The transfer window can be the best and worst time as a soccer fan: either your team is linked to every top player and they eventually make some signings, or they're left settling for some last-minute loan deals to remain competitive. There are rumors, whispers and endless paper talk. There's also a lot of jargon to keep you confused.

Who sets a transfer fee? Is a "free" transfer really free? How do clubs offset the costs of doing business? What does an intermediary do and why do teams need them, anyway?

ESPN FC senior writer Gab Marcotti shines a light on the transfer market and explains it all.

Q: All those transfer stories out there ... it's just made-up clickbait, isn't it?

A: Some of it, sure, and some of it may not be made up in the sense that there is a source, just perhaps not a credible source or a second-hand source. When you see stuff attributed to other publications, it means the publication you're reading hasn't been able to verify the story but there's some level of credibility to it, so they attribute it to somebody else.

Some stuff has a source, but it's an interested party. For example, a club or an agent may tell reporters on background that they had interest for Player X from Clubs Y and Z. It may or may not be true, and the reason it might not be true is that it could be an attempt to drum up interest in Player X. An educated reader needs to make up his own mind about the credibility of the publication and the individual reporting it.

- When does the transfer window close?
- Reddy: Inside Liverpool's new transfer policy
- 30 Under 21: The best young stars in men's soccer

Another situation that regularly occurs is that a story may appear in one country on Tuesday and then get picked up by a publication in another on Wednesday. And then, on Thursday, the story will reappear in the original country with the presumption that the other media outlet offered "confirmation" of the story when, in fact, all they did was repeat what had been originally published. That used to happen a lot in the past -- less so now thanks to the internet and the 24/7 news cycle.

But there are plenty of stories with solid reporting behind them too.

Q: Yeah? Well what are the sources?

A: People don't realize that in the transfer ecosystem, there are plenty of folks who know what's going on. Some have the full picture, others only part of it, but there are plenty who talk. Players have family members, friends and teammates who talk. There are directors of football, scouts and managers who talk. And, of course, there are agents and intermediaries who talk.

Q: Why would they? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep things confidential?

A: It depends on the situation. Many clubs have press officers whose job it is to provide information to media, a way of controlling the message. Sometimes they don't comment on certain subjects, sometimes (rarely, to be fair) they flat-out lie, sometimes they tell you what's going on. And even when press officers don't do that, others at the club will because it's immaterial to the deal.

Take Manchester United's reported interest in Aaron Wan-Bissaka: the story is out there whether they make another bid or not or, indeed, how much they bid isn't going to impact whether he joins or not. The same applies to agents. The clever ones know when to talk and when to stay quiet.

Sometimes a club may want to put information out there to keep the fans happy. It shows that they're trying to do something, it gets their brand in the headlines, and sometimes, it can accelerate a deal.

The best example I can think of involves Argentina striker Gabriel Batistuta. In the summer of 2000, Roma were looking for a center-forward but were quoted what the club thought was an insane price for Fiorentina's Batistuta: more than $40m for a 31-year-old striker. (It's a big number even today and back then, even more so.) Club owner Franco Sensi decided it was far too much so Fabio Capello, Roma's manager at the time, told a newspaper that the Batistuta deal was on the verge of going through even though Sensi had said "no." When it appeared in the paper the next day, Sensi's phone started to ring off the hook with well-wishers congratulating him on showing so much ambition. Fans sang his name in the streets. He was suddenly a hero for breaking the bank and, eventually, he agreed the deal. Roma won the title the next season.

That said, there are plenty of other occasions when at least one party in the deal wants to keep things under wraps. Fortunately, in any transaction, there are multiple parties and rarely is it in everyone's interest not to talk. In fact, very rarely is it in the interest of intermediaries not to talk.

Q: Run me through what these guys, intermediaries, do again? Why can't clubs just talk to each other?

A: Simply put, intermediaries do things clubs can't, like approach a player (via his agent) without his club's consent, which is technically illegal. Before you make an official approach and offer a hefty sum for a player, you want to know how much it will cost you in terms of wages and contract length. That's something the intermediary can do on your behalf: he or she can also make the initial approach with a club to get an idea of what the asking price might be.

- Transfer grades: Tracking every big summer move in Europe
- Transfer Talk Index

It works in reverse, too. If there's a player you might want to sell, whether to upgrade a position or to raise cash, you might employ an intermediary to get the word out. Or, sometimes, his agent will be doing the same. It helps a club maintain plausible deniability towards fans (who might not want to see a star player sold) and towards the player himself, since nobody likes to be told they're considered surplus to requirements or simply not good enough. Not to mention the fact that the minute you stick a "for sale" sign on somebody, his price drops.

Q: OK, so what determines a transfer price? It's a free market so it's whatever a club is willing to pay, right?

A: Not quite. In fact, terms like "going rate" or "market value" are pretty meaningless. There are forces you'd expect to determine a player's price: talent, age, nationality -- a guy with an EU passport or, better yet, who satisfies association-trained or home-grown requirements is worth that much more -- current wages and length of contract. But at the higher end of the market, these factors often get distorted. Top talent is rare and clubs often believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that only a certain player will do.

Take Eden Hazard. Real Madrid paid around $110 million plus bonuses. That doesn't mean they would have been just as happy with 11 guys costing $10m each (plus bonuses). Players aren't commodities in that sense.

Another example is that the price ends up being intrinsically linked to the urgency of the buying club. After Neymar left Barcelona and joined PSG for around a quarter of a billion dollars, the Catalan club found themselves sitting on a pile of money and desperately needing a winger. They spent some $120m of it on Ousmane Dembele from Borussia Dortmund. He's a fine player, but it's a safe bet that if they had tried to buy Dembele at the start of the transfer window rather than at the end, they would likely have spent half as much. Timing can make a difference.

It also matters which club is doing the buying. In the summer of 2016, Rennes sold central midfielder Abdoulaye Doucoure to Watford for around $12 million. A bigger, wealthier club were also interested and had offered $20m for the player, who was their second choice to fit in midfield. But because that bigger club got their first choice, Watford were able to secure Doucoure for 40 percent less. This sort of thing happens all the time. The lesson is simple: it's very difficult for wealthy clubs to acquire players without sellers jacking up the prices.

Q: What about release clauses? Why would a club ever put in a release clause?

A: Yeah, the release clause is another market-distorting factor. So first we need to distinguish between clauses in Spain, every player has one and they work more like a buyout clause, and standard release clauses where, for a certain fee, a player can move.

Typically a player will ask for one to be inserted in his contract in exchange for accepting a slightly lower contract than he would want. It's a way for a player to bet on himself, essentially saying: "OK, I'll leave some guaranteed money on the table now but if I do well, whoever buys me won't have a massive fee to pay so they'll be able to give me a better deal when I do move."

Q: OK, so it's a bit like free transfers writ small. There's a fee, but it's not enormous, so the player gets more...

A: Yes, though "free transfer" is increasingly becoming a misnomer. When Emre Can moved from Liverpool to Juventus on a "free" transfer, not only did he get a substantial raise but nearly $18 million went to agent's commissions. You'd expect something similar for Aaron Ramsey's people and, whichever club he joins, Adrien Rabiot's agent. (His agent is his mom.)

Some of it is paid by the club to negotiate the players' contract, which is an apparent conflict of interest -- but that's how the game works, and some of it is paid by the club to deliver the player. Is it still cheaper than paying a transfer fee? Of course, but the gap is diminishing.

Q: What's the biggest misconception out there in the way we talk about the transfer market?

A: Many still don't seem to understand how most clubs think about what a player costs them. When clubs buy players, they amortize (write off the initial cost) the fee over the life of the contract. So if Player X (him again) joins for $50m and signs a five-year deal worth $5m a season, he's costing the club $15m a year ($10m in amortisation and $5m in wages). If Player Y joins on a free transfer (yes, I know it's not quite "free" so let's leave that to one side a minute) and signs a five-year deal worth $20m a season, he's costing the club more than Player X.

But there's a twist. Let's say both play pretty poorly and after two years, the club wants to get rid of them. In Player X's case, as long as they sell for $30m or more, they get their money back (in accounting terms) because that's the value left on the contract. In Player Y's case, he cost nothing, so any transfer fee means they've turned a profit on him. (Remember though: because he signed the bigger $20m contract, it will likely be harder to find a buyer who can take on that expense in addition to paying a transfer fee.)

Incidentally, amortization is also why clubs are incentivised to offer longer contracts, and even raises, in some situations. Take Player X. If, after two years, he signs another five-year deal worth, say, $6m a season, he's happy because he gets a 20 percent raise, right? But the club is also happy because they can spread the residual value of his fee ($30m) over another five years, which means it is now costing them $12m a season ($6m in amortisation plus $6m in wages).

So they've managed to pay him 20 percent more, while saving themselves 20 percent. Everybody wins.

Warwickshire 230 and 148 for 3 (Sibley 52*) trail Surrey 194 and 325 (Stoneman 71, Elgar 53, Curran 52, Miles 5-91) by 141 runs

Tight fourth-innings chases place stressful responsibility on the fielding captain, and Rory Burns will have an extra calculation to make as he tries to perm a way to deny Warwickshire the 142 still needed to secure what would be a terrific win for the visitors. When does he turn to Sam Curran?

This is Curran's first-team comeback for Surrey following the hamstring injury he suffered last month. As a centrally contracted player, he falls under England's control and he was made available on the condition that he bowls a maximum 30 overs across the two innings. He has only six left.

Surrey pre-empted difficulties by leaving Curran out of their initial squad. They wanted him to play a full, unrationed role, or not at all. Then Matt Dunn turned an ankle on the eve of the fixture and Curran, though presumably less than 100 percent, was still the fittest replacement available.

Burns employed him for 17 overs in the Warwickshire first innings. As head coach Michael di Venuto told a Members' Forum during the lunch break: "Hopefully Sam will be a genius in the second." Well, the all-rounder has bowled like a mortal so far, Warwickshire have chipped away tenaciously at their target and Dominic Sibley appears as solid as the gasholders outside.

Once again, Surrey could only lament some of their own dismissals. Di Venuto had used strong words to describe their careless first-innings display, and bear in mind that the Australian vernacular can be very strong indeed. Although the second-innings total of 325 represented a significant improvement on 194, it still featured moments of culpability.

This is to take nothing away from Craig Miles, whose perseverance and improvement through the innings brought figures of 5 for 91. He had been expensive on Monday night and wayward again on Tuesday morning, flattered, by a first ball that Ben Foakes carved to backward point. With Toby Lester also profligate, and plenty of time remaining, Surrey were on top until Miles fought back.

Dean Elgar mis-hooked a well-directed bouncer, completing his helicopter-like pirouette and still finding time to scythe his bat through the air in frustration before the ball arrived to long leg. Curran, too, had just passed fifty when he fell in similar style, the ungainly Oliver Hannon-Dalby taking a roundabout route towards the ball before holding on while sprawled on the ground.

Hannon-Dalby has become vital to Warwickshire as the injuries mount. He is a player John Arlott would have loved: a yeoman bowler neither aesthetically pleasing nor blindingly fast, but who does the basics undemonstratively well. His big feet kiss the turf as he runs in, like a man living in a top floor flat trying not to rattle the ceiling below with a heavy tread.

He deserved more than his two wickets, but would not have begrudged Miles the five-fer completed with thin edges, inside and out, from Jordan Clark and Morne Morkel. The manner of Surrey's final wicket said much for the effort as Rikki Clarke contrived to screw a full toss from Jeetan Patel into the off side. Clarke at least had held together the late-innings.

Burns opted to use some of Curran's overs with the new ball as Warwickshire set off towards the 290 required. Given the limited opportunity he might have better waited for evidence of swing, which did not arrive until after the early overs. Indeed, Curran did more with the ball when he returned for a second spell. Clarke, too, generated enough movement to threaten.

The game became all the more compelling for Surrey's failure to make an early breakthrough. Sibley and Will Rhodes were not an obvious opening pair when they came together last season, but they are increasingly ranking among the best in the first division. Sibley, resolute, showed why Surrey were so upset at losing him, while the left-handed Rhodes played a more forcing role.

Appeals went unheard, edges fell short or wide. With the floodlights shining it felt like a time to bowl and every ball seemed significant. Then, with the stand on 70, Gareth Batty hit Rhodes on the back foot to win an lbw decision. Rob Yates soon followed, but Sibley and Sam Hain showed their adhesive qualities against Nottinghamshire recently and were content to reprise that obstinate display.

How crucial, then, that the perennially competitive Batty should strike four overs before close. Hain pushed forward anticipating turn that did not materialise and Foakes completed a stumping despite pain in his right fingers that needed treatment a few minutes earlier when a rising ball from Morkel slipped through his gloves.

Not for the first time over the past three days, Foakes had demonstrated his style and skill. But talent comes in different forms, and while batting seems much more of an effort to Sibley, he is also a formidable customer. He will resume on 52 from 111 balls, and his wicket is the one Surrey need most in the morning.

Sussex231 for 9 (Rawlins 56*, Wiese 56, Carse 4-42) trail Durham 384 (Bancroft 158, Eckersley 118, Jordan 4-58) by 153 runs

Early on the second morning of this game Stiaan van Zyl dived to stop a ball on the fine leg boundary. He failed but managed to cake himself in mud, a legacy of Monday night's heavy rain. Van Zyl's embarrassment greatly amused Ben Brown and Chris Jordan but they would have chuckled less freely had they been told it was a portent of Sussex's day. Or rather, of much of their day.

Sussex supporters will tell you that one of the frustrations of following the county has been its occasional tendency to lose matches when simple victory beckons and win them when undertakers are parked outside the ground. They do not quite mean what they say. Sussex's inconsistency also gives their supporters a frisson of excitement. That emotion was felt by some on the second evening of this game when the batting of Delray Rawlins took a day Durham had dominated and gave his own county's supporters something to cheer after a grim couple of sessions.

Had it not been for Rawlins' unbeaten 56 and his eighth-wicket partnership of 109 with David Wiese, the day's honours would have been claimed by Brydon Carse, whose four wickets were a just reward for 14 accurate overs. Perhaps they still should be; after all, Sussex have not yet saved the follow-on and the visitors are in the ascendant. But after watching Rawlins strike the ball clean and long through a perfect Hove evening Sussex supporters may have gazed into the gull-strewn sky and not known whether to curse or bless their loyalty.

When Rawlins joined Wiese twenty minutes after tea Sussex were 110 for 7 and 284 runs in arrears. Gradually the 21-year-old adjusted to his task and began to hit the ball with more assurance. His second four, an on-drive off Ben Raine, was as sweet as anything we saw. Two balls later he stroked Raine easily for six in the same direction and followed that in the next over with a straight drive off James Weighell. Rawlins was beginning to enjoy himself and Wiese, too, batted with greater certainty, sweeping Liam Trevaskis for six and reaching his own fifty before falling leg before when attempting a reverse sweep. Aaron Thomason became Carse's fourth victim a couple of overs later but by then Rawlins had reached his fifty off 88 balls with a huge six over long-on.

It was intriguing as Rawlins was applauded to recall Sussex's travails earlier in the day. The morning's cricket, for example was divided into two very unequal parts. In the first Cameron Bancroft and Ned Eckersley extended their overnight partnership to 282, a sixth-wicket record for Durham in first-class cricket; in the second Durham lost their last five wickets for 12 runs in 32 balls, three of the wickets falling to the left-arm spin of Rawlins, a bowler who had never previously taken more than one wicket in a first-team game.

Bancroft and Eckersley batted competently but needed to do little more. Thomason seemed to require more evidence Bancroft can play the pull shot; the evidence was duly provided and the ball smacked into the advertising hoarding. The session continued in similar fashion for nearly two hours. The collapse began when Eckersley, having registered his maiden century for Durham, drove too early at a ball from Luke Wells and was caught and bowled for 118. Two balls later Bancroft was lbw for 158 when sweeping a full toss from Rawlins. One wonders why long partnerships are so often the prelude to both partners getting out in quick succession. Is it a form of trivial bereavement, the second batsman being unable to carry on without his long-time colleague? Simple destabilisation is probably a better explanation. Either way, it never seemed to unsettle Bradman.

Such thoughts did not trouble Rawlins. He carried on giving it a tweak and had picked up two more wickets and a career-best 3 for 19 before Will Beer wrapped up an untidy session on the stroke of tiffin. All the same, 384 seemed a decent score and an even better one when Sussex were 3 for 2 twenty minutes into the afternoon session.

Their favourites' rapid decline did not surprise the regulars in the Sharks stand. One declared he had never seen anything like it. (He probably had.) Another that: "We'll be batting again by tea."(They weren't.) But Sussex, whose top-order batting is flaky at the moment, were five down at tea, two of their early wickets having been taken by Chris Rushworth, who struck with the fourth ball of the innings when Wells' weak defensive push only edged a catch to Alex Lees at first slip. Will Beer, whose place as opener indicates a willingness to help rather than unsuspected competence, was then leg before to a full length ball from Carse, and Harry Finch was then trapped in front by one from Rushworth which nipped back down the hill.

Subsequent recoveries beguiled supporters in the Spen Cama Pavilion but ultimately deceived them. Laurie Evans made 20 before being caught down the leg side off Weighell. Van Zyl batted carefully for 34 but played down the wrong line to Gareth Harte's fourth ball of the day. That wicket fell a few minutes before tea; two balls after the resumption Brown made to whip Carse through midwicket but only gave a catch off the leading edge to Rushworth at mid-on. By now Wiese was at the crease and four overs later he was joined by Rawlins. Sussex supporters could have given up the day as a bad job but instead they opted to stay where they were and watch this young lad Rawlins for a while.

Zimbabwe 152 all out (Taylor 40, van der Merwe 4-35) tied with Netherlands 152 for 8 (O'Dowd 56, Williams 2-28)

Zimbabwe 18 for 0 beat Netherlands 9 for 1 in the Super Over

The second T20I in Rotterdam seesawed wildly into a dramatic tie and a Super Over finish in which Zimbabwe scored 18 thanks to Brendan Taylor and Elton Chigumbura, before Tendai Chatara held his nerve to keep Netherlands to just 9 for 1 in response. Chatara's mettle helped Zimbabwe secure their first win of the tour - and a 1-1 series draw - but it was Roelof van der Merwe who almost stole the show as he snatched a tie out of an almost hopeless situation to set up the Super Over decider.

Zimbabwe needed 13 off the final over and Chigumbura took them the brink with consecutive, mighty leg-side hits that levelled the scores. But in a blazing display of bravura, van der Merwe conjured up a dot ball followed by three wickets - a team hat-trick - to keep them from going past. Chigumbura was yorked by a quicker one, Chris Mpofu heaved and was bowled first ball, and with one needed from the last ball, Chatara's swipe was stopped at short midwicket, and the ball was hurled back for van der Merwe to seal a run out.

Van der Merwe, who finished with 4 for 34, had also been crucial in helping his team overcome Taylor's electric start in the chase. With Netherlands having put up 152 for 8, thanks mainly to Max O'Dowd's third fifty of the tour, Taylor was shunted up to open the batting in international cricket for the first time in seven years.

He launched the pursuit with an array of attacking strokes against pace and spin alike. Fred Klaasen was driven and ramped and van der Merwe swept before Taylor jumped down the crease to play what was possibly the shot of the match - an inside-out checked loft over extra cover.

Weathering the early loss of Hamilton Masakadza without skipping a beat, Taylor raised Zimbabwe's fifty inside the Powerplay with a hopping uppercut off Paul van Meekeren. Zimbabwe's rapid start had put them ahead of the asking rate, but Brandon Glover struck with the vital wicket, the fall of Taylor, Zimbabwe's best batsman, sparking a collapse as 69 for 1 became 97 for 6.

Taylor edged an attempted ramp to depart for 40, and van Meekeren then struck twice in his next over to see the back of Sean Williams and Craig Ervine. After tapping the ball around for an over or two amid asphyxiating spells from Glover and van der Merwe, the scoreboard pressure got to Sikandar Raza and Peter Moor, who both fell to catches in the deep off van der Merwe's left-arm spin.

The required rate quickly moved above ten, and Zimbabwe required 47 from the last four. Ryan Burl backed away to hack van Meekeren through cover, and then took ten runs off the first two balls of Pieter Seelaar's comeback over - the 18th - before slapping a high catch out to long-off to leave Zimbabwe needing an unlikely 23 from the last 12 balls.

Chigumbura took his time playing himself in in his first match of the tour, but once he found his range he quickly threatened to turn the match around once more. Klaasen was carted for six over midwicket in the penultimate over, setting up the showdown between a strutting Chigumbura and a combative van der Merwe. The left-arm spinner continued to attack the stumps, even after his first two balls had been deposited over the boundary, and Zimbabwe almost fluffed what should have been a simple finish when one run was needed from the last four balls.

Zimbabwe made a better fist of their second go at victory in the Super Over, Chigumbura slugging one over the leg-side before Taylor scooped ten runs off two balls on either side of wicketkeeper Scott Edwards to lift their team to a total that Chatara made sure was out of Netherlands' reach with a nerveless six balls.

Their efforts meant a bruising fifty from O'Dowd went in vain. Even as wickets fell at the other end, he helped Netherlands chug through the Powerplay at 55 for 3. A back-foot thump out to wide long-on brought O'Dowd to a 36-ball half-century at the end of the 11th over, but he was one of four Dutch batsmen to fall to spin as Zimbabwe's slow bowlers took control of the middle overs.

Netherlands slipped to 120 for 7 before captain Seelaar chipped in with 29 not out to push them to a total that very nearly proved out of Zimbabwe's reach.

The last time Australia opened the bowling with two left-arm quicks it was all about the Mitches. Australia were facing Sri Lanka in the 2015 World Cup, Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson took two wickets apiece and Australia won by 64 runs. Four years later, on the other side of the world in another World Cup, Starc and Jason Behrendorff conjured some left-arm wizardry, took nine wickets between them and Australia won by 64 runs. Cricket is funny, sometimes.

Behrendorff is a very different bowler to Johnson but the decisions to select him and hand him the new ball proved to be masterstrokes against England. Bowling up the slope from the Nursery End and generating troublesome swing, Behrendorff took just two deliveries to strike the first blow for Australia, shattering the stumps of James Vince and evoking memories of Starc's wicket-taking fireworks against Brendon McCullum and New Zealand in the 2015 World Cup Final. Cricket is funny, sometimes.

Watch on Hotstar (India only): Highlights of Behrendorff's five-wicket haul

But it hasn't always been a barrel full of chuckles for Behrendorff. At 29 years of age, he has had a frustrating international career, a wealth of promise curtailed by a series of debilitating back injuries. Coming into this tournament he seemed to be down the pecking order, behind Nathan Coulter-Nile as the main contender for the third seamer role, or perhaps a back-up for Starc. Now his name will be etched on the honours board at the Home of Cricket; something that seemed far off during his many extensive rehabilitations.

"Some days, especially during all the rehab periods, you think, am I going to get back; am I going to be able to get out there and play for my country," said Behrendorff. "It's one of those things you dream of as a kid to play cricket for Australia; and then to come here and play at Lord's my first time here, I trained here the other day and my first game here, so yeah, it was something special.

"It's something I'll treasure for sure. It's something that you don't play cricket for, the accolades, but to play at Lord's and to take five today was really special."

It was Aaron Finch's call to open the bowling with Behrendorff rather than Pat Cummins and he was repaid handsomely, with the wicket of Jonny Bairstow following that of Vince. Behrendorff saw Finch's decision as an enormous vote of confidence.

"Yeah, it was huge," said Behrendorff. "That's where I guess one of my primary strengths lies, bowling up front, swinging with the new ball. So it was great to be given that opportunity to be able to get, as well, the wicket early doors. That was really important, as well, so I was happy with that."

Starc and Behrendorff made the most of Finch losing the toss and spent the first innings assessing the wicket and lengths England were bowling, particularly early on. Their observations paid dividends and the pair did the most important damage with the swinging new ball, bowling a fuller length and leaving England 4 for 53 and very much on the back foot.

"That's something we were assessing as they were bowling," said Behrendorff. "They didn't hit the stumps, or the balls were going to hit the stumps too often, so we made a conscious effort to try to pitch up and we hit the stumps as much as we could early doors.

"I think we executed that quite well on the whole, which was really positive, and we were able to get off to a excellent start with, I think it was maybe three wickets in the first ten overs, which is always really important.

"I guess as a bowling team, whenever you get off to a good start, you get your foot on the throat, and you don't want to let it off. It's something that we -- I think the best way to determine, like we really want to play aggressive cricket and set the tone up front. So it was really positive that we were able to do that and continue that throughout the innings."

The presence of Starc and Johnson in the same attack wasn't exactly a rarity but it still remains a talking point when two-left arm quicks take the field together. While the chances of that happening may well depend on particular match-ups, Behrendorff is naturally hopeful his performance against England will increase the likelihood of another day out with Starc.

"We don't often see it, but yeah, I don't see why we can't," said Behrendorff. "Sometimes you play three right-armers, so why can't we play two lefties? Mitch and I do different roles throughout the team, so it's really good that we could partner together.

"And then, yeah, second part of it, key match-up. That's something we thought was going to work well and I think Mitch and I picked up nine wickets between the two of us, so potentially worked quite well there."

Behrendorff has a polite and unassuming demeanour when he talks to the media, and Starc paints a similar picture of him in the dressing room.

"He's fairly quiet," said Starc. "But when he speaks it's all sense. He's come into the group really nicely. He hasn't played a heap of cricket for Australia but when he has he's bowled those good balls and come up with those good spells. He's continuing to learn and develop as a bowler and he's done a good job again today.

"He bowled us a fantastic starting over to get us along and start the tone. It was awesome. For someone in their second World Cup game, he bowled beautifully for his five today."

Australia are now assured of a semi-final berth and, should they face England again - something that is now far from guaranteed - Behrendorff said their two defeats of England - in the warm-up match and at Lord's - gave them enormous confidence they could be successful again, and take that success through to the final.

"It's huge," said Behrendorff. "Every game that we can win is massive. Especially in a tournament like this - they talk a lot about momentum, and that's something that's really important.

"So to continue winning, to continue playing good cricket, we're still trying to play a perfect game, but we're slowly getting better and better each time and today was another really good result for us."

Ben Stokes has insisted England "are not, for one minute going to take a backward step" in their remaining World Cup group games, even if their former team-mate Kevin Pietersen believes that Eoin Morgan doing just that during his brief innings was a contributory factor in their 64-run defeat to Australia.

Morgan, England's captain, dismissed a suggestion made by Pietersen on Twitter that he had backed away from Mitchell Starc. "The England captain backing to square leg when Starc bowled his first delivery to him made me think England may have a problem over the next week," Pietersen wrote. "I hope not, but I've not seen a captain show such weakness for a while."

"Really? Excellent," said Morgan with an icy smile when asked about the comments. "It didn't feel that way at all."

He did, however, accept that confidence may have been dented over the last few days and conceded that his team had "struggled with the basics of what we call our batting mantra".

Defeat at Lord's - England's third in seven games in this World Cup - has left them needing to win at least one and possibly both of their final two group matches against India (Sunday) and New Zealand (Wednesday) if they are to qualify for the semi-finals.

"I think both this game and the last, we struggled with the basics of what we call our batting mantra," said Morgan. "You know, strong intent, building partnerships, and doing it in our own way. We haven't done those things for long enough periods of the game to either chase down 230 or 280 and that's disappointing.

"Confidence is not where it was at the start of the tournament, simply because we started really, really well. I think it's a matter of rebuilding it. India is going to be a tough challenge on Sunday, as is New Zealand. It's a matter of going back to our strengths.

"It probably was our disappointing performance with the bat. Again we were left short with the basics. To fail to build substantial partnerships is disappointing."

Watch on Hotstar (India only): Highlights of England's damaging defeat at Lord's

Stokes, who has top-scored for England in their last two matches, believes England must stick to the aggressive approach that took them to the top of the world rankings and has called on his team-mates to "dig deep" in those remaining games.

"Two back-to-back losses can sometimes make you think differently as a team," Stokes said. "But we are not going to go away from our method of playing. We just need to adjust to situations and conditions, but we are not for one minute going to take a backward step. Especially in these last two group games.

"We have to really dig deep in these last couple of games; not go back on how we know we play well. Everybody's obviously disappointed in the last two games, but this is our World Cup and we are going to go about it the way we know how we play best.

"We know how much the World Cup means to fans. It means a lot to players as well. It's one of the greatest times to be a cricketer: representing your country at a World Cup."

While Stokes accepted that England's performance in the last couple of games, defeated by Sri Lanka and Australia while chasing apparently modest targets, did not prove it, he suggested the side were far better at adapting to different surfaces and situations than they had been. As a result, he feels confidence will not be hit by the defeats.

"We make better decisions now," he said. "Obviously it doesn't look that way when we've bowled out quite cheaply in the last two games, but we are a very, very confident team in terms of our batting line-up and these last two games aren't going to knock our confidence at all."

Cincinnati Bengals rookie offensive tackle Jonah Williams, the team's first-round draft pick, likely will miss the entire 2019 season after undergoing shoulder surgery.

The Bengals announced Tuesday that Williams is expected to make a full recovery from the surgery, which repaired a torn labrum in his left shoulder. He was expected to be their starting left tackle. Cordy Glenn, who started at left tackle last season, is expected to again start there with Williams out.

"We look forward to Jonah being a major contributor in the future and know that he won't let this injury deter him from still being an important part of this team," Bengals coach Zac Taylor said in a statement. "We're confident in our offensive line personnel as we head into training camp, and we believe they can do their part in helping this team achieve its goals."

Williams was selected by Cincinnati with the 11th overall pick after an outstanding college career at Alabama, where he was a unanimous first-team All-American in 2018.

ESPN's Katherine Terrell contributed to this report.

Some of the numbers are ridiculous in this season of the home run. Consider these statistics heading into Monday's action:

• Christian Yelich is on pace for 60 home runs, but that actually undersells his remarkable performance. Because he missed a few games, he is on pace for just 147 games played. If he homers at the same rate for the rest of the season and plays every game, he will become just the sixth player to hit 60 home runs -- and the first since Roger Maris in 1961 not named Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa. Not possible? Well, consider that over his past 160 games, Yelich has hit .344/.429/.707 with 56 home runs. He has been slugging at this level for a year now.

• The Minnesota Twins have belted 147 home runs, a season-long pace of 309 home runs. That would destroy the single-season mark of 267, set last season by the New York Yankees.

• Entering Monday, 22 players had at least 19 home runs, a 40-homer pace. If 22 players do get to 40, that would break the single-season record of 17 players from 1996. Only three players hit 40 last season. The home run leaderboard is full of surprising names such as Hunter Renfroe (23), Jorge Soler (21), Ketel Marte (20), Josh Bell (20), Max Kepler (19), Derek Dietrich (18) and Daniel Vogelbach (18).

• Rookie Pete Alonso is second to Yelich with his 27 home runs, so he has a chance to challenge Aaron Judge's rookie record of 52 and seems like a lock to break Cody Bellinger's National League record of 39.

Of course, this means somebody is serving up all those home runs. Consider the horror side of the story:

• The Baltimore Orioles are on pace to give up 324 home runs. That's an average of 36 home runs for each of the nine spots in the lineup. Nolan Arenado led the NL last year with 38 home runs.

• Drew Smyly of the Texas Rangers, trying to come back from Tommy John surgery, picked the wrong year for a comeback. He served up 19 home runs in 51⅓ innings before his release last week. Jerad Eickhoff of the Philadelphia Phillies isn't far behind, serving up 18 home runs in 58⅓ innings, before landing on the injured list with biceps homeritis.

• Smyly's rate of 3.33 home runs per nine innings is the worst ever for a minimum of 50 innings. Eickhoff is seventh worst. David Hess is ninth worst. But consider some of the pitchers with fewer innings: Alex Cobb has allowed nine home runs in 12⅓ innings; Edwin Jackson, 12 in 25⅓; and Dan Straily, 22 in 47⅔. Drew Steckenrider allowed nine hits in 14⅓ innings -- six of them home runs. Eleven pitchers with at least 10 innings have a higher home run rate than Smyly.

So, home runs -- a record-setting number of them, on pace for 1,000 more home runs than last season and 500 more than previous record set in 2017 -- have been the big story of the first half. Because this is baseball, critics have met this onslaught of power with a considerable degree of "get off my lawn" commentary. Back in 2014, everyone was complaining that nobody could hit anymore. Now everyone is complaining that there are too many home runs.

Compare that criticism to what has happened in the NBA, where the number of 3-point shot attempts have increased by more than 50% in just six seasons, from 20 per game in 2013 to 32 per game this past season. It seems the fans and those who cover the league have mostly embraced this trend -- in part, because teams that made more 3-pointers went 51-27 in this year's playoffs. Teams that make more 3-pointers usually win. Teams that hit more home runs usually win. This is the game as played in 2019.

Keep in mind that the overall runs scored per game remain within historical norms at 4.78 per game (the highest since 4.80 in 2007). Yes, all the home runs are mixed in with more strikeouts, fewer singles and fewer stolen bases, and this decline of non-home run action in the game is a reasonable issue to debate. At the same time, whenever I go to a game and the home team hits a home run, the fans all rise and cheer. Home runs aren't all evil (unless you're an Orioles fan).

Here are nine other big themes as we hit the halfway mark (all stats through Sunday):

Bullpen blues

As Nationals fans will attest, bullpens are historically bad. The Nationals have a 6.29 bullpen ERA, and the woeful Orioles are at 6.34. No modern bullpen has finished with an ERA above 6.00, and now we might see two teams do it in the same season. But it's not just bullpens in the mid-Atlantic region that are struggling. Relievers have a 4.50 ERA, while starters have a 4.44 ERA -- which would be the first season since 1969 that relievers have a worse ERA than starters.

One theory is that as managers demand more from relievers and less from starters, bullpens are getting stretched too thin. For most of the 2000s, the spread between starters' ERA and relievers' ERA hovered between 0.25 runs all the way up to 0.52 in 2012. That season, starters had 4.19 ERA, while relievers were at 3.67.

That also was when we started seeing a high uptick in relievers with high-octane velocity. I think part of this year's bullpen equation is that batters have become better at hitting high-velocity fastballs -- and that's going to affect relievers more than starters, since most relievers don't have the deep repertoire of pitches that starters have. This year, in fact, batters are hitting better against pitches of 95-plus mph than they are overall. Back in 2012, their weighted on-base average (wOBA) was 19 points worse against 95-plus:

2019: .248/.333/.409, .321 wOBA (.319 overall)
2018: .241/.324/.377, .309 wOBA (.315 overall)
2017: .245/.329/.394, .315 wOBA (.321 overall)
2016: .247/.322/.381, .309 wOBA (.318 overall)
2015: .242/.315/.370, .303 wOBA (.313 overall)
2014: .235/.307/.336, .291 wOBA (.310 overall)
2013: .240/.310/.354, .297 wOBA (.314 overall)
2012: .233/.311/.352, .296 wOBA (.315 overall)

The Dodgers

The Los Angeles Dodgers begin the week with a 54-25 record, a 110-win pace (or 111, if you prefer to round up). That's not quite a record-breaking pace like they were on a couple of years ago, until they lost 16 of 17 late in the season; but this year's team might be even more impressive, given the overall depth of the National League.

Consider that in 2017, six NL teams lost 90-plus games, including the Giants (98) and Padres (91) in the NL West. This year, only the Marlins and Giants are on a 90-loss pace. Putting together this kind of record against a balanced league is a testament to the dominance of the 2019 Dodgers.

Here are the best records after 79 games over the past 10 seasons:

2018: Yankees, 53-26 (finished 100-62, lost in American League Division Series)
2017: Astros, 53-26 (finished 101-61, won World Series)
2016: Cubs/Rangers, 51-28 (Cubs finished 103-58 and won World Series; Rangers finished 95-67 and lost in ALDS)
2015: Cardinals, 51-28 (finished 100-62, lost in NL Division Series)
2014: Athletics, 49-30 (finished 88-74, lost wild-card game)
2013: Pirates, 49-30 (finished 94-68, lost in NLDS)
2012: Rangers, 50-29 (finished 93-69, lost wild-card game)
2011: Phillies, 49-30 (finished 102-60, lost in NLDS)
2010: Yankees, 48-31 (finished 95-67, lost in AL Championship Series)
2009: Dodgers, 50-29 (finished 95-67, lost in NL Championship Series)

So, 10 of the 11 teams played worse after their hot first half, although all 11 reached the playoffs. Barring a surreal turn of events, the Dodgers are going to win their seventh consecutive division title. And I predict they will break the L.A. franchise mark of 104 wins by the 2017 team -- and maybe even get to 110 wins. This team is that good -- even with a mediocre bullpen that ranks 11th in the majors in ERA and 24th in win probability added. With a better pen, we'd be looking at one of the best teams of all time.

Hyun-Jin Ryu's amazing start

The Dodgers are so dominant in large part because of their new ace. Hyun-Jin Ryu's stat line in this year of the long ball is like that pack of baseball cards in a Christmas stocking otherwise filled with coal: 9-1, 1.27 ERA, only six walks and seven home runs in 99 innings.

He has given up just one home run over his past 10 starts, a span of 71⅔ innings. He has allowed more than two runs just once all season and that came in his last start, and two of those were unearned. Since the mound was lowered in 1969, only 10 pitchers have finished with a first-half ERA below 1.50 with a minimum of 75 innings (and three of those guys were relievers). Not that anyone should expect him to maintain a 1.27 ERA, but Ryu's adjusted ERA+ (for park and league environment) of 335 would shatter the single-season record and top Pedro Martinez's modern mark of 291 in 2000 (when he had a 1.74 ERA versus a league ERA of 4.91). It has been a half-season for the ages.

The American League is awful

The NL leads interleague play 76-57 (again, through Sunday), which is one way to explain how bad the AL has been. But what we really mean is the Blue Jays, Orioles, Tigers, Royals and Mariners. I thought it would be hard to top 2018, when three AL teams lost 100 games, but look at the projected win-loss record of those five teams based on their current win percentage:

Orioles: 45-117 (two games worse than last season)
Royals: 57-105
Tigers: 57-105
Blue Jays: 60-102
Mariners: 69-93

The Mariners aren't on pace to lose 100, but they're trending in that direction, going 23-45 after that 13-2 start. Maybe they don't all get to 100 losses. FanGraphs projects only the Orioles losing 100 games. But the bottom line? A third of the AL is playing unwatchable baseball right now.

Yankees survive slew of injuries

The Yankees have benefited from the awful AL, surging past Tampa Bay into the AL East lead, even though they seemed to be playing their B team for much of the first half. Through their first 77 games, consider the games missed from this Yankees group: Giancarlo Stanton 70, Miguel Andujar 65, Didi Gregorius 64, Aaron Judge 54, Aaron Hicks 47. That is 300 missed games, or about two full seasons' worth of games from five players who combined for 146 home runs a year ago.

Others stepped up, however, most notably Luke Voit, Gio Urshela and Cameron Maybin. While the Yankees have cleaned up against the Orioles (10-2), they also played well against the Rays (7-2) and Red Sox (4-1). The schedule gets a little tougher over the next several weeks, however, including 10 games against the Red Sox through Aug. 4 and eight against the Rays.

Defense matters

OK, it has always mattered, but this is a reminder that even though the average strikeouts per game are up to 8.71, that still means a team has to get about 18 to 19 outs per game with its defense. The top five teams in defensive runs saved:

Dodgers: +97
Astros: +59
Diamondbacks: +51
Twins: +50
Rays: +47

Four of those teams would be in the playoffs if the season ended today, and the Diamondbacks have remained competitive despite losing three of their best players from 2018. On the other end of the list are the Mariners (minus-72), Orioles (minus-56), Mets (minus-55), Nationals (minus-30) and Tigers (minus-29). The Mariners, Orioles and Tigers weren't going to be good even with decent defense, but the Mets and Nationals certainly have been hurt at times by their defense.

Free-agent blues

All offseason, everyone whined about the lack of action on the free-agent market. Some went further than complaining. Well, here are how the top 10 free agents in total dollars have fared:

• Bryce Harper ($330 million): 35th among NL position players in FanGraphs WAR
• Manny Machado ($300 million): Trending up, but still just 21st among NL position players
• Patrick Corbin ($140 million): Hot start, but has struggled of late and is 6-5, 3.90 ERA
• Nathan Eovaldi ($67.5 million): Injured, made just four starts
• A.J. Pollock ($60 million): Injured, hit .223 in 28 games
• Andrew McCutchen ($50 million): Out for season with torn ACL
• Yusei Kikuchi ($43 million): 4-5, 5.11 ERA, including 9.00 ERA past six starts
• Zack Britton ($39 million): 2-1, 2.51, 25 SO, 18 BB, 22 H in 32⅓ IP
• J.A. Happ ($34 million): 7-4, 5.23 ERA, 19 HR in 84.1 IP
• Michael Brantley ($32 million): .322/.382/.512, 11 HR, 43 RBIs

So far, the only clear "win" for the teams has been Brantley. McCutchen was playing well before his unfortunate injury, and Britton has been reliable despite the high walk rate. Still, as a group, these 10 have been much worse than those from last season's group. And we wonder why front offices are so reluctant to pay out big money now in free agency?

The National League rookie crop shines again

Last year, the NL gave us Ronald Acuna Jr., Juan Soto, Walker Buehler and Jack Flaherty, among others. Somehow, the NL has come up with another impressive group of rookies: Pete Alonso and Fernando Tatis Jr. lead the way, but we also have starting pitchers Mike Soroka and Chris Paddack, plus Austin Riley, Alex Verdugo, Nick Senzel, Bryan Reynolds, Victor Robles and Keston Hiura (call him back up, Milwaukee!). It's hard to match the Acuna-Soto-Buehler trio, but this year's group might have even more depth. The game is trending younger with good reason: The kids can play.

Mike Trout is still superman

Trending upward since 2012. How many ways can we still say he's the best player in the game? As great as Yelich has been, as great as Bellinger has been, there's Trout, tied with Bellinger for the MLB lead in FanGraphs WAR and second in Baseball-Reference WAR. He is hitting .307/.466/.642, leading the AL in OBP, SLG, OPS, runs, walks and total bases. He is on pace to establish career bests in home runs and RBIs. He could be headed for the fourth 10-WAR season of his career, via Baseball-Reference. That is rarefied territory: Only Babe Ruth (9), Willie Mays (6) and Rogers Hornsby (6) have more than three.

Here's my advice for those complaining about too many home runs: Tune in to an Angels game every now and then and watch this man play baseball. That will make you forget about yelling at the kids to get off your lawn.

WALTHAM, Mass. -- Things haven't exactly gone according to plan for the Boston Celtics.

And yet, as the start of free agency approaches this weekend, Marcus Smart remains optimistic about the state of the franchise -- even as both Kyrie Irving and Al Horford appear headed elsewhere next month.

"I'm excited," Smart said Tuesday afternoon at his annual basketball camp at Brandeis University. "We're excited. As competitors, you have a season like we did last year and it leaves a funny taste in your mouth.

"We use that as our motivation and to keep going. We're very excited. Whatever team or whatever people or whoever is on the board or whoever is on this roster with us, we're excited to have them to go out there and fight."

Still, to have both Irving and Horford likely leaving the franchise as free agents is not what anyone was expecting would happen this time a year ago, when the Celtics were the favorites to take over for LeBron James as rulers of the Eastern Conference for years to come.

Instead, the Celtics never got going this season, finishing fourth in the conference and eventually getting rolled in five games by the Milwaukee Bucks in the Eastern Conference semifinals. Smart was asked about the up-and-down nature of Boston's season, but pushed back on the idea that the locker room itself was disconnected.

"Even in the regular season, it wasn't a disconnect," he said. "It was just a lot of people kind of got in and ... it was like a telephone game. You tell one person this, and by the time it gets back to you, the whole narrative had changed. That's kind of how it goes.

"You can only control what you can control. You focus on what you can focus on. As a player, you focus on getting into the gym, getting yourself better and you let the front office handle the front office stuff, and you do what it is you need to do for the team."

Meanwhile, Smart isn't ready to write things off in Boston, even if Irving and Horford leave. He pointed to the reigning champion Toronto Raptors -- who underwent massive changes themselves last summer before winning this year's title -- as inspiration for that belief.

"Hey, the thing is, the Raptors just won the championship, right?" Smart asked. "But they've got to start back over from the beginning just like we do. So we all start back over at the starting line, we all start at zero, and we all get a chance to do it.

"So everybody's starting over, regardless if they have the same team or not, they've all got to start from the beginning. That's how we take it. We take it as we come in, and we have an opportunity to do something special, and we get another chance to do it."

However Smart admitted that he expected things to change after Boston's disappointing season -- even if he wasn't quite expecting both of the team's veteran star free agents to depart.

"I expected things to change. Significantly or insignificantly wasn't really a big thing. I wasn't expecting as big or as little, I just knew something was going to change. I think everyone kind of knew that. Now, what that is, we have no clue.

"You can't really focus on that. You have to let the guys whose jobs it is to focus on that. You focus on what you can."

For Smart, that means continuing to prepare for next season. And, with a roster currently featuring a majority of players who are 25 and under, Smart -- as a 25-year-old himself -- sees his role as being more important than ever.

"Just because once again, being that longest-tenured Celtic, going into my sixth season and really understanding [coach] Brad [Stevens] and this organization, and the system that he likes to run, and just, that's who I am," Smart said. "And I've got to be that times 10 now, because we are going through some things. We did have a bad year. We've just got to keep everybody on the same track."

He said he's spoken to Irving since the season ended, but about non-basketball matters. He added that no matter what Irving and Horford decide, he won't have any ill will toward either of them.

"I mean, in today's game, nothing really catches us by surprise until it catches us by surprise," he said. "To me, a little bit, it did, but those guys are grown men, and they have every right to do what they feel is best for not only them and their families and their careers.

"Regardless of if those guys stay or leave, I have nothing but love for them. Always will. I wish nothing but the best luck for them, whatever they do."

Tuesday also was the first time Smart spoke publicly since being named to one of the NBA's two First-Team All-Defense guard spots, as well as winning the NBA's Hustle Award at Monday night's awards ceremony.

"It felt good from the standpoint of finally knowing that I'm not the only one seeing it," Smart said of the defensive honor. "But that doesn't determine the type of defender I am. Whether I got it or not, I'm still gonna be the defender I am. But I appreciate the award.

"It was kind of cool seeing my name up there with those guys and to be in that prestigious award and that level. So it's a good feeling, but it's not done and I'm still gonna be me regardless, with or without."

As for the hustle award, Smart said he didn't even know of the award before his agent texted him about winning it, although he added he appreciated the recognition of his contributions that go beyond box score statistics.

"I didn't even know that award existed," Smart said with a laugh. "It was good. I throw my body around a lot. I know I don't score too many points. I know I don't shoot the lights out or dribble like some guys in the league. I just do what I was taught to play. I know those things and those attempts are going to show up on the stat sheet. For that award to be out and be an award is incredible."

Drew Brees welcomed Zion Williamson to New Orleans with a framed jersey from the quarterback on which he wrote, "Passing the torch to you!"

The New Orleans Pelicans on Tuesday tweeted video of Williamson's reaction to receiving the gift that was waiting for him when he arrived in New Orleans.

"Wow, passing the torch. Am I ready to take that on? The city of New Orleans," Williamson says in the video.

The jersey was accompanied by a card that read, "Zion, welcome to the family. Let's dance."

Williamson, who was selected No. 1 overall by the Pelicans in last week's draft, in the video says with excitement that it was the first jersey he had received from a professional athlete.

Williamson had previously posted a picture on his Instagram story of himself in the room with the jersey, but video wasn't released until Tuesday.

The 2019 season will be Brees' 14th with the Saints. He is the NFL's all-time leader with 74,437 passing yards and led New Orleans to its only Super Bowl win in the 2009 season.