so what you're saying beneath your jargon gibberish is they pulled the players out of the math who struggled. did you not hear where i said the vast majority of our players get loaned, sold, benched? yes, duh, the players who survive two windows without getting punted are usually integral to the first team. they don't carry dead weight. the whole point is if you struggle they loan you out. removing that from the equation might correlate to world cup success but it basically neglects the odds faced by the average player. i mean, if, top of my head, like 7 guys are on the books at cfc spurs city, and 1 plays at all, that's 14% odds. you could make some sort of misleading argument that of the ones who succeed, that correlates to world cup success. my response would be, if i am the agent of the 7 guys, yeah, but my client individually has 1 in 7 odds, and your little formula ignores me if i am the sludge left over when the machine churns to find the one guy. it then equates that one guy to success or not. and then i would say that you're doing an ex post facto argument saying the end game reflects the choice, when the data doesn't say if it was just a special set of U20 classes coming through, that everyone wanted. the last club takes the credit for what everyone else did.
Nobody ever argued any such thing. A decent Bund club is a step closer to a UCL type club than an MLS club. Sargent and McKennie are certainly trying this route, while Weah and Miazga have tried a different route. The destination is the important part. Adams took a completely different path. Certain steps are clearly better than others. Signing a 5 year MLS contract at 21 is not a good step relative to signing with a Dutch team or a mid-table Bund team.
Pretty much. I know it sounds like pretentious gibberish (and sports science, compared to stuff like actual physics, is kind of a joke, I mean, the entire methodology uses such broad brushstrokes it can make an actual scientist laugh), but there is a valid point hidden there: excellence breeds excellence, but over a length of time.
What?!? They identify players as an elite subset and then you say that the subset is by definition elite. So, ipso facto, it isn't elite? The best players from UEFA and the best players from the rest of the world are an elite subset.
lewandowski was a polish YNT player who started with polish pro teams the last of which was paid a fee by BD to secure his services aged 22. he was already the leading scorer in poland when bought. scored 14-21 goals a season for 4 years. he won 3 domestic trophies, and was league player of the year his last year. modric was a croatia ynt player who played in bosnia and croatia until age 23, when he was bought by spurs. by that time he had won 6 domestic trophies, competed in europe, and made an all tournament team doing so. he was already national player of the year, twice, and had 6 international goals. hazard was belgium ynt the whole time, but was playing in france as a youth and adult until 2012. lille won 2 trophies before he was bought by chelsea. he had already scored for belgium before he moved to chelsea. hazard's last season he had 20 goals for lille. the pretense here is that they got pure potential. you can see here they were already very actualized. the elite teams saw patent production and signed it. in terms of how their teams did, poland didn't qualify for the first 2 tournaments after lewandowski moved to germany, only in 2018, 8 years into his german excursion. croatia missed 2010 and only made it 2014 and 2018, 6 years into modric's spurs move. hazard is the only one of the 3 that fits your theory. your theory is basically trash because good luck fielding a one player team. it is a cumulative exercise. everyone i showed here -- that you waved in my face -- was basically cherry picked for the elite leagues from existing success in a lower league. confusing cherry picked players with the production of success by the NT gets the causation backwards. sorry, these are each basically like dempsey in mls. giving fulham or spurs a ton of credit would be the same sort of bs. i grant that it is probably a boom period for a NT when a bunch of their players are in club demand to start. but you are neglecting how they get to that point and instead saying, let's join them mid career after their big move, and if they stick, let's correlate that to NT success.
It's useless. I've been trying to make the same point in these boards for years. They're never going to get it. They think some 17 year old going to the Arsenal academy on a free means he's going to be World Class. Dozens of failures do nothing to alter their faith. They just don't get that a player has to prove himself first locally, so that someone has to PAY for him, in order to take him seriously.
the 2002 team is instructive of the first game starters Pope never played outside MLS Mastro always played domestically Beasley was with the Fire and hadn't moved out yet Landon was with SJ on loan after BL didn't work Agoos was in MLS and hadn't gotten traction in 2 abroad stints McBride was in MLS and hadn't gotten traction while with Wolfsburg or Preston (Everton being his second Moyes spell) Friedel was a domestic product in EPL but his team had just been promoted Sanneh was a domestic product in B.1 but his team had just been promoted Hedjuk played 19 games for 4 years in B.1 and was sold to Swiss League the same summer as the world cup (coach had said before tournament won't ever play here again) Stewart was at the tail end of a stint with midtable NAC, and would be with DC the next year O'Brien was coming off his one full season for Ajax subs Cobi, who had a couple stints abroad but was with LA Max Moore who began with NER and would be back there in 2003 after Everton cut him from a world cup knee injury Llamosa who had a couple stints abroad early but was mid career in MLS some others Mathis domestic Reyna abroad the dominant players save Friedel and Reyna were domestic most of the players were either here or had done a MLS stint people tend to point out that team leaned foreign but that's not true of the first XI i think one of the key things was everyone core was playing a lot for club that's the high water mark to date what's the formula
how much did BVB and Schalke pay for Pulisic and Weston, respectively? Were they not taken seriously?
That's two out of 50+. Far from enough. And even they are not a sure thing. Remember, three full seasons.
Little known fact... Joe Max is his first name. Moore is his last name. Thank you. My work is done here.
No it does not say that. Perhaps you should attempt to read the paper. That is not the only paper providing detailed analysis on this topic. I provided the link because it is only one that I am aware of that is freely available in its entirety without requiring you to pay.
Trying to read a thread when folks are continuously arguing with a troll you have on ignore is a bizarre experience.
you’re conflating arguments. You said that if they didn’t pay for a player, they wouldn’t be taken seriously. now, you’re saying whether they were successful. Most players at elite academies don’t make it to the full team. Most players who go to DA also don’t make the full team - does that mean no one should go? we want our best training with the best and with academia that have a proven track record of developing talent (which is never going to be a high number) - MLS has developed one good player from soup to nuts - Adams. Maybe that’s not too bad given the age of the leagues but it’s a very small number.
The formulas they include are all about THREE periods in an elite team (they don't even make the point it's an elite _sports_ team necessarily). The study makes the point that the player improves along the time he is with that team.
I'm just telling you what the study says. It's not enough to be part of a top team, but you must be in that top team long enough to survive a couple of eventual cullings, when the under-performing are removed.
I fail to see the logic of it. IMO, depends how you fail. If you don't make it because you barely miss the cut, then the experience won't be a loss to you. If you get kicked out of the team ignominiously, after barely playing for a season or two, and looking out of place when you did, I doubt you got any improvement out of it. A good example would be Bobby Wood, who survived two seasons in the Bundesliga with a club that was in the process of losing their "sponsor" (Klaus-Michael Kühne, the guy who had insisted on them getting Wood at any price). The first season in the Bundesliga was his best (and still quite mediocre). The second, he was poor, finally getting benched. That was also reflected in his play with the NT: so, surviving the first culling was not good enough to show any progress. And that's another thing such a study does not take into consideration: what happens when a club signs a player for a long-term contract, and the player disappoints, yet survives the season because the team just cannot get rid of him due to his salary? They're stuck with the guy, and may even play him here and there just not to feel they're completely wasting their money. But that doesn't mean the player is evolving at all.
Not True! For anyone who wants to get the summary, just read the abstract: The empirical results consistently show that performance improves more after an individual has been a member of an elite team than when he has been a member of lower level teams. The conclusion is borne out by a rich set of complementary data on: national team performance, player-level performance, performance of foreign players who joined elite teams after an exogenous shift in the number of foreign players participating on top club teams, performance of players on national teams in the year just before and the year just after they join an elite club team, and experiences of several national team players obtained through personal interviews. None of this is controversial or even debatable at this point. Some player quotes from the study: “When I went to Europe [to a second division club in a Big 5 League country], I played at a high level for 38 league games and definitely found that the game slowed down for me. It was the first time the game became slower than my thinking..." (Player 5) “Players have to improve to compete at higher levels [on an elite club]. A player’s thought process has to get faster and you have to go through that. Every little thing matters. You have to work in much tighter spaces and that means more speed. You see players get to the right spaces more quickly. It’s all related and all of it means a capability to do all those things faster.” (Player 4) “Sure, playing on a top division European team will raise your game. The second you raise the level of play, you have the best opportunity to improve. Day in and day out, you have the speed of the game being faster, the speed of opposition. The speed of decision making has to improve.” (Player 1) “Your first touch is a good example. On other teams, you can get away with not having as good a first touch. You can have touches that go a little too far away. This has to improve since you’ll lose the ball under higher level competition pressure. ...” (Player 3)
All the stuff I quoted above is also from the same study. This is the full version: https://www.nber.org/papers/w20478.pdf Consider individuals who are members of work teams for three periods during their careers. The quality of each individual on the firm’s “home office team” is drawn from a normal distribution at the beginning of the first period. All individuals work for their own home office team in all three periods. Workers also spend time on a second team that works on similar projects but with different teammates. Some second teams are special “elite teams” while others are not. If an individual’s quality is above some threshold, ThreshQ, which cuts off an upper tail of the quality distribution, he works on one of these “elite teams” with other high performing individuals. Other employees spend similar amounts of time on a second team, but these teams do not have elite members. Membership on an elite team where all individuals are high quality workers improves the quality of the members in the following year by some amount Ē > 0. [...] When teams have such peer effects, what does average quality of the (home office) teams look like after three periods? To illustrate the answer to this question, let the home office teams employ individuals equally distributed between first, second, and third period players (i.e. a third of home team players will be first period, a third will be second period, and a third will be third period players). [...] Drawing a high quality individual in the first period has important effects on the performance of the home office team. First, it pulls up the average quality of the team for three periods. Second, the high quality individual gets a quality boost from his participation on elite second teams comprised solely of other high quality players, and this boost in turn spills over to the home office team members in his second and third periods with the home office team. --- What they show is a process. Unfortunately the maths formulae cannot be quoted, I don't have the keyboard for it. But the study at no point tries to make the reader believe a player's improvement is immediate.
This is rich coming from you. Last season you kept lying to people that Julian Green was doing great, when in fact he was invisible and there was a reason why Kicker had him as the worst 2.Bundesliga player for most of the season. Yet you kept giving fake game reports, making it look as if he was tearing it. This season he's looking good, but last season he was terrible until February.
What are you talking about. Here are his numbers for the 2017/18 season when he was 19. Starts - 35 Subbed on - 7 Bench - 0 Injured/sick - 6
I find it hard to believe anybody who played didnt think playing with and against better competition didnt push them to raise their game.
Keller was MOTM that game. "Coach Bruce Arena, before now not known as one to publicly criticize his players, said, ”Landon showed no aggressiveness tonight…" Hardly a quote you'd expect from Arena, Donovan must have been poor (Czech game) From a NYTimes piece on Donovan during his first retirement/ break: "His golden-boy image changed four years later when he was pilloried for his performance during the 2006 World Cup. “After the ’06 World Cup was the first time I realized, clearly, that it was a business,” Donovan said. “And that it was fickle. I was foolish enough to think that these people who were showing me so much love genuinely liked me. ‘Oh, they must really like me.’ But the reality after ’06 was: ‘Now you had a bad World Cup. We don’t think you’re that cool anymore.’ That, for me, was a very eye-opening experience. And it made me very sad.” He added: “At the time, it was by far the hardest thing that ever happened to me in my life. But the beauty is it was the best thing that ever happened to me, and it allowed me to wake up and see the world differently for the first time.” You seem to remember it differently than Donovan, writers at the time, and history.