Football 16-17

[CRW5252]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if those things had that effect on kane, why didn't it have that effect on the hundreds of other players who got binned along the way?

It only worked on Harry Kane cos Harry Kane is Harry Kane.

 

Players need elite level coaches and elite standard facilities to reach the elite level. If not the players will reach a ceiling no matter what their potential. This is pretty basic sports science

[CRW5252]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's no right of winning - but your expectation says you think there is that right.

maybe it does.

And just as much, it gives the best chance of relegation too.

 

I don't think we have a 'right'. As I said before

There has been so much chat about how much budget affects where you finish. Our budget is way to big to get relegated, don't be silly. 

[CRW5252]

Lol, I wasn't meant to say I was in nappies in those years. I most certainly wasn't! That was a typo.

[pink_triangle]

26 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Your opinion on whether football was better isn't really relevant but I thought those days were great for the record

Of course you enjoyed that time. However I think your expectations are based on that period and the league has changed. Arsenals success is not just down to Arsenal.

 

27 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

. Do you not think it is relevant that we were promised we would compete with Bayern? Or that Wenger and the board continuously say we are aiming to compete for the league and CL but we never do?

 

I have lived through enough football to take promises with a pinch of salt. I'm looking at what I think Arsenal should expect based on their resources and that of others. I don't expect them to compete for either premiership titles or champions league titles on that basis.

 

31 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

. There are very few clubs that would tolerate the form we are in at the moment and the gradual decline we've been on since moving stadium

Form goes up and down particularly if a manager stays somewhere long enough. Again I don't see the gradual decline. Arsenal have pretty much hit par finishes every season. I actually believe if you offering every club in the premiership a final position based on wage bill, over half the teams would accept it.

[CRW5252]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I have lived through enough football to take promises with a pinch of salt. I'm looking at what I think Arsenal should expect based on their resources and that of others. I don't expect them to compete for either premiership titles or champions league titles on that basis.

Form goes up and down particularly if a manager stays somewhere long enough. Again I don't see the gradual decline. Arsenal have pretty much hit par finishes every season. I actually believe if you offering every club in the premiership a final position based on wage bill, over half the teams would accept it.

So do you not think we have a right to be frustrated if we keep getting these broken promises? 

The gradual decline is clear if you just look at the trophies we have won over the 12 years compared to the previous 12. I know you are trying to look at it from the perspective of budget but when you look at it that way I think it just strengthens the case for why Arsenal fans were just when protesting against the board. 

[mjsell]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

As I have said I have no doubt Arsenal would have won more if 2 wealthy men hadn't decided to bankroll 2 teams.

Technically, since our last title in 04, theres only 1 season we would have won the league had it not been for Chelsea and City (2005). The only other time we have finished second was to Leicester last season.

(And yes I understand reordering the league table to exclude Chelsea and City would not be as simple as moving teams up a spot or two)

[lost]

I said a few months ago on here I couldn't work out if Wenger has been propping Arsenal up or holding them back..

As has already been said if Wenger goes who do Arsenal go for?

I've heard Koeman mentioned, Well his style of play is vastly different to Wenger, He tends to go for “athletes” over technical players so I would guess that means Ozil gone at least and a massive squad overhaul. Do Arsenal have the resources for that?

Even if they do you probably need 4 – 6 transfer windows to get the team you want and as we saw with Moyes at Man Utd, even the biggest clubs can have a bad window, sometimes the top players simply are not available.

 Are Arsenal fans going to be happy with potential mid-table finishes whilst the manager gets the team he wants or would the club go into that spiral of continually sacking managers whilst getting steadily worse?

Edited April 13, 2017 by lost

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Players need elite level coaches and elite standard facilities to reach the elite level.

all of the other 11 year-olds that were signed at the same time as Harry got the same coaching as Harry.

Why did the coaching work on Harry but not the many many others (most of who are in the bin)?

Because Harry is Harry. It's not the coaching that makes Harry be Harry.

Cos if it was, that same coaching would work on every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

(all the coaching really does across all clubs is elevate levels without changing the skill gaps between teams)

 

38 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

If not the players will reach a ceiling no matter what their potential. This is pretty basic sports science

Yep.

So it's not the coaching that makes Harry be better than others.

So we're back to how it's lucky for spurs that they found - by chance - a player like Harry.

Edited April 13, 2017 by eFestivals

[mjsell]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So we're back to how it's lucky for spurs that they found - by chance - a player like Harry.

Again, you need to look up the definition of 'by chance'.

[pink_triangle]

21 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

So do you not think we have a right to be frustrated if we keep getting these broken promises? 

I have pretty much learned to ignore promises from managers/boards. They generally tell the fans what they want to hear knowing that fans would probably not accept the truth.

21 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

The gradual decline is clear if you just look at the trophies we have won over the 12 years compared to the previous 12. I know you are trying to look at it from the perspective of budget but when you look at it that way I think it just strengthens the case for why Arsenal fans were just when protesting against the board. 

As I have said Arsenal success in relation to tournament success is not purely down to Arsenal. I have no problem with protesting against the board. If Arsenal want to compete with city and Chelsea on the pitch they will need to compete in spending.

[pink_triangle]

11 minutes ago, lost said:

 

 Are Arsenal fans going to be happy with potential mid-table finishes whilst the manager gets the team he wants or would the club go into that spiral of continually sacking managers whilst getting steadily worse?

Arsenal fans will expect instant results. If they don't get them the latter is far more likely.

[CRW5252]

24 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Arsenal fans will expect instant results. If they don't get them the latter is far more likely.

I can't speak for all Arsenal fans but I don't expect instant results

[CRW5252]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

all of the other 11 year-olds that were signed at the same time as Harry got the same coaching as Harry.

Why did the coaching work on Harry but not the many many others (most of who are in the bin)?

Because Harry is Harry. It's not the coaching that makes Harry be Harry.

Cos if it was, that same coaching would work on every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

(all the coaching really does across all clubs is elevate levels without changing the skill gaps between teams)

 

Yep.

So it's not the coaching that makes Harry be better than others.

So we're back to how it's lucky for spurs that they found - by chance - a player like Harry.

If Harry Kane was picked up by another club he may not have got the elite coaching and elite facilites so he may not be the same player. The players that failed clearly didn't have the potential that Kane did or perhaps the style of coaching did not suit them

Edited April 13, 2017 by CRW5252

[CRW5252]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

all of the other 11 year-olds that were signed at the same time as Harry got the same coaching as Harry.

Why did the coaching work on Harry but not the many many others (most of who are in the bin)?

Because Harry is Harry. It's not the coaching that makes Harry be Harry.

Cos if it was, that same coaching would work on every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

(all the coaching really does across all clubs is elevate levels without changing the skill gaps between teams)

 

Yep.

So it's not the coaching that makes Harry be better than others.

So we're back to how it's lucky for spurs that they found - by chance - a player like Harry.

Was it simply bad luck for Arsenal that they dropped Kane or should they have spotted something that Spurs clearly did?

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Again, you need to look up the definition of 'by chance'.

I think you might, too.

You tilt the odds in your favour of finding someone by going looking, etc .... but it still requires Harry to be there to be found - and that was just chance.

You tilt his skill level in your favour by giving him the environment to develop within, but he only develops to that highest level if by-chance he has the ability to develop to that highest level.

And then there's all of the others who never made it. If you're claiming skill and not largely-chance in picking harry, the success rate (at any club) shows it as a very very shit skill.

You wouldn't want a striker up-front who only scored less than one in a hundred chances, and you'd say he was well short of skill, and perhaps even that it was lucky the one time he did score.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Was it simply bad luck for Arsenal that they dropped Kane or should they have spotted something that Spurs clearly did?

I'd say it was all a bit more random than that. 

Arsenal obviously saw him as better than the average kid to give him a go - but like all clubs they're doing this with absolutely shit loads of kids, knowing that the numbers get whittled down pretty quick due to both football & non-football stuff.

And at the time they saw him, they couldn't see anything worth keeping compared to other kids they had. So they bin him.

Hge then gets a go at spurs, at a different time, and as a kid with different experiences - including being binned by Arsenal.

So perhaps it was the being binned by Arsenal that made the difference, and if he'd have stayed at Arsenal he'd have never become Harry as he is today.

We just can't know. All we can know is that Arsenal obviously felt it was the right decision, and Harry's later success doesn't prove that decision as wrong and neither does it prove Spurs as better at spotting kid talent.

 

[mjsell]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think you might, too.

You tilt the odds in your favour of finding someone by going looking, etc .... but it still requires Harry to be there to be found - and that was just chance.

You tilt his skill level in your favour by giving him the environment to develop within, but he only develops to that highest level if by-chance he has the ability to develop to that highest level.

And then there's all of the others who never made it. If you're claiming skill and not largely-chance in picking harry, the success rate (at any club) shows it as a very very shit skill.

You wouldn't want a striker up-front who only scored less than one in a hundred chances, and you'd say he was well short of skill, and perhaps even that it was lucky the one time he did score.

"the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause"

So Spurs were not the cause of  Kane playing football for Spurs, and did not sign Kane with any obvious intention of him becoming a successful footballer. Righto.

Playing 'a numbers game' is not the same as things happening 'by chance' or being lucky. It is understanding the process of player development from a young age. As players get older it becomes increasingly less difficult to predict their eventual peak ability - but it doesn't mean that choosing 11 year olds is just picking names from a hat. If these things required no skill then people wouldn't be employed to do it. To say that that because of the high volume of players that get dropped from the youth system makes the successes just luck, is like saying the numerous failed attempts to create a cure for a desease, means that the discovery of such a cure requires no skill.

 

[Comfy Bean]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

We just can't know. All we can know is that Arsenal obviously felt it was the right decision, and Harry's later success doesn't prove that decision as wrong and neither does it prove Spurs as better at spotting kid talent.

 

Not sure I'd agree with you here.

I'd say it's fair comment that Arsenal called it wrong with Kane in a one that got away kinda way.

I'd guess they now regret their decision and recognise their error.

Whats his current value ?

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, mjsell said:

"the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause"

Harry's place of residence, and time of residence, and the better-footballing potential/skill set he was born with. Even Arsenal releasing him.

These are all lucky happenings from a Spurs point of view for having Harry right now. 

All clubs go out of their way to increase the chances of such things happening in their favour - by playing a numbers game as the most central idea - but it just doesn't happen to that higher level of harry unless there's someone out there who is of that higher level.

[lost]

Quote

I'd say it's fair comment that Arsenal called it wrong with Kane in a one that got away kinda way.

I think he's saying he might of never been that player without the rejection. Like me or you failing an exam or job interview and thinking "right I need to pull my socks up now to get what I want" Having the rejection as motivation.

I know a few kids who breezed though school at everything and ended up at Oxford and Cambridge then went into the real world thinking they'd made it and everything would fall into place. The first rejection they faced they couldn't deal with and went to pieces blaming everyone else.

[ThomThomDrum]

5 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Tottenham have consistently picked out top players in the last few years so there is clearly more to it than luck. I'm baffled that some of you think like that. Is it pure luck that Barcelona always get top players through their youth acedemy? Of fucking course not. 

Eh, I dont think anyone on here has said its all based on luck. I think most people commenting on this topic recognize that the success of a player or club is multi faceted and one of those facets is luck, whether its good or bad luck..........

 

BTW it is very easy for everyone (clubs) to not recognize the true potential of a young player and for them to all be wrong. A certain team can then be lucky to have that player with them when they mature into something that no one thought they would or noticed in them.

The classic example of this comes from another code (the NFL), as its a lot easier to see luck flourish with the draft system. I think most people know who Tom Brady is? Right? 5 time winner of the Super Bowl and probably the greatest Quarter Back in the games history. Yet he got picked 199th in the 2000 draft!! That means nearly every team in the NFL rejected him 6 times before the Patriots signed him. There is your luck for you right there. The best QB of all time not being recognized by any of the 32 NFL teams after his college career and aged 22! And NFL teams have been doing scouting of talent at an extremely high level way before the likes of such existed in football...........

 

[mjsell]

3 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

The classic example of this comes from another code (the NFL), as its a lot easier to see luck flourish with the draft system. I think most people know who Tom Brady is? Right? 5 time winner of the Super Bowl and probably the greatest Quarter Back in the games history. Yet he got picked 199th in the 2000 draft!! That means nearly every team in the NFL rejected him 6 times before the Patriots signed him. There is your luck for you right there. The best QB of all time not being recognized by any of the 32 NFL teams after his college career and aged 22! And NFL teams have been doing scouting of talent at an extremely high level way before the likes of such existed in football...........

 

That's not luck, thats bad judgment of future potential.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, mjsell said:

That's not luck, thats bad judgment of future potential.

OK.

in which case, for picking talent aged 11 in footie in this country, all clubs have dreadful judgement. Utterly utterly dreadful.

The occasional gem that comes thru can't make that constant bad judgement gleam.

 

[CRW5252]

31 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Eh, I dont think anyone on here has said its all based on luck. I think most people commenting on this topic recognize that the success of a player or club is multi faceted and one of those facets is luck, whether its good or bad luck.........

I already replied to a comment similar to this a couple pages back. I didn't read the whole debate and misinterpreted something efestivals said

Edited April 13, 2017 by CRW5252

[Comfy Bean]

57 minutes ago, lost said:

I think he's saying he might of never been that player without the rejection. Like me or you failing an exam or job interview and thinking "right I need to pull my socks up now to get what I want" Having the rejection as motivation.

I know a few kids who breezed though school at everything and ended up at Oxford and Cambridge then went into the real world thinking they'd made it and everything would fall into place. The first rejection they faced they couldn't deal with and went to pieces blaming everyone else.

This is fair comment but I'm still going with the boy having been born with a natural talent and Arsenal let him go. 

I was more disagreeing with Neil's specific comment that " Harry's later success doesn't prove that decision as wrong ". I think it does and of course Arsenal aren't alone in missing out on players who go on to succeed.