Tim's 2006-2007 has been a very good and very important YA and Men's Nat Team story. For our Men's Nat team- he is clearly the successor to the Keller/Friedel 'legacy', and we needed him to get better this year (and he has). There was even a chance he could implode for a while there. Given having a great goalie is as valuable/more valuable than really any individual field position- this is a big, positive development for US Soccer. Tim got his mojo back, apparently
Timmaaaaaay! I always loved ya buddy. He may be the best keeper in England, statistically I believe he is, but in hearts and minds? Still, it's nice to have an athletic backstop that can keep you in games, AND he'll be available for 2 cycles barring tragic injury or loss of sanity.
The problem was that far too often, his interesting facts weren't true. Who wants to play "trust but verify" on a message board all the time?
SFS will be back. He was last seen on his knees with a micrometer in an unnamed lockerroom measuring the relative shoe leather wear on the right and left mate of a well used pair of boots. Timmy, on the other hand, is considering a transfer to Man City if the proposed casino/stadium comes to fruition. (Whatever happened to that whole flew-to-Vegas-to-party-all-night/coke sorting rumor. Was it a joke, did it just run out of steam or did I just stop paying attention?) To restate the obvious, clearly this little move has been very nice for him.
Howard in the OPTA Team of the Week and also in the squad for Garth Crooks' Team of the Week: http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=455432&lid=1490&clid=&channel=&title=Opta+Team+of+the+Week http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/shared/spl/hi/football/squad_selector/team_of_the_week/html/ss_team.stm
Finally got my ass to see it live. Good saves by Howard. But you always look good when Stubbsy and Lescott and Cars are on top of their game. I thought Stubbs was MOTM.
That Johnson strike was something out of the Matrix. He had like a keyhole to get that ball through and he did it. I'm not an Everton supporter, but I yelled out loud after he scored that goal.
I think he's essentially correct. It's pretty rare to see attackers make big jumps in ability after the age of 20 or so, and pointing out an exception (Mcbride, though I'm not certain you are right about that) doesn't prove otherwise. It's why I don't see a huge benefit in a player like Charlie Davies go to Sweden at the age of 21. Yes, they've produced better attackers than the United States, but their best , Ibrahimovic, Ljungburg and Larsson were all gone from Sweden by the time they were 22 years of age, off to big European clubs and playing basically immediately. Attackers are simply pretty much what they are by the time they're around 20 or 21 years old.
Again, cite examples. You are saying nothing other than what Superdave was saying- which was a 'statement' without facts. Which is ironic, since he ripped SFS for doing the same thing. BTW- Klose also very much improved after 20. So there is 2 attackers going against your synopsis. I'm still waiting to see 'the list'.
Here, without much forethought (it fits the thread), are a list of top strikers in the Premiership, since it's the league I know best. I leave it to others to detail out when they finished improving: Drogba Shevchenko Kalou Henry Adebayor Van Persie Rooney Saha Solsjkaer Crouch Kuyt Bellamy Berbatov Defoe Keane Mido Owen Martins Sibierski There, that's just from 6 teams, but it should be enough to start looking at who was starting at which age, and who blossomed late or was fully developed early. Now maybe both sides can start presenting arguments that don't rest on "well, it's obvious that..." as the key assumption?
The first difficulty in 'their' argument..is that so many players are not even starting at a high level at 18-20 years old. In this respect, how are you going to argue that they are 'complete' at 20 years old? (before they even play a run of top games). The other thing that is painfully obvious from watching soccer over the years: Strikers usually get better with their off-foot over the years. Its clear that many strikers work on that- day/in, day/out- during that time. Clearly, a striker that is too lazy to work on it will not improve, but a striker who does adds an entire different element to his arsenal. The other thing (which seems apparent): Some strikers demonstrate to be smarter than others after a few years. I don't know how one can possibly determine this at 20. Some either learn from their experiences (timing of runs, abusing defenders 'tendencies', developing a real goal poachers 'instinct') or they don't.. To answer Superdave's 4 examples: McBride, Drogba, Klose, and Andy Johnson all have developed well PAST 20. OK, Superdave- you are up next!
Well, that's why this game is so hard to play. I say that Andy Johnson hasn't improved significantly past age 20, and you say "Yes, he has." And then where are we? I don't think I'd necessarily stick to age 20 as my cutoff point, but somewhere around 21 or 22 years of age is where I stop expecting huge jumps in performance from strikers (my argument has nothing to do with Theo Walcott, about whom I have no opinion). Jovan Kirovski was playing in the Bundesliga at age 20 after starring with Manchester United's reserves. I think it's hard to argue that he has improved leaps and bounds since then. Michael Owen led the Premiership in scoring in 1998 and was England's best player in the World Cup. I think it's hard to say there's been much improvement in Landon Donovan since his age-20 season. I think you're probably right that players do improve things like their off-foot and their soccer IQ as they age. But that doesn't mean that their overall value skyrockets accordingly. It's been pretty well established that baseball players peak, for the most part, at age 27. It's also been pretty established that players continue to improve on their plate discipline as they get older. But things like defensive ability start eroding at a very young age. Just because certain skills continue to develop as a player ages doesn't mean the overall value of a player does.
If you look at transfer fees, your argument doesn't make sense. What is a better judge of 'value' than what the buyer pays in a capitalistic society (or buyer/seller, market?) If 20 were the optimal age, you'd expect that to be the demarcation line on transfer fees (highest). But alas, the market judges based on perceived return, and at 20 years old- its still too damn difficult to tell who's 'got it' and who doesn't. That's why the fees are lower. You can't tell who's going to turn out well or not. Its thru the battlefield of challenge that we find out who is dross and who is gold. Some players learn/improve thru battle. Some don't. But to say they are at maximum value before many have even gone into battle is nonsensicle to me.
eyhrrrmmm. Not so sure Owen and Ronaldo count, unless by s "little improvement" you mean "are more likely to get seriously injured. To counter, I'd throw out three of Reading's four strikers. Doyle is much better at 23/24 than he was at 20. Kitson at 27/28 is much better than he was at 20. Long is just now reaching that mark, but given the trajectory of his improvment, I'd place really good money he's better in three years than he is now (okay, he's not fair, he only started playing footie three years ago). the fourth reading striker, lita, has improved a great deal in his 20th year. I hope more is to come, but he's probably close to the finished article. Strikers certainly don't get any faster, or quicker, after 20. They do get stronger, they do get smarter, and they talk about getting more accurate. but, as SFS often notes, target guys and speed guys are different.
It's a great idea but the list doesn't really work as assembled. The young guys like Kalou or Van Persie, we have to write "Don't know" for their peak because we don't know. And the older guys by definition will be skewed toward having older peaks, because if they had younger peaks a la Smith or Fowler or Kluivert then they're not on their list, right? Perhaps a safer approach would be to take a team, such as Man U, and then examine the career of every forward that played for them over a time period extending back for a while. Rooney, Saha, RVN, Forlan, Solskjaer, Forlan, Smith, Sheringham, Cole, etc. Although I wonder if even that list wouldn't be skewed, because in general it takes a while for a foreign player to hit Man U's radar. A forward who peaked at age 20 and then declined probably wouldn't appear for Man U, because while he was good enough at age 20 to play for Man U the club doesn't immediately snap up young foreign players, preferring instead more proven commodities. So, it's difficult.
yeah, but he ripped his knee apart and missed a year, and came back. So, he won it at 20, 21 and 26, and now he's 30. Was he better in 02 than in 97? Had a better cup, I guess. No idea. Not sure he proves a point.
Simple task for someone that's got the stats already... Let's take the top five goal scorers from Germany, Italy, Spain and England for each of the last five years. Then look at their goals/minutes played by age. I'm with Superdave on this one...I think you'd see that the guys who can play prove it right away and that very few of them score more goals/minute as they get older. But that's just my opinion until someone produces some actual data.
Yeah, but even that argument is not totally valid. Its not as if Ronaldo could not have gotten better. First of all, he had major injuries. If a player has a major injury, and loses some of his speed or mental edge- well yeah, he may not reach the same heights as before. That is clear. But that is not the same as never having had the potential to be better (which is your argument). Secondly, some of these cats just simply get satisfied. They get to the mountaintop (like Ronaldo) and don't care that much about getting better. They develop some bad habits, but are talented enough to skate by. In fact, I think Ronaldo is as much a poster child for 'what could have been', then 'look, he maxed out at an early age'. Even at the last WC, he was overweight, clearly not 100% w/knees, slower- and yet still good enough to score a few goals. He's been coasting on talent for years, and the rest (physical attributes, teamwork, mental side) have drifted. Again, that's a different argument from yours.
The operation was a success but the patient died. It doesn't matter WHY. It just matters what happens.