EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
TheTruth
Post #121
Tuesday July 5, 2016 4:19pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Formative starts younger than that for me and I'd end it before 22. I want to know when the little shits learned to play soccer. But it will be tough the farther back you go.

dolcem
Post #122
Tuesday July 5, 2016 4:34pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,787
Original post from MSantoine

England is very much like us in that they are transitioning to a new generation. Perhaps they have struggled because there good generation that fell just short (led by Beckham) was followed up by a mediocre group. Now you have guys like Rashford, Kane, Dier, Wilshire, Stones, Sterling, Alli that are all U25 and most of which will be in UCL next year.

Joe Allen & Ben Davies are up and comers for Wales.

De Gea looks to be Spain's #1 for the next decade.

Half of Belgium is made up of guys who have developed in England (Courtois, Origi last year, Lukaku, Benetke, Hazard, etc)

Did you forget that Ronaldo developed in England. Was there as an 18 yr old and become a star he is today because of it.

For France- Pogba was with Man U from 18-21 or 19-22. Thats really when he started becoming the Pogba that is a star now. Kante wasnt in the French national team set up (0 youth appearances), Goes to Leicetser City and 9 months later is starting in Euros. Mangala had just a couple of appearances until he moved to Man City, became a starter there, and now is firmly part of the French team. Lloris, Girouard, Schneiderlin all have spent good portions of their career in England. Yes Payet only spent one year in England so far but before coming to England he had 15 appearances for France and 1 goal. Since then he's had 9 appearances and 5 goals. Cant argue he's been much more improved since strengthening his game in West Ham.

EPL isnt perfect. Due to the fact it has so many imported stars it does make it hard for youngsters to break through (teams like Man City, Chelsea, Man U have so much money they can spend every starter is usually national team starter quality). But to deny that the EPL is high quality, and clearly has some of the best players in the world is over played


Why are you bring up keepers? They clearly don't apply to the discussion we're having.

The list of Britishers is extremely unconvincing. Joe Allen? Yeah, the Welsh Xavi...there are at least a dozen La Liga CM's better than he is. Rashford has looked good recently, I'll give you that, but the English are such a step below the Spanish, Germans, and French in this department that it's not even funny.

Your other examples are also incorrect. Ronaldo and Hazard were prodigies before they came to the EPL. They were going to dominate wherever they went, and everyone knew it (especially in Hazard's case, he was already a polished Ligue 1 product). And had Ronaldo gone to a Spanish team, he probably would have become even better. He was always extremely skilled but when he went to England he was forced to play much more direct and use his pace. Had he played where the pace was a bit slower, he would have been able to develop technically a bit more.

The other examples are even worse. Kante? Really? This is a guy who spent his entire career in France and then had one great season in England (along with the rest of his team). Mangala? Are you kidding? He went to Manchester City as a 23 year-old for 32 million pounds, and you're trying to tell me that the EPL was responsible for his development as a player? Payet only one year in England, and Giroud? He came to England when he was 25! And all Arsenal fans do is complain about Giroud.

If this is your list of players that the EPL developed, it's depressing compared to any list we could draw up of the Eredevisie, Ligue 1, the Bundesliga, or La Liga.

Sure, the EPL is a great place for already established players to emerge. If you're a 23 year old who has played really well in Ligue 1, the EPL is a great place to play because of its pace and competitiveness. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about where is a good place for teenagers to develop and become quality players. And for that, the EPL is just way worse than the other leagues.

Original post from USAGunner

I'm going on vacation for 12 days. When I get back I am going to do a study of the 2016 Euro/Copa's rosters.

I'll look at the Starters of all the teams that made the group stage and a few others that played very well and/or are stars that we know about (Suarez, Ibra, etc) that just didn't advance. I'll see where those guys did the majority of their developing. Where they played soccer during the most formative years.

First we need to come to a consensus of what the formative years are. I say 15-22 years old as a starting point.


Enough with the Euro rosters. It's a horrible way to measure anything. That was ONE tournament. And it was full of upsets. The sample size is way too small (and international soccer is much less meaningful as a measure of talent than club soccer). You'd be missing the Dutch national team. There's only one thing that we're talking about here, and that's what league produces the best players. Take a list of the top 50 players and let's see where they developed. Go to this page: http://www.transfermarkt.com/spieler-statisti... Is it a perfect source? No. But if you have any other idea on how to rate the top players in the world (one that doesn't include guys in the Icelandic league, for example), than I'm all ears.

I won't copy and paste the list but out of the top 50 players in the world, only Bale, Sterling, and Kane developed in England (and Sterling is overrated lol). You can make an argument for Pogba, Fabregas, and Lukaku, but all of them spent their most formative years (until 18) abroad. So 3 players out of the world's top 50 are homegrown EPL players.

If you guys don't think that means anything, than you're completely blind.
GET A CLUB TEAM
MSantoine
Post #123
Tuesday July 5, 2016 5:02pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from dolcem

Why are you bring up keepers? They clearly don't apply to the discussion we're having.

The list of Britishers is extremely unconvincing. Joe Allen? Yeah, the Welsh Xavi...there are at least a dozen La Liga CM's better than he is. Rashford has looked good recently, I'll give you that, but the English are such a step below the Spanish, Germans, and French in this department that it's not even funny.

Your other examples are also incorrect. Ronaldo and Hazard were prodigies before they came to the EPL. They were going to dominate wherever they went, and everyone knew it (especially in Hazard's case, he was already a polished Ligue 1 product). And had Ronaldo gone to a Spanish team, he probably would have become even better. He was always extremely skilled but when he went to England he was forced to play much more direct and use his pace. Had he played where the pace was a bit slower, he would have been able to develop technically a bit more.

The other examples are even worse. Kante? Really? This is a guy who spent his entire career in France and then had one great season in England (along with the rest of his team). Mangala? Are you kidding? He went to Manchester City as a 23 year-old for 32 million pounds, and you're trying to tell me that the EPL was responsible for his development as a player? Payet only one year in England, and Giroud? He came to England when he was 25! And all Arsenal fans do is complain about Giroud.

If this is your list of players that the EPL developed, it's depressing compared to any list we could draw up of the Eredevisie, Ligue 1, the Bundesliga, or La Liga.

Sure, the EPL is a great place for already established players to emerge. If you're a 23 year old who has played really well in Ligue 1, the EPL is a great place to play because of its pace and competitiveness. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about where is a good place for teenagers to develop and become quality players. And for that, the EPL is just way worse than the other leagues.

Enough with the Euro rosters. It's a horrible way to measure anything. That was ONE tournament. And it was full of upsets. The sample size is way too small (and international soccer is much less meaningful as a measure of talent than club soccer). You'd be missing the Dutch national team. There's only one thing that we're talking about here, and that's what league produces the best players. Take a list of the top 50 players and let's see where they developed. Go to this page: http://www.transfermarkt.com/spieler-statisti... Is it a perfect source? No. But if you have any other idea on how to rate the top players in the world (one that doesn't include guys in the Icelandic league, for example), than I'm all ears.

I won't copy and paste the list but out of the top 50 players in the world, only Bale, Sterling, and Kane developed in England (and Sterling is overrated lol). You can make an argument for Pogba, Fabregas, and Lukaku, but all of them spent their most formative years (until 18) abroad. So 3 players out of the world's top 50 are homegrown EPL players.

If you guys don't think that means anything, than you're completely blind.


I dont judge a league based just on where they develop. Just because a player looks like a prodigy as a 16,17 year old, its still a long journey from prodigy to star. How many young americans look like future stars as 18 year olds jsut to never make it. What you're claiming would be like looking at minor league baseball to determine the best teams. And its not about homegrown players.

Also take a look at the U23 top people on that site. 6 of the top 9 either play, or have played in England. How is that not developing guys when 2/3 of the top U23 guys are there? (FYI- that site is garbage. It has Pulisic "value at 1 mill euros. Below Ventura Alvarado. In what world is Alvarado more valuable than Pulisic?)

dolcem
Post #124
Tuesday July 5, 2016 5:43pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,787
Original post from MSantoine

I dont judge a league based just on where they develop. Just because a player looks like a prodigy as a 16,17 year old, its still a long journey from prodigy to star. How many young americans look like future stars as 18 year olds jsut to never make it. What you're claiming would be like looking at minor league baseball to determine the best teams. And its not about homegrown players.

Also take a look at the U23 top people on that site. 6 of the top 9 either play, or have played in England. How is that not developing guys when 2/3 of the top U23 guys are there? (FYI- that site is garbage. It has Pulisic "value at 1 mill euros. Below Ventura Alvarado. In what world is Alvarado more valuable than Pulisic?)


But that's what we're talking about. The EPL is a horrible place developmentally.

That's a nice cherry-picked stat you got there. But 4 out of those 6 did not develop in England. You included Xhaka, who hasn't played a game in England yet. Really? Lukaku was an 18 year old beast that had already scored 33 goals professionally before he went to Chelsea. And he hasn't really lived up to people's expectations, so he isn't exactly a good example. ManU bought Martial a year ago for 36 million pounds...and you want to claim that he's an EPL product? Pogba spent two seasons on ManU's bench (played three games)...there's no way you can chalk that up to the EPL. Sure, there is Kane and Sterling, but the latter is way overrated, and they're the exception to the rule.

The EPL does worse in continental competitions because the teams there don't develop organically the way they do in Spain and Germany (it's just a bunch of imported players and managers sprinkled on top of a sub-par English base). And that's because they don't produce nearly as good players as managers as continental Europe does.
GET A CLUB TEAM
Know Nothing
Post #125
Tuesday July 5, 2016 10:23pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,413
We've had stat after stat...argument then counterargument. At this point does it really matter? The only definitive thing we have determined is that Person A likes this league and Person B does not.

dunlopp9987
Post #126
Wednesday July 6, 2016 9:47pm

Joined Mar 2013
Total Posts: 2,629
Blech. I hate Portugal.
COYB!!
admsghs27
Post #127
Wednesday July 6, 2016 9:56pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 6,060
I think if Ronaldo wins the final he can be considered better than Messi. No doubt a superstar winning a title for their cpuntry is much bigger than what you win club wise.

admsghs27
Post #128
Wednesday July 6, 2016 10:04pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 6,060
Country over club anytime. A player would prefer that any time.

EKneezy
Atlanta
Post #129
Thursday July 7, 2016 6:39am

Joined May 2013
Total Posts: 2,992
What a header.

MSantoine
Post #130
Thursday July 7, 2016 11:49am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from admsghs27

I think if Ronaldo wins the final he can be considered better than Messi. No doubt a superstar winning a title for their cpuntry is much bigger than what you win club wise.


This is Ronaldo's 2nd final, and only 3rd time winning a knockout round match. Its his first real tourney run in a decade. (2004 & 2006 he was a bit player)

Messi won at least 1 knockout round match in three straight World Cups, including making it to a final. He also made 3 finals in Copa. Thats 6 times he led Argentina past the first knockout match, including 4 finals appearances.

Also lets not get silly with praise for Ronaldo. They finished 3rd in a group consisting of Hungary, Iceland, & Austria, needing extra time and PKs vs Croatia & Poland, and finally got a 90' win vs Wales. Not like they are steamrolling teams right now.

dunlopp9987
Post #131
Thursday July 7, 2016 4:19pm

Joined Mar 2013
Total Posts: 2,629
Original post from MSantoine

This is Ronaldo's 2nd final, and only 3rd time winning a knockout round match. Its his first real tourney run in a decade. (2004 & 2006 he was a bit player)

Messi won at least 1 knockout round match in three straight World Cups, including making it to a final. He also made 3 finals in Copa. Thats 6 times he led Argentina past the first knockout match, including 4 finals appearances.

Also lets not get silly with praise for Ronaldo. They finished 3rd in a group consisting of Hungary, Iceland, & Austria, needing extra time and PKs vs Croatia & Poland, and finally got a 90' win vs Wales. Not like they are steamrolling teams right now.


Ding ding ding. Even if Ronaldo wins the Euros this year, Messi is still going to be considered the better player. Portugal has looked like crap for the majority of this tournament. I think that's why I'm so disappointed they're in the final. It took until the Wales game for them to actually show up. Plus I think Pepe is a piece of trash, so there's that.
COYB!!
BG6
Post #132
Thursday July 7, 2016 5:10pm

Joined May 2014
Total Posts: 79
Not sure how you can use tournament results for a team as proof of who the better player is (on either side of the argument) Isn't that conveniently ignoring the concept of the team and the talent surrounding them? With the quality Argentina has they arguably could have progressed far even without messi. Btw Portugal had a really nice run in 2012 where they lost to Spain in the semis when Spain was still performing at a very high level. (so not been quite a decade since they had a good run)

How about the eye test instead? Messi is a better player based upon that alone. Maybe I'm in the minority about the use of statistics and their meaning on judging a players career. Zizou never had gaudy numbers but has to e considered to be one of the greatest. How about Roberto Baggio (great club stats never won wc) Maldini, Platini, van basten great players teams around them had varying successes does that make their accomplishments any less? Ryan Giggs or Paul Gascoine for those who are Anglo-centric?

admsghs27
Post #133
Thursday July 7, 2016 7:38pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 6,060
Argentina team is much much better than Portugal heck they are good enough to win a WC without messi. I mean they beat chile easily without messi. If Ronaldo had that type of talent around him he would of probably won somthing already.

MSantoine
Post #134
Thursday July 7, 2016 8:34pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from admsghs27

Argentina team is much much better than Portugal heck they are good enough to win a WC without messi. I mean they beat chile easily without messi. If Ronaldo had that type of talent around him he would of probably won somthing already.


Thats very debateable. Argentina and Messi have clearly had better attacking players for him to play off of. But Portugal has very clearly had better defenders and goal keepers than Argentina in the same span. It is easier for opponents to take Ronaldo out of the game, but Argentina's back line let them down time and again.

Live490
Texas
Post #135
Thursday July 7, 2016 9:24pm

Joined Mar 2013
Total Posts: 1,134
Iniesta is better than both and should go down as the best ever. Won world cup. An euro. And everything with Barca. Two ballon d ors were gifted to messi that should have been iniestas'.

Page 9 of 11
«« First « Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  Next »

The final stretch of the English league season is upon us, with several Americans on the verge of relegation with their teams.
RECENT POSTS
Tale of Two Young Yanks in Europe
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
vom Steeg lands at Fortuna
THIS WEEK'S HEADLINES

RANDOM TAGS FROM PAST WEEK...