Football 16-17

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, mjsell said:

The way you talk, you see everything in football as a game of chance. A roll of the dice on which team does well and which doesnt. Chelsea have won the league - must be just getting lucky that Kante turned out not to be a one season wonder. Lucky that the change in formation worked out pretty well, and lucky that the appointment of Conte has got the players playing again.

Spurs have done good business, play good football, and are getting good results (the last few weeks without Kane in the team), It is a bit tough for me to argue on Spurs' behalf being an Arsenal fan, but to dismiss their rise as luck is ridiculous imo.

Nope, not everything. I'm not trying to suggest that I could replace Pooch and have the same success.

But you raised Kane being signed at 11, and i've raised that many others were signed at that age but didn't make it. 

So what makes Kane the success and those others not? They all (presumably) had the same skills input from the club, so what makes Kane the success and them not? 

The answer is Kane himself, but parts of Kane it wasn't possible to know for sure at 11 were there (else it would have been known for the others too).

So it ends up as lucky for Spurs that Kane is Kane, when he might have been any of the lower grades.

 

[ThomThomDrum]

25 minutes ago, sdvruxk said:

Everything that has ever happened in football has had a slice of luck involved then.

Yep and a lot of the successes have had a large slice of cash involved............

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Yep and a lot of the successes have had a large slice of cash involved............

the cash merely tilts the luck in your favour.

As Chelsea and City and Utd get to prove, it doesn't give a guarantee.

[ThomThomDrum]

Just now, eFestivals said:

the cash merely tilts the luck in your favour.

As Chelsea and City and Utd get to prove, it doesn't give a guarantee.

Yep indeed, hence I said "a lot" as opposed to "all" successes.........

Leicester's luck showed an extreme example where luck was not hedged with a wedge  

[sdvruxk]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It does. That's what makes it fun. 

If it had nothing of luck every game would be predictable and therefore every game would be pointless.

It's much like how the controversies of a game are what makes the game, and how the use of video will take that away and spoil the game. If there's no controversies to talk about, there's less to talk about, and football becomes less interesting.

I agree. But then it's pointless saying Spurs have had luck in Kane being Kane and Alli being Alii. The same could be said about every player.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, sdvruxk said:

I agree. But then it's pointless saying Spurs have had luck in Kane being Kane and Alli being Alii. The same could be said about every player.

Yep it can - but not every player is the quality of Kane and Alli. It's the 'luck' of them being that good for Spurs which has Spurs flying high. 'luck' might have had them not that good.

I'm not writing off what Spurs have achieved, I'm recognising that all clubs try to do what Spurs have succeeded with, and it's the 'luck' of everything coming together as-hoped-for for Spurs which has Spurs being the success and others not.

 

[mjsell]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep it can - but not every player is the quality of Kane and Alli. It's the 'luck' of them being that good for Spurs which has Spurs flying high. 'luck' might have had them not that good.

I'm not writing off what Spurs have achieved, I'm recognising that all clubs try to do what Spurs have succeeded with, and it's the 'luck' of everything coming together as-hoped-for for Spurs which has Spurs being the success and others not.

 

Perhaps Kane and Alli are showing their quality through good tactical setups that are getting the absolutely best from them and other players that could be on a level with them are not being used in the right way at their clubs - hence you seeing them as not being of the same quality.

Say Alli goes to Madrid or Kane to United and they fail (don't have the same impact). Does that make Madrid and United just unlucky? You arent quite recognising the talent and successes of outside factors other than the players themselves.

 

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Perhaps Kane and Alli are showing their quality through good tactical setups that are getting the absolutely best from them and other players that could be on a level with them are not being used in the right way at their clubs - hence you seeing them as not being of the same quality.

Say Alli goes to Madrid or Kane to United and they fail (don't have the same impact). Does that make Madrid and United just unlucky? You arent quite recognising the talent and successes of outside factors other than the players themselves.

Oh, I am - that's why I made a point of saying "everything coming together as-hoped-for".

Every club hopes the same way, and every club has a plan they think will bring it about ... yet the same successful plan for one club can still fail at another club.

So it's the luck of everything fitting together, because it's the right people in the right place at the right time with the right tactics and the right funding - while not being replicable elsewhere (if it was, then surely Moaniho would be top of the league...?).

The efforts everyone makes feeds into that, strongly ... but it's still only 'luck' that has it succeed as hoped for, because there's everything every other club is doing to, and their luck might run greater and stop you succeeding.

The 'luck' of Spurs having Kane and Alli would count for less if other clubs had got lucky with signings that had worked out (say: if Pogba looked like the amount he cost).

A club tries to be successful, but luck is as much part of the mix as anything else for whether they succeed. There's not a single thing any club can do which guarantees them success, after all.

[mjsell]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, I am - that's why I made a point of saying "everything coming together as-hoped-for".

Every club hopes the same way, and every club has a plan they think will bring it about ... yet the same successful plan for one club can still fail at another club.

So it's the luck of everything fitting together, because it's the right people in the right place at the right time with the right tactics and the right funding - while not being replicable elsewhere (if it was, then surely Moaniho would be top of the league...?).

The efforts everyone makes feeds into that, strongly ... but it's still only 'luck' that has it succeed as hoped for, because there's everything every other club is doing to, and their luck might run greater and stop you succeeding.

The 'luck' of Spurs having Kane and Alli would count for less if other clubs had got lucky with signings that had worked out (say: if Pogba looked like the amount he cost).

A club tries to be successful, but luck is as much part of the mix as anything else for whether they succeed. There's not a single thing any club can do which guarantees them success, after all.

To be fair, I do completely understand where you are coming from, but I take exception to the word 'luck'.

Luck

"success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

 

Nothing in the preparation of running a club, and preparing a team to play matches can follow this definition. The match itself can of course involve tons of luck for either team. But in the fielding of a team and setting up how they play for an extended period through youth signings, tactical approach, player development, etc, all involve the actions and decisions of individuals at the club. What you are classing as 'luck' - the ability of someone like Alli to become the player he has, still relied on the decision of a club scout to recommend him as a signing due to the potential he believed he had, the actions of coaches during his training sessions, and the process of the manager developing a tactical plan to use in matches.

 

The multiple players that get signed and do not go on to become the Kane's and the Alli's of this world are not the work of 'luck', but the result of wrong decsions, actions and processes by the individuals at a football club.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, mjsell said:

"success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

which fits for what i say.

Spurs signed loads of 11 year olds who they hoped would all be top talent, but only one of them is that top talent.

It wasn't Spurs actions that made Harry Kane Harry Kane, it was the luck that Harry was Harry.

Instead he might have been (picked randomly) Shane Long - decent enough, but not up there with the very best.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, mjsell said:

What you are classing as 'luck' - the ability of someone like Alli to become the player he has, still relied on the decision of a club scout to recommend him as a signing due to the potential he believed he had, the actions of coaches during his training sessions, and the process of the manager developing a tactical plan to use in matches.

I don't disagree.

But the imperfections with that - which shows Alli as the 'luck' - is exposed with all of the players where the same happens but they don't turn out to be as good as Alli.

If it was less about luck and more about what a club does, it would be endlessly replicable. The facts show that it's not.

[mjsell]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which fits for what i say.

Spurs signed loads of 11 year olds who they hoped would all be top talent, but only one of them is that top talent.

It wasn't Spurs actions that made Harry Kane Harry Kane, it was the luck that Harry was Harry.

Instead he might have been (picked randomly) Shane Long - decent enough, but not up there with the very best.

Do you think youth academys just go to a random school and pick a load of kids at random and hope some of them are good at football? That would be luck.

It was Spur's actions that chose Harry Kane, because they saw the potential for him to become Harry Kane. They didn't pick Shane Long because they didnt think he had the potential to become Harry Kane. Obviously a lot of the time they are wrong, but that isn't luck, thats bad judgment.

You are also looking at the process of making a good footballer as an act of pre-determination. Had Harry Kane not been coached correctly he would not have become the Harry Kane we know today, hell he even could be a superior player had been coached better. The raw ability/potential is obviously always there with good footballers (which it is the job of youth scouts to spot) but that means next to nothing if it is not harnessed.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, mjsell said:

Do you think youth academys just go to a random school and pick a load of kids at random and hope some of them are good at football? That would be luck.

Of course not. They're picking who they think are the best ones.

But *all* clubs are doing that all the time, not just Spurs. And Spurs are presumably giving all theirt kids the same coaching. So what was the different thing Spurs did to other clubs or even against the rest of Spurs' kids for Harry to be better than nearly all others?

The answer is: nothing that anyone is likely to be able to identify.

(it still might be due to the club even if that thing can't be identified, via the intangibles of personalities creating the right atmosphere, or even something like the right pre-training breakfast that suited Harry well but not perhaps others as well ... but if it can't be identified, how can it be claimed? :P)

It comes down to Harry being Harry, and also him being local to Spurs (for them to sign him at 11, rather than him be at, perhaps, Utd instead because he lived in Manc). Pure luck!

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, mjsell said:

It was Spur's actions that chose Harry Kane

It was Spurs actions that chose Harry Kane who made it big, but also Spurs actions that chose loads of other kids at the same time who've amounted to little or nothing.

How could Spurs claim they did something special for Harry - so special it's all their own doing - but failed to do something special for all those other kids?

That would be illogical, Captain.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Of course not. They're picking who they think are the best ones.

But *all* clubs are doing that all the time, not just Spurs. 

They're picking who they think are the best ones of those that are available. 

Which isn't just about catchment area it's also about pecking order. 

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Obviously a lot of the time they are wrong, but that isn't luck, thats bad judgment.

But if their judgement is that bad for the vast majority of kids they select, it must be luck when just occasionally there's a Harry Kane...?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, TheGayTent said:

They're picking who they think are the best ones of those that are available. 

Which isn't just about catchment area it's also about pecking order. 

Yep - which is a whole lot of luck about what's presented to the Spurs scouts in the first place.

For Kane to be part of that, it was pure luck he was living locally aged 11.

It was also pure luck that he's played for the right teams & coaches with the right tactics, etc, for him to stand out to be scouted.

I'm not trying to claim the club has done nothing. I'm saying luck plays a big part in all.

[pink_triangle]

I have heard Kane described as one of the best strikers in Europe and Ali as one the best young players in world football.  I need to see more in bigger games from both before we start talking in those terms.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, mjsell said:

You are also looking at the process of making a good footballer as an act of pre-determination. Had Harry Kane not been coached correctly he would not have become the Harry Kane we know today, hell he even could be a superior player had been coached better. The raw ability/potential is obviously always there with good footballers (which it is the job of youth scouts to spot) but that means next to nothing if it is not harnessed

but all of that is pre-dependent on him having the skills in the first place, and being at the club in the first place - both of which have as whole lot of luck about them, with Spurs as the recipients of that luck.

I don't doubt he's everything Spurs hope they'll get from any kid they sign, and I'm not dismissing what i'm sure has been the big part Spurs has played in his development.

But it was luck that he was living where he was and not (say) 100 miles up the road where Spurs could not have signed him, and if spurs had not have signed him, who knows where they'd be in the league today?

They'd have tried to buy a striker just as good, but they'd been trying for 20 years without success in getting someone that good, so it can't be taken as them getting someone as good.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I have heard Kane described as one of the best strikers in Europe and Ali as one the best young players in world football.  I need to see more in bigger games from both before we start talking in those terms.

I've ended up posting here like I think they're 'top top' players of the finished product, but that's about me trying to better explain my original point than me thinking them utterly fantasic.

My point was only that the luck or good fortune of Spurs having Kane & Alli is why Spurs are flying high right now, and me saying that was more a part of the previous Arsenal thing than any point I was trying to make for itself.

I've merely defended what I've said when others have said I'm not crediting the club for their part. I am, tho i'm saying that's not all of it.

[mjsell]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And Spurs are presumably giving all theirt kids the same coaching. So what was the different thing Spurs did to other clubs or even against the rest of Spurs' kids for Harry to be better than nearly all others?

Judgment of potential. Not all players can reach the same ability.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

How could Spurs claim they did something special for Harry - so special it's all their own doing - but failed to do something special for all those other kids?

Again potential of the players. If the players havent got the ability to reach the level Kane is at then they won't reach the level Kane is at - no matter what club they are coached at.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But if their judgement is that bad for the vast majority of kids they select, it must be luck when just occasionally there's a Harry Kane...?

Its pretty difficult to judge the future ability of an 11 year old, the success rate will be pretty low around the world - that does not make the judgement of Kane lucky, just right. And those that fail to cut the mustard wrong.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

For Kane to be part of that, it was pure luck he was living locally aged 11.

The locality issue I will admit adds one element of luck in the sense it often narrows the pool to choose from, but it doesnt make the decisions to choose someone lucky. Kane was at Arsenal and Watford before he joined Spurs, They judged he wasn't good enough, Spurs judged he was. Arsenal and Watford were wrong not unlucky, Spurs were right not lucky.

In all players careers there would have been a moment when someone made a decision on whether they were good enough. Providing that decision was based on some form of evidence and not on a roll of a dice, it can either be right or wrong depending on what they were expecting to get in the long run.

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've ended up posting here like I think they're 'top top' players of the finished product, but that's about me trying to better explain my original point than me thinking them utterly fantasic.

And yeah, this is the same for me.

Edited April 12, 2017 by mjsell

[Wooderson]

Spurs only got Alli cuz LFC's owners are a miserable shower of cūntbags. 

[TheGayTent]

Alli is a walking red card 

[ThomThomDrum]

53 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Spurs only got Alli cuz LFC's owners are a miserable shower of cūntbags. 

How lucky of them!! 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, mjsell said:

Judgment of potential. Not all players can reach the same ability.

they didn't judge most of them as the 'not good enough' they ended up being tho, did they?

Simple fact is they're playing a numbers game and they know it - which is proof enough of the luck aspect that even they're aware of.

2 hours ago, mjsell said:

Again potential of the players. If the players havent got the ability to reach the level Kane is at then they won't reach the level Kane is at - no matter what club they are coached at.

Which then makes it about which club is lucky enough to sign someone of the level of Kane, then... and while it takes some skill to get there first, at age-11 FA rules limit the competition and so make it easier to be the ones to get there first.

AND it can only happen if you're lucky enough to have someone of Kane's level within your FA-defined catchment area.

 

Quote

Its pretty difficult to judge the future ability of an 11 year old, the success rate will be pretty low around the world - that does not make the judgement of Kane lucky, just right. And those that fail to cut the mustard wrong.

I don't disagree.

And I'll say again, at no point am I claiming a Kane comes about via *only* luck, just that luck plays its part for the club that is lucky to have him.

Cos if it's *just* skill by Spurs that has Kane go far for Spurs, that just-skill could be equally effective on others signed at the same age on the same basis - and we all know it doesn't work like that. 

They know they'll get more wrong than right. They know they're playing a numbers game against the the luck - using the numbers to average some good success.

 

Quote

The locality issue I will admit adds one element of luck in the sense it often narrows the pool to choose from, but it doesnt make the decisions to choose someone lucky.

If he were the only one chosen you'd have a stand-up point with this. The failures chosen at the same time knock it down.

The reality is they choose loads of kids, while knowing that a large proportion won't make it but not which ones won't make it.

And it's quite probable that various coaches have had high hopes for 11 year olds that have gone on to have kane's level of success, but they'll have had the same high hopes for others that won't have got there, too. You only hear about the successes down the line.

 

Quote

Kane was at Arsenal and Watford before he joined Spurs, They judged he wasn't good enough, Spurs judged he was. Arsenal and Watford were wrong not unlucky, Spurs were right not lucky.

Not really, because they'll be others Spurs took on a similar basis where Spurs were wrong. They can't know at 11, they can only hope.

Spurs might be better at spotting youngsters than other clubs (I've no idea), but the numbers they get wrong will still be hugely greater than the ones they get right.

 

Quote

In all players careers there would have been a moment when someone made a decision on whether they were good enough. Providing that decision was based on some form of evidence and not on a roll of a dice, it can either be right or wrong depending on what they were expecting to get in the long run.

Yep, that angle on it I can't really argue with, because they've kept with him to get him to now, when they might not have.

But I've not been arguing against that, I've always acknowledged the club plays its part.

But kane and alli could be (say) 10% less as a player and still might have got to where they are with the club playing it's part in that, but Spurs probably then wouldn't be 2nd... so it's lucky that instead they've got what look like two of the more exceptional players around at the moment.

Edited April 12, 2017 by eFestivals