EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #151
Monday July 18, 2016 6:57pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
dolcem how can you say taking the players (that actually played consistently) in Euro/Copa is a small sample size, and then say to take the 50 from that list?

Your idea has 50 players. Mine has 300+ players. Really dude? Yours is subjective, mine is objective. YOu try and frame these discussions so that you get the result you want. Instead of just letting the stats speak for themselves. If they don't way what you want you immediately dismiss them.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #152
Monday July 18, 2016 7:00pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
Younger than 15?

Lets go 13-21. I think a lot of soccer can be learned at 21. You are probably right that 15 isn't young enough. So we'll just go to 13. I deal with sports for kids a lot. That's really the age when people really start separating themselves and really start to learn more than just the basics.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #153
Tuesday July 19, 2016 4:06pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
Ok so here it is. I also (to appease Dolcem) added FFT's top 100 players from a year ago into this compilation.

Country - Years players were in the country from 13-21 - Number of players

England - 416 - 77
Italy - 248 - 49
Germany - 219 - 39
France - 180 - 26
Portugal - 165 - 23
Spain - 162 - 32
Argentina - 161 - 23
Mexico - 156 - 18
Chile - 131 - 16
Belgium - 120 - 23
Colombia - 106 - 13
Switzerland - 99 - 17
Brazil - 95 - 18
USA - 92 - 13
Dutch - 61 - 17

Now please (DOLCEM) don't take this list as an end all be all, or that someone or anyone is saying that England is much better at creating/Developing talent than anyone else.

BUT the point should be made that England is WAY better at producing talent and developing it then you give them credit for. WAY better. They do an excellent job of developing talent. They don't just BUY, BUY, BUY. I do also think that Spain is not NEAR the juggernaut that you think they are.

Going through the players the majority of it (from Spain) is Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, and Real Madrid. Other teams pop periodically, but not often.

Where as in England you have Tottenham, Arsenal, Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton, Burnley, and more that have multiple players they have developed.

Sorry man, the gap in development between England and Spain/Germany/Italy/France, etc is not this wide gulf. Realistically there is probably very little difference. England really outside of Bale hasn't produced an Elite prospect in awhile, Spain, France, Italy, Germany have. But the immense number of quality prospects and players that England has churned out is incredible.

I'd also submit that the difference between Elite players and very good players is not where they developed, but is a natural work ethic/athletic ability that comes from the player himself and not how he was developed.

When talking about developing players, etc you need to look at how many quality players an academy churns out, not just the elite players. Elite players come from EVERYWHERE and are rare.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
dolcem
Post #154
Tuesday July 19, 2016 6:04pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,729
Original post from USAGunner

dolcem how can you say taking the players (that actually played consistently) in Euro/Copa is a small sample size, and then say to take the 50 from that list?

Your idea has 50 players. Mine has 300+ players. Really dude? Yours is subjective, mine is objective. YOu try and frame these discussions so that you get the result you want. Instead of just letting the stats speak for themselves. If they don't way what you want you immediately dismiss them.


Sample size of the TOURNAMENTS not the players. There can be crazy results in one tournament and you can use it as no indication of who the best players are. That list would have players from the Icelandic league yet not have Messi, Neymar, Robben, or Suarez. No one can take that seriously as an argument. (And of course there's the point I have made time and time again, that the EPL has very good imports but the teams are shit).

The only thing we are talking about here is which league produces the BEST players. As in the top 50 or so. After that, there's a huge drop of in quality. There's not much difference between, say, the 200th ranked player and the 800th. By that point, it's pretty much subjective. How can you compare a mid-table Serie A player with a mid-table Bundesliga player? Well, the Bundesliga performs better in the Europa League, but it's impossible to measure.

I'm not saying the list of 50 I said is perfect, but the only way to settle what we're talking about here is to list the best 50 to 100 players and see where they came from. Hardly any of them came from England, and the ones that did usually only spent a couple years there. You continue to ignore this fact, but the top players did not develop in England. Almost all of them developed in continental Europe (some started in South America at one point).

Original post from USAGunner

Ok so here it is. I also (to appease Dolcem) added FFT's top 100 players from a year ago into this compilation.

Country - Years players were in the country from 13-21 - Number of players

England - 416 - 77
Italy - 248 - 49
Germany - 219 - 39
France - 180 - 26
Portugal - 165 - 23
Spain - 162 - 32
Argentina - 161 - 23
Mexico - 156 - 18
Chile - 131 - 16
Belgium - 120 - 23
Colombia - 106 - 13
Switzerland - 99 - 17
Brazil - 95 - 18
USA - 92 - 13
Dutch - 61 - 17

Now please (DOLCEM) don't take this list as an end all be all, or that someone or anyone is saying that England is much better at creating/Developing talent than anyone else.

BUT the point should be made that England is WAY better at producing talent and developing it then you give them credit for. WAY better. They do an excellent job of developing talent. They don't just BUY, BUY, BUY. I do also think that Spain is not NEAR the juggernaut that you think they are.

Going through the players the majority of it (from Spain) is Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, and Real Madrid. Other teams pop periodically, but not often.

Where as in England you have Tottenham, Arsenal, Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton, Burnley, and more that have multiple players they have developed.

Sorry man, the gap in development between England and Spain/Germany/Italy/France, etc is not this wide gulf. Realistically there is probably very little difference. England really outside of Bale hasn't produced an Elite prospect in awhile, Spain, France, Italy, Germany have. But the immense number of quality prospects and players that England has churned out is incredible.

I'd also submit that the difference between Elite players and very good players is not where they developed, but is a natural work ethic/athletic ability that comes from the player himself and not how he was developed.

When talking about developing players, etc you need to look at how many quality players an academy churns out, not just the elite players. Elite players come from EVERYWHERE and are rare.


First of all, some of this was pure comedy. Tottenham? Burnley? What have they ever accomplished? Sevilla has won the Europa League three years in a row. They completely outclassed Liverpool, which had 10 more league points in a supposedly tougher league. Valencia and Villarreal have had great teams over the years, teams that performed way better in European competitions (the Champions League, for example, where Villarreal consistently performed very well and was relegated the same year they were in it, something that would never happen to an English team) than the Tottenham's and the Southampton's that you mentioned in your list.

But you know what, I think that's a great way to measure. We should look at where the top 100 players (excluding goalies) spent years 13-21. But where in God's name did you come up with those numbers? There are 349 players there. I went to FFT and they have a list of the top 100 players, that was made on December 15th:

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourt...

I searched the site and there is no list of the top 1000 players. And as I said before, even if there was such a list, it would tell us nothing. There's no real way to measure players' caliber beyond the top 50 or 100.

I looked at their top 100 list and again, hardly any of the players there developed in England. If we were actually to add up the players in that list according to your parameters-which I think would be a great idea-we would find England destroyed by Spain, France, and Germany. I'm not going to do it though as I'm working two jobs and have better things to do. I already counted the list of the top 50, and the numbers were staggering-the EPL is HORRIBLE at producing the top players compared to the other leagues.

What really caught my eye though was the US being on that list. Now even if it were a list of the top 1000, there is no way that the US would have 13 players on there and that Spain would have 32. The US doesn't have a single player that would be anywhere near sniffing Spain's squad. Let's say our top player at the moment is Fabian Johnson or John Anthony Brooks (although they didn't develop in the US, and somehow, the US in your list is way closer to Spain than Spain is to England in terms of years spent developing there)...I think there's at least 50-100 Spanish players better than either (of course it's totally subjective as I mentioned before, but still).

It is my belief that YOU MADE THAT SHIT UP COMPLETELY. You figured that no one would actually take the time to add up all of these numbers, so you completely fabricated them to support your argument. Either you make an easy to read spreadsheet with all of your data or you will be considered to have lied. And I mean dude, you have a Baptist Church link in your signature...and you're lying to people on the internet to prove a point about soccer? I'm not a religious man but I don't think that's kosher.
GET A CLUB TEAM
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #155
Tuesday July 19, 2016 7:12pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
I'm lying? I can't help you don't have reading comprehension skills.
That list is a combination of the top 100 from the FFT list AND the rosters from the COPA and EURO (I combined both of our idea's).

Your math is also way off. For one many players are counted in the (Number of players column) multiple times as they developed in more than one country (some as much as 3-4). I also only included the top countries in the count (Plus the USA).

Lying? Wow. So information doesn't go your way and you resort to saying someone is lying. (Also the link is NOT Baptist, try again).

Arguing about only where the top players develop is an exercise in futility. Especially if you narrow it only to the top 100. WHY? Once you get to "that level" of quality of player, it isn't about where you developed, it's about the individual. Barcelona didn't make Messi, Tottenham didn't make Bale, no more than Delta Warsaw made Robert Lewandowski. Great players on that level are born and bred. It's much more of a personal accomplishment than it is an accomplishment of the academy. Sure the Academy is going to help mold them into the player they want (which is why Messi fits so well with Barcelona).

The only way to truly guage how good an academy/country/team is at developing players is by looking at the big picture. You don't create a great team by 1-2 super Elite players coming through your Academy, you create great teams by developing lots of players. That's the mark of good development. Making a LARGE amount of players better, not just a few superstars. Give me an academy any day that produces a LARGE amount of quality players, instead of finding a gem, ANY DAY.

That's why Manchester United was soo good for soo long under Fergie. They developed like crazy, LOTS of talent, and supplemented that roster with buying superstars. That's how you maintain longevity. That's why you see Barcelona, Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Manchester United (not so much anymore), and Ajax always on top. They build through great academies. You see Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester City constantly up and down with a few titles and a few duds here and there. Why? because they have no base. Things change from year to year way too much.

Arsenal's biggest problem hasn't been their development of players, it's that they haven't bought enough to supplement, and have kept their squad relatively too small to compete on all 3 fronts. Yet they try to compete on all 3 fronts and usually fall just short, because they can't overcome injuries or fatigue.

So in terms of looking at who develops talent, it's crap to just look at such a small number of 50 or even 100. You have to look at more.

Something you will likely see change in the next few years is these big stars like Ronaldo, Bale, etc leaving the EPL for more lucrative contracts with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich. Now that they are starting to actually have money on par with those guys, they won't be poached as much.

How different would things have been had Bale gone to say Arsenal in search of Champs league, instead of Real Madrid? or Ronaldo staying at Man Utd instead of going to Real Madrid?
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
dolcem
Post #156
Tuesday July 19, 2016 8:36pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,729
Original post from USAGunner

I'm lying? I can't help you don't have reading comprehension skills.
That list is a combination of the top 100 from the FFT list AND the rosters from the COPA and EURO (I combined both of our idea's).



My apologies. I didn't read your post closely enough. I had a very bad day today.

Like I said, I don't think this list means very much. It has players in the Icelandic league as well as Graham Zusi but is missing Arjen Robben, Luis Suarez, Andres Iniesta, and Ivan Rakitic. I can't take a list like that seriously. It's also missing the countless Germans and Spaniards that are better than their English counterparts but didn't make the list because their national teams are so talented.

I already have made a list though of the top 50 players. Hardly any of them developed in England. The same goes for the top 100. That means much, much more than any list you draw up of the results of one tournament. As I said before, after that, it's too hard to measure. There is no way to judge the next tier of players. It's too subjective. There's no way that you can tell me some mid-table EPL player (foreign import, for example) is better than a mid-table Spaniard who doesn't play for his national team because it's too good. And even if we wanted to, how could we possibly measure which was better?

The reason you like this list is because the Spanish NT didn't make the list (where pretty much all 23 spent their entire years playing...and this was the best national team of all time, which doesn't fit into your calculations) a few really EPL heavy teams did surprisingly well in the tournament (Wales in particular). But it's a shit list for the reasons I already listed.

And again, as I said over and over again, the EPL has more established internationals than any other league because they buy them. But in soccer, the sum of the parts can be greater or lesser than the whole. The English teams buy these great players but it's on top of a shitty base of English players and managers (and the imports have never played together) so the result is subpar soccer. This is proven year in and year out in European competition.

Spanish teams dominate in continental competitions. La Liga produced the best club team and the best national team of all team in recent years. And a huge chunk of the top 100 players developed there. The Bundesliga is incredibly talented from top to bottom and produced maybe the second best national team of all time (the 2014 edition), as well as tons of other players in the top 100. The EPL, on the other hand, produces subpar players, subpar coaches, a shit national team, and doesn't perform well in continental competitions, despite having all of the money in the world and lots of internationals. And it has produced hardly any top tier players (top 100). Developmentally, you simply can't compare the EPL to the continental European leagues. There is a reason that the EPL teams have to buy all of their players from the continent rather than promote their own academy products. So few good players are produced locally that they have to buy abroad. No other league has such a strong tendency to do so. No other league has so few domestic players. If that isn't evidence that it is not good developmentally, I don't know what is.

The only good English academy was ManU and that was back in the 90's. Other than Pogba having spent a couple years there, they haven't produced shit. They play too English and the game has simply moved on and become more tactically advanced. This is why England has fallen behind and why the EPL isn't as good as the Bundesliga, for example, despite having much more money.
GET A CLUB TEAM
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #157
Tuesday July 19, 2016 9:40pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
It includes every last one of those players you mentioned AND the Spanish NT.

You keep striking out on your list of excuses. lol.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #158
Tuesday July 19, 2016 9:58pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,308
Just realized I should have just used FIFA's age of 12-21 for development (That's the ages they use to determine which clubs have to be compensated for developing a player).

Oh well. Just 1 year off (since I did 13-21).
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
Know Nothing
Post #159
Wednesday July 20, 2016 6:21pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,127
Original post from dolcem

The only good English academy was ManU and that was back in the 90's. Other than Pogba having spent a couple years there, they haven't produced shit. They play too English and the game has simply moved on and become more tactically advanced. This is why England has fallen behind and why the EPL isn't as good as the Bundesliga, for example, despite having much more money.


Yes and no. West Ham and Southampton have always had good academies that have produced some quality players (Lampard, Bale, Walcott), just not enough of them.

It has yet to be seen how many will make it to the top, but Chelsea's academy has produced enough quality players to have won the U-19 Champions League the last two years. One quarter of the England team that won the Toulon Tournament this year were from Chelsea, and 20% of the England team that just won their group in the UEFA U-19 Championship was from Chelsea. There is quality there, just not the opportunity.

Page 11 of 11
«« First « Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11

The young soccer careers of Rubio Rubin and Brady Scott are headed in completely opposite directions.
RECENT POSTS
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
vom Steeg lands at Fortuna
Good week for young Americans
THIS WEEK'S HEADLINES

RANDOM TAGS FROM PAST WEEK...
SELECT `tags`.`id` AS `tag_id`, `tags`.`tag` AS `tag_name` FROM `article_tags` JOIN `tags` ON `article_tags`.`tag` = `tags`.`id` WHERE `article_tags`.`article` IN () GROUP BY `article_tags`.`tag` ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 10