and still don't. He is 3rd string at his BL club. He is there on the list because of his last name. Weah actually plays at PSG and looks great.
Can someone give a quick summary of Weah's strengths and weaknesses? Obviously is very athletic with goal scoring instincts but what specifics about his game make him so promising and what at 18 does he need to improve to become a starting UCL caliber striker? thanks in advance, I admit I was not following him before he became a name this pre-season. although TBF, I wasn't following much YA until the cycle flipped over, didn't have the heart.
His speed and agility #1 He’s also great at making runs in behind the defense which with more consistency are going to be near impossible to stop with good service and defenders that won’t catch Weah. His shooting isn’t a PSG level strength yet but you can see he has skill in this department. He doesn’t have any clear cut weaknesses, but if we consider what he has against PSG level then his passing and decision making could improve. I’m not worried about either because both will get better in time, and passing wise he doesn’t need to have the accuracy and vision of a #10 to be effective where he plays.
thanks. Would you compare his upside to Auba then? A guy that is absolute lighting on the break and in getting behind a defense but who isn't (usually) going to single handedly create danger or provide playmaking? Maybe it's just the build and skin tone but that's the first name that pops into my head. Obviously I'm drooling at the prospect of him playing with some of the midfield talent the US is developing, including Pulisic.
I think he provides a bit more play making than Auba. He's played a bit on wing, so he's not just a 9. For an American comparison, a bigger Donovan. Lung busting runs. Doesn't stop. Great at speed. To me, his main weakness is that he's still young. He's got a ton of talent, but still a lot to learn.
As I hit post I remembered that Hitler had given orders to a chosen set of German women to seduce foreign athletes during the '36 Olynpics, so it has a disturbing history, as well. Course, he only wanted certain athletes, and therefore not the greatest in attendance.
In that case, i expect a winning World Cup team in 2044. All with amazing hair and seriously cut abs.
Not doubting you at all, but do you have a link or a reference for this? It's the sort of bull***t you would imagine the Nazis coming up with, of course, but it'd be nice to have backup.
agree, I never read that and I've read a lot about that era. Nazis were highly suspicious of non-Germans and non-German speakers.
It's early days; I haven't seen enough of him in competitive action; the urge to not jinx him is strong; etc but so far I'm impressed by the guy as a talent. I'm even more impressed by his personality/demeanour. He could be the real deal Edit: "The real deal" is playing for Jozy's Sunderland and still getting to double figures
The whole notion that children of athletes will be by nature more proficient if they're "guided" into athletics is bunk. What is real is that parents into sports are much more likely to have kids who also like sports, because of the real-life example. But nature loves diversity. Each new living thing is created through a process of reshuffling of genes plus semi-random activating or deactivating of portions of the DNA (some of which can actually be turned on and off later, something we're just learning now and we call epigenetics) that it's impossible to know what will come out. The Nazis had a well-documented program to breed perfect Aryan children: blond, tall, blue-eyed people from parents with those characteristics (the "Lebensborn" children). Funny thing: nearly half of them are neither blond nor blue-eyed. Sad thing: many of them grew up hated by the people around them, being a reminder of a period in history most tried to forget. Anyway, about genetics, we're more or less at the baby steps stage. We don't have much clue why some things happen and why some don't. We're not even sure what sets of genes determine things like height or eye color. Until not long ago it was thought two brown-eyed parents could not have a blue-eyed child. Now we know it happens, and that actually all eyes are shades of brown. The eye color is a product of both, the amount of pigment and the thickness & reflectivity index of the stroma (characteristics controlled by a completely different set of genes). In short, we still know nothing, so any idea that we could breed athletes is just wishful thinking at this point. And I'm not even sure we should wish that.
The kid has a motor that doesn't quit. He looks like he loves every second of playing the game. He sees the field well and seems to think he can get to every ball and make a shot on goal. And he's on a mission. He's got drive. He's the kind of player you love to watch play.
So like, the opposite of Haji? Not hating on him, but it seems like no matter what your physical tools, you can’t become a great player without the intensity and passion for the game that Pulisic/Weah/McKennie have.
I dont wish it either, but I have a hard time believing odds of athletically gifted offspring dont rise dramatically with at least one high level athlete as a parent. Pro sports (NCAA D1 level it would seem) has many father/son examples of sons/daughters reaching a high level. Look at Kasper Schmeichel. Nepotism, connections get you the best training, and probably allow you to hang around that environment longer than if you didnt have the family influence, but that only goes so far. At some point its on merit. He is considered a solid EPL keeper.
Think of it this way: the chances of a regular child to be a top athlete are 0.01% (let's say). The chances of the offspring of two top athletes goes up to 0.1%. So we push them into sports, even if only one out of 1,000 of them is going to succeed. The final result is 999 very frustrated young people.
The discussion got me thinking and I am genuinely curious now about it. I dont have any proof your are wrong but I think you are off. Also, way to broad of definitions here as well as assumptions. Lets assume no one is pushing anyone to do anything. The child is motivated to excel and reach the highest level possible. Next, what level constitutes top athlete, etc? Lets discuss through PM's if you want? Jond already eluded to a threadjack which I agree with. I wont mention the topic here again.