NewlyRetired
Footballguy
He was actually Italy's number 1 in Euro 2000, but broke his hand in a warm up friendly.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***Official 2014 World Cup Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NewlyRetired
- Start date
Interestingly, Townsend playing on the left today - forcing him to cross more rather than shoot.I forgot Townsend is left-footed.
Yes, he likes to cut inside to the top of the penalty area and have a pot at goal with a pretty powerful left footed shot. He did that at least twice against Arsenal back in August. I don't know if he's any good crossing with that foot from the left side of the pitch though. Never seen him do it, so I'll defer to others there.
Yes, Walcott is pretty much a RW. His best asset is is diagonal runs toward the near post. His speed usually makes the defense play back which opens up space for the attacking midfield. He's also deadly on the break. His finishing is good, and his passing and crossing have improved along with (thank God) his first touch and even his dribbling, which have been his weak areas along with his vision and propensity to dribble into traffic at times.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Germany's building their own training complex in Brazil. Serious business.
Mjolnirs
Footballguy
T Bell
Footballguy
I'm not worried. I'm confident that a scrappy, makeshift British bomber crew will swoop in just in the nick of time and destroy the facility, saving all humanity.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
With all the talk of how the draw turned out and the US being in the group of death, I figure I'll throw the question out there as to which teams from our pot you would trade places with - given the rest of the draw being exactly the same?
I'll list the new group that we'd be in with my thoughts.
Group A: Brazil, USA, Croatia, Cameroon (replacing Mexico)
On the face of it, you'd think that we'd rather have this group than our group but I'd vote 'no'. Cameroon definitely is more beatable than Ghana and similarly Portugal is better than Croatia. But Brazil at home would be a very tall task - essentially you're automatically playing for 2nd. And the reward for getting out of the group is probably a date with one of last time's finalists? This is a spot with a low-low ceiling. No thanks. I'd keep group G.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, USA. Hahaha. This make our current group look like a walk in the park. I'd keep group G.
Group C: Colombia, Cote D'Ivoire, Greece, USA. This group is pretty much a wash with our current group. Germany is better than Colombia but I think playing in Brazil neutralizes that difference. Cote D'Ivoire is Africa's best side - even if Ghana is our nemesis. Greece isn't as good as Portugal but historically they bunker and in a situation where we'd probably need 3 points out of the game that would be very tough for us. And again there's a tough match up getting out of the group. Close to a wash, but I think I'd keep group G.
Group D: Uruguay, Italy, England, USA. Pretty much the same situation as Group C. Similar to our actual group there are sides that we have some decent history with (and Italy and England don't tend to start out World Cups as a house of fire anyway). Uruguay, like Colombia is a tougher side on their continent IMO. So again, it's close but I think I'd keep group G.
Group E: France, Switzerland, Ecuador, USA. Here's the group we wanted a the time and that still holds true. With this group we'd be expected to advance - which would have it own peril. But winning this group likely avoids Argentina and gives us a more beatable team in the round of 16. Definitely would switch.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia, Nigeria, USA. Like A you have a prohibitive favorite in the group in Argentina and two teams with which we'd have to fight for the 2nd spot realistically in Bosnia and Nigeria. Beatable sides, particularly Nigeria. If you go on the premise that France will probably win Group E, it's a tough, but fair round of 16 draw. Pretty much a wash but I'd probably take it over Group G.
Group H: Belgium, Russia, USA, Algeria. At the time we wanted this over Group G and with good reason. Belgium is tough but not proven at this level and Russia is a team we feel we should beat. Algeria is about the easiest opponent we could want. We still would get one of the tough teams we've actually drawn in the round of 16 but this was a desirable landing spot. Definitely would switch.
So at least in my opinion our group is pretty much middle of the pack when you look at what the other team in our pot got. And at least we are on the right 1/2 of the draw I think. Mexico has a better chance of advancing to the round of 16, but the USA has a much better chance at a longer run IMO.
-QG
I'll list the new group that we'd be in with my thoughts.
Group A: Brazil, USA, Croatia, Cameroon (replacing Mexico)
On the face of it, you'd think that we'd rather have this group than our group but I'd vote 'no'. Cameroon definitely is more beatable than Ghana and similarly Portugal is better than Croatia. But Brazil at home would be a very tall task - essentially you're automatically playing for 2nd. And the reward for getting out of the group is probably a date with one of last time's finalists? This is a spot with a low-low ceiling. No thanks. I'd keep group G.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, USA. Hahaha. This make our current group look like a walk in the park. I'd keep group G.
Group C: Colombia, Cote D'Ivoire, Greece, USA. This group is pretty much a wash with our current group. Germany is better than Colombia but I think playing in Brazil neutralizes that difference. Cote D'Ivoire is Africa's best side - even if Ghana is our nemesis. Greece isn't as good as Portugal but historically they bunker and in a situation where we'd probably need 3 points out of the game that would be very tough for us. And again there's a tough match up getting out of the group. Close to a wash, but I think I'd keep group G.
Group D: Uruguay, Italy, England, USA. Pretty much the same situation as Group C. Similar to our actual group there are sides that we have some decent history with (and Italy and England don't tend to start out World Cups as a house of fire anyway). Uruguay, like Colombia is a tougher side on their continent IMO. So again, it's close but I think I'd keep group G.
Group E: France, Switzerland, Ecuador, USA. Here's the group we wanted a the time and that still holds true. With this group we'd be expected to advance - which would have it own peril. But winning this group likely avoids Argentina and gives us a more beatable team in the round of 16. Definitely would switch.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia, Nigeria, USA. Like A you have a prohibitive favorite in the group in Argentina and two teams with which we'd have to fight for the 2nd spot realistically in Bosnia and Nigeria. Beatable sides, particularly Nigeria. If you go on the premise that France will probably win Group E, it's a tough, but fair round of 16 draw. Pretty much a wash but I'd probably take it over Group G.
Group H: Belgium, Russia, USA, Algeria. At the time we wanted this over Group G and with good reason. Belgium is tough but not proven at this level and Russia is a team we feel we should beat. Algeria is about the easiest opponent we could want. We still would get one of the tough teams we've actually drawn in the round of 16 but this was a desirable landing spot. Definitely would switch.
So at least in my opinion our group is pretty much middle of the pack when you look at what the other team in our pot got. And at least we are on the right 1/2 of the draw I think. Mexico has a better chance of advancing to the round of 16, but the USA has a much better chance at a longer run IMO.
-QG
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Good post QG.
I'd change to any other group except for B and D. My reasoning being that with the strength of the field I think advancing from the group stage is a successful campaign and I like our chances better in those other 5 groups.
No matter what happens in our groups games the general public will see it as a failure if we don't get out of our group.
I'd change to any other group except for B and D. My reasoning being that with the strength of the field I think advancing from the group stage is a successful campaign and I like our chances better in those other 5 groups.
No matter what happens in our groups games the general public will see it as a failure if we don't get out of our group.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I disagree with the wording a bit. The ranking's odds say we won't advance
The book makers say we won't advance
The knowledgeable soccer fans know we are in a dog fight at best
The once every 4 year fans have been inundated with the "group of death" meme and certainly know how difficult it will be to advance
The sports fans who are soccer bashers inherently think the US sucks as part of their schtick so even they won't be shocked
If you changed the word failure to disappointed, I think that fits better.
France not advancing in 2010 from a relatively easy group is my definition of failure.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Netherlands cratering in EURO2012 is the definition of failure.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
For me "general public" are people who fall either in to your 4 year fans or people who just don't really care but will follow because it's the World Cup and the US. Kind of like the folks following the Olympics. But you are right, failure may be too harsh.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Graphical representation of offensive and defensive rankings (based on SPI), for all 32 teams.
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/YCKBHTPXJ?:toolbar=no&:display_count=no
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/YCKBHTPXJ?:toolbar=no&:display_count=no
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Balotelli just turned 23 years old. He's not in his prime for about 5 years.
That being said, this year, 2013 (the one that matters most) he has 5 goals and 2 assists in 9 starts 3 subs w Italy. Pretty damn good.
Let's again put some perspective into these numbers.
World Cup QUALIFYING in 2013, Italy has given up 5 goals in 5 games. Decent, but for Italy, not good... Until you realize that FOUR of the five goals came in the 2 final games of qualifying... Italy had already qualified for the World Cup before these 2 matches. Only 1 goal in the 3 previous matches that had any importance.
Italy are a team that are well documented for not giving a rats ### in any match aside from serious ones. Is Italy's defense as vaunted as it once was? Hell no.. impossible in today's football. Is it still at or near the top in the world? absolutely.
Looking at their goals against in friendlies and such is futile with a team like Italy. History tells you that
El Floppo
Footballguy
I've talked a lot about this in the soccer thread.
It's more than geting kids playing from birth... they've been doing that here for a while now. It's having them also immersed in an active soccer "culture" (sport A, B, C and D from GPJ's post), where they're not just kicking around, but can look just about anywhere and watch/discuss tactics and strategy (ideally with knowledgable parents). That part is definitely getting better here with MLS and getting to watch so many leagues around the world on TV.
I was talking with some old college team-mates of mine (we were a top 20 soccer school with all recruited athletes) about watching High School games on TV... HIGH SCHOOL games. Not just getting to watch them, but that the quality of the kids AND teams was light-years beyond what we were doing in college 20 years ago, let alone high school. That's come in essentially one generation (those are our kids playing out there... almost)... so things are looking up.
I was with my 6yo son at his soccer "class" (not on a team yet) that he's done since he was 2. On the same little field sandwiched inbetween buildings in NYC were two brothers out kicking around (10 and 16). What the 10yo was doing with the ball was what I was doing in college (and I was actually one of the more skilled guys on the team)- what his brother was doing was far beyond. I asked the dad who was sitting on a bench (not coaching) nearby about them- they were both at state level, but not regional or national.
I don't think we even need to play the "what if the best athletes played soccer" game hypothetical any more- the ones that are best suited for soccer ARE playing soccer.
El Floppo
Footballguy
I kind of agree with AAA.
I think the people he's describing WILL see it as a failure if the US can't advance. Obviously those fans will recognize that Germany is a powerhouse, but I seriously doubt they'll see Portugal or Ghana- countries they likely won't recognize on a map, let alone recognize their history or state of soccer- as teams that should be anything more than speed-bumps for the US if we're actually "any good".
And that's ok- I love that all of us have raised our expectations for the US... even if some of them aren't realistic. My least favorite US moment was actually the knock-out game against Brazil in '94, when we went up a man and STILL played to not lose by more than a goal or two rather than go for a more attacking posture and sneak a win. (or blow-out loss). I am loving that we are no longer playing to not lose badly.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I like this post very much. The one issue I have with it is that American soccer still hasn't hardly made a dent in the world's greatest single pool of athletes -- the African-American. It seems that those kids are still gravitating (or being influenced) into football and there's millions of them who will be the right size with world class speed, quickness and coordination to make us a soccer power if they just turned their talents in that direction. Call me a dreamer but, while watching the USMNT, I can't help but think of all those kids playing defensive back or wide receiver at colleges or in the pros and wonder "what if?"El Floppo said:
I agree completely that the culture is a-changin' for the better.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I agree about Ghana but disagree about Portugal. Even the most casual fan knows that CR7 is one of the best players in the world and that will instantly elevate Portugal in their eyes. And even if by some rare chance they don't know it yet, they will be inundated with it in the media build up to that game which has the potential to at least be the second most watched soccer game ever in the US.
If you take CR7 out of the equation, then I would completely agree with your stance.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
"Failure" may be too strong a word if we don't advance, but for me, "disappointed" is too weak. We have 10 times the populations, assets and resources of Ghana and Portugal. Those countries have a more developed soccer culture and history, but neither has won more than the US over the past 20 years or so. We should be able to compete with both, and I think we will be competitive in those games. In 2010, Ghana completely out-classed the US on the field. It was definitely a failure by the US.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I agree with this.
I do wonder though about the idea of population. I am not sure it translates. You either culturally produce great players or you don't.
Countries like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, The Phillipeans, Ethiopia etc are never in our lifetimes going to produce players of the quality of Holland/Portugal, no matter how much they dwarf them in population.
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
IMO, if the exact same scenario happened this summer (US facing Brazil up a man in the second round), I very much doubt the result would be any different. I think even up a man we would be on the back foot the entire game.
dparker713
Footballguy
It's important to note that 94 was a home game and this would be an away game. I think Brazil could control down a man for 20 or 30 minutes until they fade.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Portugal has made the finals of the Euros, the semis of the Euros, and the semis of the World Cup since the turn of the century. That they're still considered a disappointment speaks to the talent they've produced.
I'll be disappointed if the US doesn't play well. Knockout tournaments are funny. I'm not going to get too hung up on how far they go. I just want to see them play the teams in their group without fear.
El Floppo
Footballguy
The way Brazil played in the Confd Cup final makes me think they've finally turned the corner on physically and tactcially understanding that there's more to winning in the modern game than being able to juggle and dribble.
And yeah- US away AT Brazil makes them play any way that works. US at home vs Brazil in a game that the US had no business being in in the first place- already down a goal and miraculously up a man... just ####### go for it.
El Floppo
Footballguy
x gajillion.I want to see the US play on THEIR terms, which doesn't mean they have to control the ball- just play their quick passing, direct style that has worked so well for them (when they're playing their best).
T Bell
Footballguy
A couple of more thoughts about US soccer development:
1) The optimal size for a soccer player is slightly to a lot smaller than the other popular sports. I'm not sure that those sports are really competing with each other, at least once it becomes apparent by a kid's early teens how big they'll ultimately be. Most soccer players are simply too small to compete in major college basketball or football programs, and soccer players generally are going to be too small to play many baseball positions.
2) The growing concern for safety, especially regarding concussions, in youth football will lead a lot of kids away from that and into soccer as an alternative. I don't know how big of a factor this will be, but I've got to think that this will have some effect. I know my father didn't want me playing Pop Warner football because he felt I was still growing and he didn't want to expose me to that level of physicality so young. I played soccer and baseball instead.
1) The optimal size for a soccer player is slightly to a lot smaller than the other popular sports. I'm not sure that those sports are really competing with each other, at least once it becomes apparent by a kid's early teens how big they'll ultimately be. Most soccer players are simply too small to compete in major college basketball or football programs, and soccer players generally are going to be too small to play many baseball positions.
2) The growing concern for safety, especially regarding concussions, in youth football will lead a lot of kids away from that and into soccer as an alternative. I don't know how big of a factor this will be, but I've got to think that this will have some effect. I know my father didn't want me playing Pop Warner football because he felt I was still growing and he didn't want to expose me to that level of physicality so young. I played soccer and baseball instead.
El Floppo
Footballguy
I don't think of avoiding concussions as something that would lead anyone TO soccer, but I get your points.
Roadkill above brought up inner-city black kids as a missing demographic in the sport and I have to agree. I know there have been initiatives here in NYC to reach out- putting Futsol courts nearby and having high-profile Futsol games on so kids can see the similarities between it and streetball hoops. That's a demographic where the "culture" still has a long way to go in terms of making inroads though...but I hope to see it happen en masse someday. We've gotten to see isolated stories like IIRC, EJ.
Places like Brazil and... basically everywhere else... have the culture and the kids going out every day to play pickup on the street because they're too broke to play organized ball. It's a cliche the amount of times I've heard the story of the kid from poverty who HAS to make it- has the skills and ultimately the coaching but also has the chip on their shoulder about pulling themselves and their families out of poverty to give them the drive that your average middle class kid won't ever have to get to the next level.
T Bell
Footballguy
Agreed. I know Mesut Ozil played on a fenced-in paved court in his neighborhood.
If you look at the street football culture it's a direct parallel to the street basketball culture, so there is certainly the potential for crossover appeal.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
If the qualities of the African American made that much of a difference, you would think that some of the African countries would be much better than they have shown the last 20 years.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
This might have been a typo but in case not, strikers do not enter their prime at 28 years old. That age typical demarks the end of their prime, which for many strikers starts at 22-23 years old. Note that end of prime does not mean they are done as players, it just means that for most, they will no longer get better.Soulfly3 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I know there has been talk here hoping the US play their game, don't play afraid etc.
If you could take one or two games from this cycle that demonstrate how you want to see them play, what would they be?
I am struggling with this question myself because of the variables. Here are some that come to mind when thinking of good US performances (I am ignoring the Gold Cup for now).
* The Bosnia game stands out as a high point but anyone who watched that game knows how much it changed when Bosnia made a ton of subs in second half.
* The friendly win in Azteca and the win at home over Mexico in qualifying were great game plans but in both cases we simply sat and absorbed and allowed Mexico to eventually mentally break down. We hardly took it to them in either game (which was by design).
* The CR win was enormous in the scheme of things but we all know we can't get any reads from that snow game.
* I might be most excited about the win in Panama. Sure they are not any where as good as Ghana in a neutral setting but with that game in Panama and Panama having a chance to get a playoff spot reduces the gap some imo.
If you could take one or two games from this cycle that demonstrate how you want to see them play, what would they be?
I am struggling with this question myself because of the variables. Here are some that come to mind when thinking of good US performances (I am ignoring the Gold Cup for now).
* The Bosnia game stands out as a high point but anyone who watched that game knows how much it changed when Bosnia made a ton of subs in second half.
* The friendly win in Azteca and the win at home over Mexico in qualifying were great game plans but in both cases we simply sat and absorbed and allowed Mexico to eventually mentally break down. We hardly took it to them in either game (which was by design).
* The CR win was enormous in the scheme of things but we all know we can't get any reads from that snow game.
* I might be most excited about the win in Panama. Sure they are not any where as good as Ghana in a neutral setting but with that game in Panama and Panama having a chance to get a playoff spot reduces the gap some imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I agree with the Soccernomics guys when they say that money and access to high caliber facilities and coaching is what's handicapping the African players/teams right now, and will for some time yet. But you raise an interesting issue for idle musing (which I do a lot of) -- is this a sport where black men enjoy the same advantages that they appear to in football and basketball? I'm not sure it is (or even if there IS an inherent advantage in those other sports) but it's pretty clear to me every Saturday when I'm watching SEC football games that there is a host of great, and not particularly large, athletes who grow up in the rural south. Whether race is a factor or not, it's still a pool of fantastic athletes who mostly haven't contributed a lick to soccer's growth in this country and we need them.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I certainly would welcome any and all. Some day I dream of a combination of Eddie Johnson and Tab Ramos.
I think in reality though we are heading into a period where the rise of the American hispanic player will start to take over. We are already seeing some of this in our youth teams.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
An excellent point. By my count we have about the world's sixth highest population of hispanics and that is an important demographic factor in our continued improvement. Please don't blame me for dreaming about all those 5'10" 180-pound guys currently playing cornerback somewhere, though. Imagine those guys playing street soccer from the age of four.NewlyRetired said:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I think the main point to remember in this latest commentary that there are still huge areas of untapped athletic talent inn this country, be it the rural south, the inner city, or anywhere in between. The U.S. has the population and infrastructure to be a world power in every sport.
The reason we are not is simply due to investment, attention and the fact that 100 (give or take) have a head start on devoting those resources to winning. That changed for the US in 94, again in 2002, and has gained stream in the last 5 years.
The reason we are not is simply due to investment, attention and the fact that 100 (give or take) have a head start on devoting those resources to winning. That changed for the US in 94, again in 2002, and has gained stream in the last 5 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I disagree. Shall we agree on the best 10-15 strikers of the past 10 or so years and see around what age they peaked at?NewlyRetired said:
Ill drop a few.. add some names and we'll examine.
drogba, inzaghi, shevchenko, henry, van ristelrooy, eto'o, ibra, fat ronaldo.. Id say van basten, but that's maybe going too far back
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
We probably only utilize about 10% of our high-caliber athletic base for soccer, which makes us the effective equivalent to a much smaller country like Peru or Algeria or Poland. By those metrics, we do pretty well. And the feeling now, much more so than a few short decades ago, is that we're here to stay and only going to get better. It won't be a straight line progression but I'm pretty happy with the overall state of things.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I don't know how you want to define peak, but I guess awards/goals/appearances is one way, but certainly not the only way.
*Van Basten was the Ballon d'Or winner at ages 24, 26, and 27
*Henry made the UEFA team of the year at ages 24, 24, 25, 27, and 29. Once he went to Barcelona at 30 he was clearly past his peak
*Fat Ronaldo won the Ballon d'Or at ages 21 and 26. By his last season in Italy, he was a shell of his former self at age 31.
*Van Nist was an excellent player up through the 2007/2008 season when his age was 31. IMO, his top years were at Man United when he was ages 25-29
*Pippo was Italy's top scorer once, at age 24, when he scored 24 league goals. He never scored over 18 league goals again (and the 18 came when he was 25 years old). He did have a big year at age 29 when he scored a ton in Europe.
*Sheva's peak was clearly the Milan years which ran from 23-29 years old. He move to Chelsea after that and his production slowed way down.
I don't really want to argue about this though, we just have different point of views here. I think we can just agree to disagree that a striker enters his prime at 28 years old.
I just don't agree with the word enter. If one assume a prime is any where from 4-5 years that means you believe a strikers prime is from 28-33ish where I think it is more like 24-29ish.
Obviously not every player holds to any one pattern which is why this discussion is a bit futile as examples can be brought up supporting both time age frames and even then, there is no one real way to agree on anyones peak, as people might weigh the data differently.
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
There is nothing wrong about that dream. The question is how does it become a reality? How does a 12 year kid playing street ball get picked over a hispanic kid or a white kid from the suburbs who both have already been a part of high level club teams from the time they were 8?
We would need the MLS academies and other top clubs in the country to change how they scout kids and that is a pretty tall order when this sport favors technique and skill over speed and size. There is nothing wrong with having both obviously, but unless the inner city kids have a chance to get notice in real playing conditions, it will be hard.
The good news is the last I read, if memory serves, that there are now more African American kids playing soccer than either baseball or hockey (I guess hockey goes with out saying). Not that either of those is a great leap but it is a small step towards what you want.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Yikes. The stadium in Manaus was already behind schedule and a judge has just ordered a complete work stoppage after the second death there by a construction worker.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Did you read that article linked in the main thread on Moyes/Bellamy and training in general? Granted it wasn't in depth, but a couple of things stood out.
Scouts in Denmark (and I'm assuming world-wide) basically filter out the really speedy high-twitch guys and tend to select slower twitch guys with better endurance (ball skills being equal) as the fast twitch guys tend to get injured more frequently and once that happens the scouts tend to drop injured kids down their lists. I'm assuming that's true here too, in which case the whole skills versus athletic ability is a non-sequitor as we aren't really selecting either as what's really filtering to the top is best skilled non-injured slow-twitch guys with natural endurance ability (interestingly I think that's a pretty apt description of the current US national team pool sans Donovan a fast twitch guy who seemingly beat the odds). I'd also posit that one of the reasons that happens is these kids play an inordinate number of matches in a short period of time (but that's another discussion).
The interesting sub-plot is if you look at the English guys who succeed at the top level of EPL recently, they tend to be the fast-twitch guys these days. So in essence world-wide scouting in general is pretty poor in selecting the absolute best players in the world (they do a fantastic job of selecting guys with high work-rate and some skill). More by luck of not getting injured do the guys with world-class speed and skill make it.
I have no idea if any of that is scientifically provable, but it's an interesting hypothesis. I also think scouts overrate on-the-ball skill (for the most part), but that's another discussion entirely.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
we are getting way off topic for a WC thread but its not even January yet so who cares
This is a fascinating discussion because the state space amount of variables is enormous for so many sports to determine what 12-14 year can develop into a good pro.
Hell, look at the money the NFL spends on trying to figure this out for 18-22 years olds and still gets plenty wrong.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
This year's World Cup thread took all of 19 days to reach 1,000 posts. I think interest is up a little. Or maybe we're all just four years older and more prone to drone on.
Get off my lawn.
Get off my lawn.
Notorious T.R.E.
Showdown!™ Administrator
OH NO -- OFF TOPIC ON A MESSAGE BOARD!
Sammy3469
Footballguy
I know...it compounded by the fact that scouts for most of these lower level leagues probably have an incentive to scout for more surer things (ie slow-twitch endurance guys) since most of these clubs end up selling their best players (if you read some of the stuff on MLB scouting, the same type of selective bias enters as they never want to be the scout that's too far out there on interesting prospects). Almost by definition, they'd rather have more sure things for a constant income stream over a big hit every year or two.we are getting way off topic for a WC thread but its not even January yet so who cares
This is a fascinating discussion because the state space amount of variables is enormous for so many sports to determine what 12-14 year can develop into a good pro.
Hell, look at the money the NFL spends on trying to figure this out for 18-22 years olds and still gets plenty wrong.
This is one of the reasons academies are so important. Yeah, you still have that selection bias in choosing who gets into the academy, but you also are allowing your scouts, etc a much larger sample size to view once the kids are there.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Notorious T.R.E.
Showdown!™ Administrator
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
6 months and counting. Here's a fun video to get you looking forward to the summer
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ftDRtGO-B-g
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ftDRtGO-B-g
Unfortunately, I had no twitch. Otherwise, I could have been a great soccer player.
Notorious T.R.E.
Showdown!™ Administrator
Lol. Just picturing you standing there as the ball rolls by.Unfortunately, I had no twitch. Otherwise, I could have been a great soccer player.
