San Marcos >> If Tyra Turner’s fantastic freshman season was an ice cream sundae, then Thursday’s honor was the cherry on top.Turner was named the women’s basketball Freshman of the Year by the California Collegiate Athletic Association in the conference’s awards banquet at Cal State San Marcos — becoming the first HSU women’s player to win the award.“It’s really exciting to hear and I’m just so grateful for the opportunity,” said Turner, who added the award drives her to “be more hungry on …
If Leonard Susskind is right, cosmologists are escaping the conclusion of intelligent design (ID) by backing into a radically speculative idea: a near infinity of universes. Susskind, a theoretical physicist from Stanford, just published a book, Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (Little, Brown 2005), that explores current cosmological thinking about the Anthropic Principle – the observation that the constants of physics in our universe appear finely tuned to make stars, planets and life possible. Susskind was interviewed by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist. Susskind spoke as if he and other cosmologists have been forced into the concept of a multiverse (multitude of universes, of which our entire universe is just one sample) because the fine-tuning problem won’t go away. Try as they might, physicists cannot come up with a theory that explains why the constants are the way they are. All they know is that, were they different, life would be impossible in our universe. Initially, string theory seemed to allow for a million possible vacuum states that would have determined the type of universe that emerged. That was not enough, Susskind thought; getting one life-giving universe out of a million was still too improbable. When two physicists upped the number of vacuum states to 10500, Susskind became a believer. Out of that many universes, surely some would have the anthropic conditions for life. We notice ours does, because we’re in it. Intelligent design could remain just an illusion, therefore, because uncountable numbers of other universes exist with random values for the physical constants. When Susskind started sharing this idea, “The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously,” he said. “They are worried that it might be true.” Cosmologist Stephen Weinberg considers it “one of the great sea changes in fundamental science since Einstein,” a radical change that alters the nature of science itself. In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn’t. The great ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants of nature, like Newton’s constant. But it seems increasingly likely that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth – properties of our local environment that vary from place to place. Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible. (Emphasis added in all quotes.) Susskind remarked that the conclusion of a vast ensemble of universes came as a disappointment to many physicists. He himself finds the idea that reality might be vaster than we ever imagined “exciting.” It doesn’t destroy the hope for a grand unified theory, he claims; now, the challenge is not to explain just our universe, but the entire array of all possible universes. Unfortunately, another disappointment is the realization there appears to be no principle of natural selection among the universes that would favor the life-giving types. There is “no evidence for this view,” he admitted; “Even most of the hard-core adherents to the uniqueness view admit that it looks bad.” Furthermore, Susskind is unconvinced by appeals to exotic forms of life that might exist without worlds; “in my heart of hearts,” he said with resignation, “I just don’t believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole.” Susskind denied that belief in a multiverse will bring on the “Popperazzi” – those who follow Karl Popper’s teaching that an idea must be falsifiable to be scientific. His reason? Undetectable universes are no more metaphysical than claiming our universe is homogeneous, including the parts beyond our observational horizon. He even suggested ways to test it, such as looking for evidence of negative curvature that might suggest our universe tunneled from one vacuum state to another. Last, Gefter asked him if we are “stuck with intelligent design” if we do not accept his landscape hypothesis. I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID. A blogger named David Heddle on HeLives.com, with “reformed views of a nuclear physicist,” found Susskind’s remarks in this interview profoundly unsatisfying; “To save materialism,” he quipped, “Susskind argues that we must explain this fine-tuning, and his landscape has the best chance of playing the role of a white knight.” George Ellis (U of Cape Town) also reviewed the book for Nature last week.1 He quipped about how physicists used to deal with real, observable stuff; “Nowadays things have changed,” he said. “A phalanx of heavyweight physicists and cosmologists are claiming to prove the existence of other expanding universe domains even though there is no chance of observing them, nor any possibility of testing their supposed nature except in the most tenuous, indirect way.” Ellis confirms that Susskind argues for the multiverse because of the “anthropic issue: the ‘apparent miracles of physics and cosmology’ that make our existence possible.” The only way out was to posit a large enough set of random combinations of universes such that “the incredibly special conditions for life to exist will inevitably occur somewhere in the multiverse.” It follows, then, that “The apparent design of conditions favourable to life in our own universe domain can therefore be explained in a naturalistic way.” What does Ellis think about this argument? He is uncomfortable that it is neither testable nor predicted from well-established physics. It is also a vacuous answer: “if all possibilities exist somewhere in the multiverse, as some claim, then it can explain any observations, whatever they are.” Ellis finds the test that Susskind proposes only partially in its favor, but even then, the data are not exactly supportive. He finds this “a symptom of some present-day cosmology, where faith in theory tends to trump evidence.” He also disparages the use of infinities with “gay abandon” and the use of the “many-worlds” hypothesis of quantum mechanics for support, “an unproven and totally profligate viewpoint that many find difficult to take seriously.” Speaking of faith, Ellis waxes philosophical on the subject – even theological – gently chiding Susskind for lack of scientific rigor: As a philosophical proposal, the multiverse idea is interesting and has considerable merit. The challenge facing cosmologists now is how to put on a sound basis the attempts to push science beyond the boundary where verification is possible – and what label to attach to the resultant theories. Physicists indulging in this kind of speculation sometimes denigrate philosophers of science, but they themselves do not yet have rigorous criteria to offer for proof of physical existence. This is what is needed to make this area solid science, rather than speculation. Until then, the multiverse situation seems to fit St Paul’s description: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In this case, it is faith that enormous extrapolations from tested physics are correct; hope that correct hints as to the way things really are have been identified from all the possibilities, and that the present marginal evidence to the contrary will go away. This book gives a great overview of this important terrain, as seen from an enthusiast’s viewpoint. 1George Ellis, “Physics ain’t what it used to be,” Nature 438, 739-740 (8 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/438739a. Read this as a stunning defeat by the materialists and a victory for intelligent design. In a debate, when your opponent’s only retreat is to espouse an absurd position, you know you are winning. Like bugs scrambling for cover when a rotting log is lifted, the materialists are avoiding the light of intelligent design at all costs. They call to speculative mountains and rocks, saying, “Fall on us, and hide us from the design inference, for the light of fine-tuning has come, and who is able to stand?” To clarify one mistake in Susskind’s last quote, ID is not faith-based, except in the sense of putting faith in the uniformity of experience. ID makes a design inference when specified complexity is detected. The specification in this case is the precision of the values of physical constants which permit the existence of stars, planets and life. Susskind conceded the point that there does not seem to be any way that the correct values were determined; i.e., the constants appear contingent, not necessary. In most universes, random values would make life impossible. A straightforward application of ID reasoning follows. There is a specification, there is low probability – the universe, therefore, was designed. Susskind cannot escape Popper’s falsification criterion by claiming others violate it, too. That doesn’t work with cops, nor with scientific requirements. The Popperazzi have a warrant to arrest his landscape hypothesis on the grounds it is unfalsifiable. This entry can also be taken as a resounding endorsement of claims made in the film and book The Privileged Planet. The second part of the film argued that the fine-tuning of the universe implies intelligent design. In the Q&A portion, William Lane Craig emphasized how precise the tuning is, and dealt squarely with the opposition tactic of retreating into a multitude of universes; he said that cosmologists have been “driven beyond physics to metaphysics” to the “extraordinary” position of postulating an infinite ensemble of universes, all in order to rescue the materialistic, chance hypothesis from the evidence. Guillermo Gonzalez followed up by stating the obvious: this idea cannot be scientific, because there is no way to test it. It’s a metaphysical response to the physics we observe. To this we add, Susskind’s proposed test is circular, because it depends on the very materialistic assumptions that are being contested. Materialism is being debated; the observation of fine-tuning is not. The admissions made by Susskind in this interview provide all the more reason to hand out copies of the Privileged Planet DVD to skeptical friends and invite them to think about it. Now you can print out copies of this New Scientist interview as supportive material, and ask the skeptic if he or she finds the multiverse escape clause as awkward as Susskind describes it, or more “faith-based” than following the evidence to its logical conclusion. “Come to the light” can be an appropriately modern invitation to the cosmological sinner.(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
K-pop star Jung Joon-young convicted of gang rape, spycam crimes Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games WATCH: Streetboys show off slick dance moves in Vhong Navarro’s wedding Kobe x Kyrie Bruce Lee. More tonight on youtube. pic.twitter.com/plIhkaLLOg— Pinoe (@Pinoe77) August 11, 2017Cleveland Cavaliers guard Kyrie Irving shares an affinity for retired legend Kobe Bryant and this transcends even to the shoe realm.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutThe 25-year-old 4-time NBA All Star unveiled his latest Nike Kyrie 3 “Bruce Lee” colorway on Friday (Saturday in Manila) as a tribute to the Laker great.ADVERTISEMENT View comments LOOK: Venues for 2019 SEA Games Read Next Catriona Gray spends Thanksgiving by preparing meals for people with illnesses Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Eight years later, the shoes remain one of Irving’s favorite and he decided to implement the vibrant colorway to his own signature line.“This is an honor and a blessing and I can’t wait to share it to the world,” he said.ADVERTISEMENT Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH LATEST STORIES UPLB exempted from SEA Games class suspension #KicksStalker: A ‘homecoming’ for the Hyperdunk ’17 SEA Games in Calabarzon safe, secure – Solcom chief In a video uploaded on his Instagram account, Irving recalled how he wore the classic Nike Zoom Kobe V “Bruce Lee” kicks—patterned after the martial artist’ iconic yellow track suit—during the Nike Extravaganza event when he was 17 years old. MOST READ
Vine/Josh ParcellUNC and other ACC schools have done a great job of honoring legendary Tar Heels coach Dean Smith since his passing, but the opening to today’s game at the Dean Dome may be the best tribute yet. UNC, which is playing its first game at home since losing Coach Smith, ran his signature “four corners” offense in its first possession. Even better—Brice Johnson scored on the play.That is just about the coolest thing you’ll see in college basketball today. Well done, Tar Heels. [@JoshParcell]More: The Only 13 Teams That Can Win The Playoff In 2015
Not long after 14th-seeded UAB defeated 3rd-seeded Iowa State in the South Regional, another No. 14 seed toppled another No. 3 seed — this time, Georgia State over Baylor in the West Regional. It’s the first time that two No. 14 seeds have won in the same NCAA tournament since 1995.As far as 14-over-3 upsets go, Georgia State’s victory wasn’t anywhere near as unlikely as UAB’s. While the Blazers had a mere 9.2 percent pre-game probability of advancing to the round of 32, the Panthers’ chances of pulling the upset were a more reasonable 24.2 percent. But in many ways, the manner in which Georgia State won makes its upset even more remarkable.According to FiveThirtyEight contributor Stephen Pettigrew’s research about the likelihood of an upset at any given stage of an NCAA tournament game, only 2 percent of major underdogs1A difference of at least five seeds between the two teams. that trailed by any margin with 2:39 left went on to win the game, and when those teams were down by more than 6 points with that much time on the clock, they only won 0.4 percent of the time.And Georgia State was down by even more than that — it trailed by 12 points with 2:39 remaining. Of the 262 NCAA tournament games since 2004 in which an underdog trailed by 10 or more points with 2:39 to go, only one (0.38 percent) went on to win the game. … Until Thursday, that is. And that one upset was a No. 4 seed over a No. 1 seed — so this is unprecedented in the past 11 years.As for the ripple effect of the Panthers’ victory, Xavier’s Sweet 16 probability jumped 11.5 percentage points with Baylor out of the picture, while Ole Miss saw its chances of a spot in the Sweet 16 improve by 8.8 percentage points. And Arizona’s path to the Final Four is now clearer; its odds of an Elite Eight berth increased by 5.2 percentage points, and its odds of making the Final Four improved by 3.2 percentage points.Stephen Pettigrew contributed to this post in a major way.CORRECTION (March 19, 4:55 p.m.): An earlier version of this post misstated the last year two No. 14 seeds won in the same NCAA tournament. It was 1995, not 1997. It also misstated the percentage of underdogs that trailed by 10 or more with 2:39 to go and still won. It was 0.38 percent, not 0.0038 percent. Check out FiveThirtyEight’s March Madness predictions.
Courtesy of MCTBuffalo Bulls quarterback Alex Zordich (15) directs his offensive line where to block against Connecticut at Rentschler Field in East Hartford, Connecticut, Saturday, September 29, 2012. UConn defeated Buffalo, 24-17.The University of Buffalo football team came to Columbus last year to finish its 2012 football season, losing 21-7 to Bowling Green in a neutral game site at Crew Stadium. The Bulls are returning to Columbus this weekend to kick off their 2013 season, and they aren’t expecting to lose again.This time around, the Bulls will be playing Ohio State, as the two teams kick off their seasons at Ohio Stadium Saturday at noon. OSU will be starting its campaign for a second consecutive undefeated season under Urban Meyer’s second year as coach, while the Bulls are looking to improve on a 4-8 record from last year.Although the Buckeyes may be heavily favored to win, the Bulls aren’t backing down from their opponent.“Our thinking is go in and get a win,” said Buffalo senior linebackerKhalil Mack. “We’re looking forward to the challenge.”The Buckeyes, ranked No. 2 the AP preseason poll, are expected to be among the top contenders for a college football National Championship this season. Sophomore quarterback Joe Licata, however, said the Bulls also come into this game with high expectations.“They have obviously very high expectations,” Licata said. “They want to play in the National Championship at the end of the year, but we have expectations too, we want to make a bowl game at the end of the year.”The Buckeyes are the highest-ranked opponent the Bulls have played since 2006, when they suffered a 38-7 loss to then-No. 2 Auburn. That said, Bulls coach Jeff Quinn said his team’s preparation will not change in response to the team’s opponent.“I prepare our football team the same way each and every week,” Quinn said during the Mid-American Conference coaches’ teleconference Monday. “I don’t think we try to get too far ahead of ourselves. We know we’re playing one of the best football teams in the country.”If Buffalo is going to pull off the upset, they are going to have to hold Buckeyes junior quarterback and reigning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year Braxton Miller in check.Quinn first saw Miller play while he was the offensive coordinator at Cincinnati, while Miller was a freshman quarterback at Wayne High School in Huber Heights, Ohio.“Even though he was a young high school freshman, I saw a lot of skills that I hadn’t seen in players that were juniors and seniors at that time,” Quinn said.Since then, Quinn said Miller has developed into “by far one of the best” players in college football.“We were the first ones to get in there and get our eyes on it and the more I’ve studied him, the more I think he’s a complete player,” Quinn said. “He can throw the ball, he can run the ball, he manages the offense. He’s making good quality decisions and this team really rallies behind him.”One of the players most responsible for bringing pressure on Miller will be Mack. A first-team All-MAC selection for the past two years, Mack’s 21 tackles for loss were the seventh-most in the Football Bowl Subdivision last year. He also holds Buffalo school records with 56 tackles for loss and 11 forced fumbles.Mack said what stands out with the Buckeyes offense is “how well they play together.”“They have a nice tempo offense,” Mack said. “They move fast, Braxton is fast, they complement each other, they complement his speed with the protection that they use. It’s a very disciplined team all around.”On the other side of the equation, Meyer has also been impressed by Mack. He said Monday that Mack is the second-best NFL draft prospect among outside linebackers in college football this season, and called him a “tremendous player.”“(Mack) would start for Ohio State and will be a very good NFL player,” Meyer said during Tuesday’s Big Ten coaches teleconference.The Bulls run a 3-4 defensive scheme, in which they employ Mack as a pass-rusher off the edge from the outside linebacker position. He is expected to match up primarily against Buckeyes redshirt-senior left tackle Jack Mewhort, an NFL prospect in his own right who was named a captain for the Buckeyes earlier this week.“They got a good defense,” Mewhort said. “They throw some different looks at us and they do some different things, and that’s what we’ve been preparing for, so I’m excited to get out there.”Mack said he is excited for the opportunity to play against a top team and Mewhort and said he expects to take advantage of it.“Being able to go against some of the best competition, that’s more than I can ask for,” Mack said. “I’m looking forward to the challenge.”On the other side of the ball, the Bulls will be led by Licata, who replaced then-junior Alex Zordich as the Bulls’ starting quarterback during the team’s final four games of last season.In nine total games last season, Licata completed 52.8 percent of his passes for 1,045 yards and seven touchdowns, with three interceptions.Licata wants to prove himself further by leading the Bulls to a win Saturday.“You don’t go looking to have a moral victory, you go in to look to win the game,” Licata said. “If you have a moral victory, that means you lost the game.”Even if the Bulls do not win, however, Licata said it is more important that the team feels good about the way they play Saturday.“We need to just stay confident and keep pushing,” Licata said. “Things are going to go wrong at some point. That’s the game of football, that’s what happens. So when that one thing goes wrong, we can’t let it escalate and turn it two things or three things and get ourselves behind.”Although the Buckeyes will have eight new starters on their defense Saturday, Licata acknowledged that the Bulls offense will face a tough test.“I know that they’re very aggressive and they have a lot of great players,” Licata said. “They’re the most athletic team that we’ll face all year probably. There’s a reason why they were undefeated last year, and it started with their defense.”Licata will need help from some of the key players around him. Those key players include senior running back Branden Oliver, who has 2,514 career rushing yards and 18 career rushing touchdowns and senior wide receiver Alex Neutz, who caught 65 passes for 1,015 yards and 11 touchdowns as a junior.Many of the Bulls are familiar with the Ohio. Thirteen players are natives, including sophomore punter Tyler Grassman, who played at Lincoln High School in Gahanna.Playing in Ohio Stadium, however, presents a different challenge for the Bulls. At a capacity of 102,329 people, Ohio Stadium is more than three times larger than Buffalo’s home stadium (29,013).Quinn said it is key for his team to “keep their poise and composure” as they deal with the road environment.“I know they’re going to be excited about being in that kind of environment,” Quinn said. “The energy is going to be outstanding. How you control and how you respond is going to be a big part of the beginning of that game. Be in the moment, focus on the process, staying very very locked in, trying to block out all that noise and that environment and just play football.”
Senior student-athletes from the OSU and Rutgers women’s soccer teams line up to be recognized for Senior Night prior to a match on Oct. 31 at Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium. OSU lost, 2-0. Credit: Ed Momot / For The LanternTrying to keep its chance of making the Big Ten tournament alive, the Ohio State women’s soccer team ended its season with a 2-0 loss to No. 23 Rutgers on Senior Night.Prior to kickoff on Friday, four seniors on the team were recognized for their accomplishments over the years. Midfielder Ellyn Gruber, forward Kayla Varner, defender Ashely Gruenbaum and midfielder Kenzie Schlemitz achieved 44 victories in their time at OSU including a Big Ten Championship in 2012.The Buckeyes (6-10-3, 3-7-3) had an early chance just over a minute into the game when junior midfielder Michela Paradiso’s eight-yard header off a free kick from freshman midfielder Nikki Walts sailed over the crossbar. Gruber got a chance in the 15th minute off a cross from Paradiso but her 18-yard shot drifted high.The Scarlet Knights (12-4-1, 8-4-1) took the lead in the 20th minute after senior forward Stefanie Scholz nailed a 10-yard shot off a cross from redshirt-junior forward Amanda DeVolk. Scholz almost doubled the lead in the 33rd minute with a shot from the top of the box but redshirt-freshman goalkeeper Megan Geldernick was there to make the save.The Buckeyes and Scarlet Knights were tied with four shots apiece while the Scarlet Knights held a 3-0 lead in shots on goal when the first half ended.The Scarlet Knights closed out the scoring in the 50th minute as sophomore forward Madison Tiernan tapped in a rebound off a shot by sophomore midfielder Jennifer Andresen to make it a 2-0 game.The Buckeyes came close to cutting the deficit in half in the 52nd minute but freshman forward Sammy Edwards’ header from in the box hit the woodwork. Sophomore forward Nichelle Prince attempted to cut into the lead in the 63rd minute but had her shot blocked.OSU was unable to overcome the Scarlet Knights defense for the rest of the half, giving Rutgers the shutout win.The Buckeyes finished their season with a record of 6-10-3 overall and 3-7-3 in the Big Ten.
Three late Arsenal goals helped stave off West Ham at the Emirates Stadium.The first half, in which Arsenal had only one shot on goal, was marked by a devastating ankle injury suffered by Mohamed Elneny. If it’s as serious as it looked, he might be forced to miss the World Cup.After the first period ended goalless, Nacho Monreal opened the scoring for Arsenal in the second. The lead lasted 13 minutes. Arnautovic fired a superb shot beyond Ospina after collecting substitute Manuel Lanzini’s pass and the score was tied. Aubameyang, who somewhat surprisingly didn’t start, came onto the pitch in the 70th minute. His introduction changed the flow of the match. Along with some luck, The Gunners claimed the three points through goals by Lacazette (x2) and Ramsey in the last 10 minutes.Since it was Wenger’s penultimate league home game, he was obviously in the center of attention. The entire stadium was singing his name throughout the contest. The win was good preparation for what’s to come on Thursday – the first leg of the Europa League semi-final against Atletico Madrid. Arsenal fans are certainly happy to see Alexandre Lacazette’s form peaking at the right time.In the post-game interview for Sky Sports, Wenger sounded satisfied with his team’s performance.“Our home games since the start of the season, if you look at the points, I think we are top of the ‘home league’, even if City will certainly be better than us when they have completed all their games.Footage shows Arsenal stars Lacazette and Aubameyang inhaling hippy crack Henry Ikenna Ugwu – December 7, 2018 A footage of Arsenal footballers passing out after inhaling ‘hippy crack’ at a champagne and vodka party in a London nightclub which took place…We constructed patiently our win. In the first half it was difficult to find space, they closed us down well, but we kept composure and patience, and from the second half on we always looked like we could score goals because we found more space.On top of that we showed great spirit again.”“… the second goal killed them, definitely. We had a spell in the second half where we should have scored two or three goals and when they equalised it was interesting to see how we would respond to that.”He also avoided questions about his inevitable exit. When asked whether the board had any influence on his decision he replied:“Look, I have nothing to add to my statement, it said what I wanted to say and after that there’s not a lot to say.”
Wolves manager Nuno Espirito Santo wants his players to understand their mistakes and learn from them quickly.Wolverhampton Wanderers were defeated 0-2 by Crystal Palace at Molineux. A late strike by Jordan Ayew and Luka Milivojevic’s penalty ensured Wolves began 2019 with a reverse and Nuno maintained his players learn from their errors.Premier League Betting: Match-day 5 Stuart Heath – September 14, 2019 Going into the Premier League’s match-day five with a gap already beginning to form at the top of the league. We will take a…“They reduced the spaces and we tried to find solutions ourselves, something that we’ve worked on before, but today there was not the energy to do those things. We arrived, but always late, and we have to get better,” Nuno said, according to the club’s official website.“We missed too many opportunities to make the first pass. We’ll keep on going and keep analyzing, the boys must rest and recover well because the next challenge is around the corner. When we tried to go for the game things didn’t work out, so we have to improve and get better.”
Borussia Monchengladbach manager Dieter Hecking has revealed his disappointment over his team’s performance in their 3-1 loss to SC Freiburg.Die Fohlen traveled to the Schwarzwald-Stadion to face Freiburg, looking to keep the pressure on Bundesliga leaders, Borussia Dortmund who are three points clear at the top.But after an unimpressive display, the Monchengladbach manager insists his team must improve if they’re to claim a top-four spot at the end of the season.“We dealt with their early goal well and we had our best period in the game straight after it,” Hecking said, according to the club’s official website.Herrmann talks all things Monchengladbach Manuel R. Medina – September 11, 2019 The Borussia Monchengladbach footballer, Patrick Herrmann, spoke about the upcoming derby against Koln and his excitement for the Europa League.“We were dominant, won a lot of corners and ultimately scored the equaliser. We didn’t defend well for their second goal, and then once that went in, Freiburg tightened things up even more at the back. We didn’t have any real impetus about us in the final third, and we were fairly easy to defend against in the end.”Meanwhile, Freiburg manager Christian Streich also expressed his opinions about his team’s victory, saying: “It was a high-intensity game and I’m delighted to come away with the three points.”“We were up against a very energetic Gladbach side and even with the early goal it was an incredibly difficult match for us. However, we played with a lot of passion and put them under pressure, which allowed us to break down their attacks through the centre fairly quickly. That was the key to victory – it’s the only way you can beat a strong side like them. My team deserve a lot of respect for their work off the ball today, particularly on a tactical front.”