “But that’s not right at this moment.”
The Dodgers have an extra-long winter to get through first.
The neighbourhood is jam-packed full of coffee shops, pubs and restaurants(Image: Nicola Roy)
A £4.60 oat milk mocha might not be everyone’s idea of a bargain. But at Zennor in Govanhill, I’d argue it’s worth every penny – and the surrounding streets offer plenty of reasons to stay after the last sip.
The neighbourhood on Glasgow’s south side earned a place among the world’s five coolest neighbourhoods in Time Out’s annual list. Its appeal goes well beyond fashionable coffee shops, with a diverse mix of people, cultures and businesses shaping the area.
From Turkish börek to Pakistani street food, independent cafés to a pub named after a footballing legend, there’s plenty to explore. Some may say it’s all new coffee shops and no substance, but they couldn’t be more wrong.
Victoria Road is a natural starting point. Busy with dog walkers, friends catching up and people carrying takeaway coffees, it leads towards the green space of Queen’s Park.
Govanhill is one of Scotland’s most diverse neighbourhoods, reflected in its cafés, bakeries, takeaways and gift shops. You could easily spend hours browsing and stopping for something to eat.
Options include a flat white from a Transylvanian coffee shop or traditional Turkish börek from Pistachio. For me though, Zennor was the destination of choice.
On the corner of Langside Road and Dixon Avenue, Zennor’s second Glasgow location combines Scandi-inspired light wood and stainless steel décor with paper lanterns and the smell of freshly ground coffee.
Zennor’s seasonal specials are really where they excel, but I didn’t spot anything on there that caught my eye on this occasion, so I opted for a mocha. And you can’t pop in here without grabbing a sweet treat, such as their dark chocolate and sea salt cookie – utter bliss.
With oat milk, my coffee order totalled £4.60. It pains me to admit, but I don’t think that’s too steep these days, particularly when it’s this good. And it’s worth every penny in my opinion.
Directly opposite Zennor is the Rose Reilly, my favourite pub in Govanhill. Named after the legendary footballer, it offers a welcoming atmosphere, a good choice of drinks and plenty of outdoor seating for sunny days.
For something more substantial, I recommend Pakistani Street Food for a samosa, Bar Vini for a generous serving of pasta and Errol’s Hot Pizza for the best pizza you’ll ever eat.
Together, these venues offer plenty of scope to turn a quick coffee visit into a longer afternoon or weekend exploring the neighbourhood.
Govanhill’s fashionable reputation is only part of its story. The area faces challenges, and residents hold differing views about how it has changed, with gentrification a particularly contentious issue.
My view, however, is that its mix of people and cultures is what makes it such a lively and fascinating place to discover. The coffee may provide a reason to stop, but it is far from the only attraction.
There’s also libraries, craft spaces, workshops, community projects and events, and with great public transports links too, you’re never too far from other parts of the city. Other nearby neighbourhoods in Glasgow’s south side, like Pollokshields, Strathbungo and Mount Florida, are also full of fun things to do.
On the same day Delcy Rodríguez was in New York meeting Donald Trump and representing Venezuela at the United Nations, María Corina Machado was trying, unsuccessfully, to get closer to her own country.
It was her third attempt in barely 24 hours. First came a planned maritime departure from Panama, which was canceled after the company operating the vessel reported mechanical problems. Then came an attempted flight to Aruba, from where Machado intended to continue by sea. Finally, there was another flight plan, this time for Curaçao. That trip did not happen either. Her team now says she has attempted to return to Venezuela seven times since she left in December 2025 to get her Nobel Prize in Oslo.
The exact responsibility for the latest failures remains unclear. But what happened during previous attempts is better documented. Axios reported in July that the Trump administration’s position was that third countries should not help Machado enter Venezuela. When Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau appeared to tell the Dutch government otherwise, officials in Washington corrected the message. Curaçao withdrew permission for Machado’s plane to land while she was already in the air. According to the same account, Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently reiterated the policy to Machado personally.
This sits awkwardly beside Washington’s public position. Rubio said this month that Machado, as a Venezuelan citizen, has every right to return “whenever she wants.” A State Department official told Congress in July that the US would not obstruct her return. Trump himself has denied telling her to stay away.
After World War II, keeping Emperor Hirohito in power did not mean preserving his capacity to decide who could participate in Japanese politics.
All of those statements may be technically true. The US does not issue Venezuelan visas and cannot legally forbid a Venezuelan citizen from entering Venezuela. But Machado cannot teleport into Caracas. Getting home requires aircraft, airports, territorial waters, neighboring governments and, increasingly, governments that want to know Washington’s position before helping her. There is a meaningful difference between saying that the US will not prohibit her return and telling American partners that facilitating it is not US policy.
This would already be an odd arrangement for any opposition leader. It is stranger still in Machado’s case. She is hardly a geopolitical threat to Washington. She has gone out of her way to present a democratic Venezuela as a close strategic partner of the US. In December, she said explicitly that America would be Venezuela’s “main ally.” She has spoken about opening the country to Western investment, rebuilding the energy sector with foreign capital and transforming Venezuela from a security liability into a partner for the US. After Maduro’s removal, she publicly thanked Trump and Rubio and described the outcome as a potential “win-win” for both countries.
Yet Reuters reported last week that US officials remain wary of her return because they fear her presence could disrupt the transition Washington is supporting around Rodríguez. Machado’s movement is not part of the current US-backed negotiating mechanism, while Delcy’s government has become Washington’s main Venezuelan interlocutor.
That raises a question that goes beyond Machado.
The Trump administration has repeatedly defended its approach as a matter of sequencing. Venezuela needs stability first, then economic recovery and reconciliation, and “ultimately democratic transition.” The White House argues that rebuilding the economy is a precondition for elections rather than a substitute for them.
There is a serious argument behind that position. Venezuela inherited a devastated public administration, a crippled oil industry, enormous external debt and institutions hollowed out by years of authoritarian rule. Abruptly dismantling the bureaucracy, military hierarchy or State-owned companies could reproduce some of the worst mistakes made in other post-authoritarian or post-conflict transitions. A functioning State matters.
But preserving the State is not the historical equivalent of preserving the regime.
After World War II, the United States repeatedly confronted versions of this distinction. In Japan, the occupation retained Emperor Hirohito partly because American planners believed institutional continuity could make the transition less destabilizing. But keeping the emperor did not mean preserving the emperor’s capacity to decide who could participate in Japanese politics. On October 4, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the Japanese government to remove restrictions on political and civil liberties and release political prisoners. Among those released were prominent Japanese Communists who had been imprisoned by the old order. American officials later acknowledged that the resulting political opening was so broad that some Japanese mistakenly concluded that the occupation itself favored the Communist Party.
When it comes to the geopolitical role of the US, the Trump administration depicts itself as the decisive actor reshaping Venezuela. When questions turn to the lack of institutional reforms, Venezuela’s sovereignty becomes a much more convenient explanation for the limits of American responsibility.
Something similar happened in Italy. The Allies initially worked through King Vittorio Emanuele III and Marshal Pietro Badoglio because they needed an Italian government capable of administering the country during the war. At the same time, political exiles were allowed to come home and anti-Fascist parties returned to public life. The contrast is particularly striking in the case of Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Italian Communist Party and a former senior official of the Communist International. When Togliatti sought to return from Moscow in 1944, the US State Department explicitly said it had “no objection.” He returned and soon participated in the new political order.
Neither Japan nor Italy offer a blueprint for Venezuela. The historical circumstances were radically different, and American occupation policy was hardly politically neutral. But the underlying distinction is useful. Administrative continuity did not require preserving the old regime’s monopoly over politics. The State could survive while the political system opened around it.
That is precisely where Washington’s current Venezuelan policy becomes harder to understand.
Keeping experienced civil servants at their desks is State continuity. Avoiding a wholesale purge of the armed forces may be State continuity. Keeping PDVSA pumping oil while new rules are negotiated is State continuity. None of those choices inherently require preventing opposition politicians from returning, organizing, or campaigning.
And Venezuela’s political opening remains incomplete. A UN Fact-Finding mission reported this month that, despite prisoner releases and some liberalization, the structures responsible for years of repression remain largely intact. Officials linked to previous abuses remain in important positions, restrictive laws survive and arbitrary detention and mistreatment have not disappeared.
This makes the widening gap between economic opening and political opening particularly important. Washington is moving rapidly on the former. Rodríguez traveled to New York accompanied by officials discussing oil, mining, debt restructuring and access to international financial institutions. American companies are negotiating their return to Venezuela’s energy sector. Trump has made the oil agreement one of the centerpieces of his foreign-policy narrative.
At the United Nations this week, Trump went further. After celebrating Maduro’s capture, the release of prisoners and Washington’s relationship with Venezuela’s current leaders, he described the new oil arrangement in unmistakably triumphalist terms. “It was a war,” he said, before invoking the old expression: “to the victor belong the spoils.” He then presented Venezuela as proof that the US would once again impose its power against threats in the Western Hemisphere.
If Machado returns, travels freely, organizes her movement, holds rallies and begins preparing for an eventual presidential campaign, Delcy’s continued presence can still be understood as part of an administrative transition.
The rhetoric creates an uncomfortable asymmetry. When discussing oil, geopolitical alignment or American power, the administration depicts itself as the decisive actor reshaping Venezuela. When questions turn to the remaining coercive apparatus, restrictions on political competition or the continued exclusion of important opposition actors, Venezuela’s sovereignty becomes a much more convenient explanation for the limits of American responsibility.
Washington cannot have unlimited responsibility for everything that happens inside Venezuela. Delcy Rodríguez still controls a government, a bureaucracy and a security apparatus of its own. But the US plainly possesses enormous leverage over the political and economic environment in which that government operates. The history of Machado’s attempts to return suggests that this influence may extend even to whether neighboring governments are prepared to help a Venezuelan opposition leader reach her country.
That is why Machado’s return matters beyond Machado herself.
If she returns, travels freely, organizes her movement, holds rallies and begins preparing for an eventual presidential campaign, Delcy’s continued presence can still be understood as part of an administrative transition: an imperfect bridge between the regime that existed under Maduro and a genuinely competitive political order.
If her return continues to be regarded as destabilizing, however, the logic starts to invert. Political competition itself becomes a threat to stability. The government is no longer merely being preserved so that the State can function while politics reopens; political reopening is being limited because it might endanger the government being preserved.
Venezuela does not need another collapse of the State. But avoiding State collapse and protecting the political equilibrium inherited from chavismo are two different objectives.
The distinction between them may ultimately define this transition.
10:29, 24 Sep 2026
You can even take a pint to your room
Love it or loathe it, Wetherspoons is a British institution. Its patterned carpets, bargain drinks and grand old buildings are familiar features of high streets across the country.
For a long time, I’ve been in the loathe camp. Having whiled away much of my latter teenage years in one of its pubs – a once particularly grand building converted into the biggest, cheapest drinking den in the South East – I fell out of love with Tim Martin’s chain in my 20s. Partly because the local newspaper I worked for had no offices, so we had to hold news conferences in the room above our local Spoons. Partly out of support for independent pubs, which have been in a fight for survival for the past decade.
Something Spoons is certainly not doing. The chain is booming. It has around 800 venues across the UK and brought in £2.13 billion last year, an almost 5% year-on-year increase. But while most of us know its pubs, I had no idea it had also been running hotels since 1998, when the chain’s first opened in Shrewsbury with 22 rooms. A further 54 have opened since.
As you might expect with Spoons, the major draw is the price. A room for a night costs at most £50 at most venues, which is an absolute bargain anywhere near London. The chain also scored four stars out of five for value for money in a Which? budget hotel survey, one of only two to land the score.
So, on a bitter Wednesday in November, I arrived at the Thomas Ingoldsby in Canterbury, frozen and disheveled after a long bike ride from Broadstairs, ready to give Spoons another chance. I was glad that I did.
Cheap drinks are a big part of Spoons’ appeal, and its hotel rooms follow the same formula.
In the Which? survey, Wetherspoons was one of just two hotel groups to earn four stars for value for money. The other was the overall winner, the Coaching Inn Group. While the Coaching Inn Group’s average room rate was £128 a night, Wetherspoons’ was £70. When I checked, a double at the Thomas Ingoldsby for the following Wednesday was available for just £55.
The savings didn’t stop at the bedroom door. I spent the evening drinking £1.89 pints of ale, then tucked into a £2.99 veggie breakfast the next morning. Both were rather decent. Perhaps I’d spent too long inside the M25, but those prices felt almost ridiculously cheap. At a time when leaving the house seems to cost £20 before you’ve done anything, the affordability was the standout attraction.
My previous Spoons visit had been to the vast, strangely subdued Coronet on London’s Holloway Road. Canterbury on a chilly Wednesday evening couldn’t have felt more different. There were university students, cheerful groups of pensioners and solitary blokes reading books over onion rings. It was a lively cross-section of life, with people happily sharing the same space.
The hotel rooms are a short flight of stairs above the pub, so getting to bed after a pint couldn’t be much easier. You could even take a deli wrap and chips upstairs to enjoy in the bath. A member of staff told me rooms could be booked on a whim, although anyone who had overdone it at the bar might be turned away.
I’ve stayed in plenty of budget hotels, and this was among the best. Everything felt fresh, well maintained and thoughtfully put together. My double room was generously sized, with a large desk, a well-stocked tea tray and a decent-sized television. Better still, it had a view of Canterbury Cathedral that few hotels in the city could rival.
Only two rooms at the Thomas Ingoldsby enjoy that outlook. Those on the other side not only miss out on the cathedral view but are reportedly disturbed by early-morning lorry movements. If you can get it, room 110 is the one I’d recommend. After a freezing day cycling across Kent, I was particularly pleased to discover the thermostat went up to 25C — and that the heating delivered. Within a short time, it felt as though I’d escaped somewhere considerably warmer.
There is no all-inclusive package, which is perhaps just as well given the potential combination of Hooch and endless chips. Still, the room came with plenty of useful extras: reliable Wi-Fi, a couple of packets of biscuits, fresh towels, two bottles of water and a generous supply of tea, coffee and hot chocolate sachets. Check-out was at 11am. Breakfast wasn’t included, but at £2.99 for my veggie option, that hardly felt like a reason to complain.
A friend’s dad once told me that Spoons was the closest thing Britain had left to a genuine social institution. Watching the mix of people enjoying their evening in Canterbury, I could see what he meant.
As nightclubs and members’ societies close, places where people from different backgrounds can gather feel increasingly valuable. Whatever my reservations about the business, this pub offered exactly that.
Add a comfortable room, a cathedral view and remarkably low prices, and the appeal becomes difficult to resist. I arrived as a skeptic, but Thomas Ingoldsby won me over.
