Is not trolling if is the truth, google it there are hundreds of articles about it and thousands of people have been saying since 66. With a three lions handle i understand why you feel is trolling but too bad is the true.
It wasn't meant to offend you nor was it meant as rhetorical question. The 'hint' was meant to indicate that the appraisal of their academy is of a very recent date. In Rijkaard's time not as many youth players broke through as is now the case. Therefore my questions, what they did in the mean-time.
I actually don't know exactly and it is often also a subject that is brought big by journalists with book titles as: FC Barcelona, the building of the greatest team. You will find some answers in those, but maybe not, because the writers of those books don't know the fundamental principals behind acquiring the highest form of expertise in a certain domain ... let's say football. But surely the same principals work for becoming a top tennis player. Barcelona might do some things right now, or have started doing them since Cruyff installed his philosophy there, softened in rigidness by new installments or strengthened with new ones like I presume Rijkaard (otherwise Guadiola's quote does not make any sense), but I would like to know why it works. That's why I recently bought a book like this: The Road To Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games Here I have copy pasted a short summery for you: A journalist go's asking around at the club and comes with his own "revelations", but I think it makes more sense to know the general more scientific principals first (what deep practice really is, the 10.000 hour rule, what type of coaching belongs to what age group etc.) and then look what part of his analyses give's hands and feet (what specific training exercises Barca has throughout the youth, how youth is approached and motivated at Barca) to the general principals and what parts are not that relevant to establish an excellent youth development. There is a lot of fluff and nonsense out there. A funny thing I learned from this book (only started) is that from the main part of a group of musicians who reached the top, did not so much started out as a child with a teacher that was good at playing the instrument and gave perfect instructions, but rather was great at attaching and establishing a positive emotion between the activity and the child so it opens up to install the daily routine securing that the hours are made, that will have to be made by every person to attain an expert level. Superior coaching and instructions can come later with another coach. Now as this is a pretty big zoom out from the subject and specific question and a go's back to basics of better human understanding I think Xavi simply states what it has to do a lot with: On Barcelona's youth system He repeats it also in every interview. Xavi: "spelen in Camp Nou één grote rondo" So I can only guess that the rigidness of the implementation of these exercise forms and the amount of hours spend at them per training session where not at a level to let Rijkaard fully benefit, but has let the fruit drop off the tree year after year by now, filling up the first team, more and more and the bigger the number the first team consists of academy players the bigger the attention. Their philosophy also has another effect to consider. I remember from reading van Gaals's biography that he said about the Ajax 1995 team that the level of of passing at the training sessions at Ajax was just insane high just like at Barca now. However remember how that culture and system also allowed the Kiki Musampa's and Nordin Wooters to get in the team and looked not to bad while when they had to maintain themselves outside the system, they were very average players as later became clear. Good system players do not have to be that great talents and can be produced at a higher rate. That's why I am interested how this is going work out, as Ajax was plundered, but Barca have the money to keep that unique high passing culture intact and the demonstration of their youth team winning in the CL recently showed for me total alignment of the philosophy throughout the youth ranks. Well at Ajax they went practicing Judo at a certain moment. To become an expert in a certain area you need 10000 hour of practice. Let's say in position and passing. Even if you only put 1 hour a week in Judo, that is let's say over 50 weeks, times 10 year is 500 hours you don't put into position and passing games like a rondo. I actually don't know how many hours per weel they have spend at things like that. Accumulating effect here is pretty important. Kids have to go to school and so you have to make choices. Ajax have spread attention to other things to much and have not made the best use of the hours they had the kids at their facility. From what I got from reading a big article in the VI is that they want to personalize the training, meaning that if for example a kid is very good in the position games, but not in defending, tackling, heading the ball, having a good stamina, passing the long balls etc., then they say against that kid to go train with one group higher (C2, C1) for that one specific training exercise, instead keeping him with his own group (let's say the D1). When he is done with that specific exercise, he go's back to his group. And they of course now work more one on one, teaching the technique hour after hour better with the specialists. Pure individual. There is far greater emphases on form. So Barca has just made a very fanatical choice to go for position and passing games. They also do it the right way. First practicing on form, then making the area in which they do it, smaller and smaller and super high paced. You can never reach that super high pace if the foundations of your ball handling is not trained in the right way or if you have not mastered the proper form ((see the great emphasis at Ajax now at that with all the old stars). At the end of the road you will have a unique high passing culture at training (Like van Gaal described about his team in 1995). In regard with the Netherlands I am not that worried. One of the biggest advantages we have and other country's don't is that we are a very small, highly populated country (meaning high resistance and competitions where ever you are in one hour drive) with then again quite some spread around local pride (Football is a great vehicle to to channel that). The foundations are just very strong. And actually Feyenoord with Clasie is for me is a prime example that Netherlands is answering to modern demands.
As this is still a thread about the most overrated country in the world I just bumped into this article and was curious how effects people's rating of Argentina: Argentina’s 1978 World Cup win against Peru was fixed in a brutal political deal, former senator says Tour de France winners lose their titles because of 0,000000000005 grams of Clenbuterol in their blood. They did something far worse. They could save energy in a fixed game and have not overcome all the hurdles that grand you a place in the final. That's like not riding a few stages of the Tour de France and still claiming victory. That they won from the Netherlands is therefor irrelevant. They didn't take all the hurdles to get into the WC final in the first place.
Excellent posts. If you like the search of excellence book then you perhaps also like the "You are going to see it when you understand" book by Pieter Winsemius. He uses the 'in search of excellence' magnum opus in this book, and applies it to Dutch football and Cruijff in particular.
Bullshit....the greatest world cup theft of all time was in 1978....read the post a couple ahead of this one for confirmation and proof. By the way I watched, in person at Goodison Park, Brazil's group games in 1966. They were very poor, particularly against Hungary a 3-1 loss that wasn't that close.
To all the cry-babies questioning Argentina's WC78 win, all I'm going to say if there is one group of people who can be tolerated to raise this point it would be Brazilians. As for the English, they sure have a lot of opinions for a tournament their NT couldn't even make, and the Netherlands were outplayed in the final match...they were lucky to have eleven players on the field at halftime after all the hacking done on Bertoni in the first half.
No ad hominem. I have to ask you to stay on topic. Irrelevant and your logic fails. Argentina didn't take all the hurdles to be granted a place in the final. It is irrelevant they beat Netherlands. The WC is not a single game. The prestige that a team gets from winning a WC derives from the fact a team has proven to be able to solve multiple problems (problems being teams with a certain playing style creating different match ups, having to eclipse the scoring record of other nations in order to advance when they are in group phase, being able to take penalty's .... like England and Netherlands have failed in so many times). This article points out that Argentina has not answered to the very basic condition to even call themselves a WC finalist. If a team can not call themselves a WC finalist, how can they call themselves a WC winner? They won from Netherlands? Great. Portugal also won from Spain after the WC with 4 something. Irrelevant. They cheated their way to the final. End of discussion. Tour de France winners are stripped of their title because of 0,000000000005 grams of Clenbuterol in their blood. This is like not even fulfilling all the different stages on the Tour being even considerate a participator, fulfilling the Tour. Also one more thing for the black and white fraction in this board. You are so full of how big the difference is between getting in a WC final and winning one. Or how Netherlands choked in finals and so how they can never be equated with country's like Argentina and Uruguay. Impossible. It's a marathon and it's about the first one passing the finish line, where becoming nr 2 or 34 is not that important. But to thump your chest over how the WC winners didn't choke at the last meters they first have to have taken the hurdles that offers them the repertoire of being made out of the metal of a team last standing. That is your big thing. So it's impossible to maintain an all or nothing mindset (like you do) while still defending the legitimacy of the WC title for Argentina 1978. The way you think and have debated, the most morally corrupt thing to do is to defend the legitimacy of it. As I have demonstrated in a previous discussion you twist and turn you own moral code in order to defend the nation and teams that you support or root for. That's dishonest.
It is also proven that the Argentinians choose the ref for the final. Referee Klein was the original choice of the FIFA but no, it had to be someone else. Dirty tricks like this happen, like the appointment of Howard Webb as referee for the final, but in th 1978 case it has been proven. Crystal clear.
All people are free to choose an algorithm or a a structure of reasoning that they deem right and often that will mean it's one that is favorable for the accomplishments of the team they support. But when you have settled on one, you should stick with it and then also take position against your own team or admit another team is better when it points that way. Or you say the way I always reasoned or calculated things is wrong and I have acquired new insight. Either way you can't have it both ways.
Let me make this clear, I never said Argentina cheated their way to the final...my point was more like a certain group of fans belonging to the two nations that lost the most painfully against Argentina in its two WC wins uncessantly throwing dirt when they hardly have any right to complain. I will argue the particular merits of Argentina, as opposed to Brazil, being the team to have the pleasure of beating the Dutch, with a Brazilian, not those group of people seeking to claim some kind of vacuous moral victory. A mistake to change the ref, as possibly the originally-appointed ref would have sent off the Dutch left-back in the first half for his treatment of Bertoni.
I would say the poll is pretty accurate with england at almost 50% and nobody else even close to them.
Why do you call it throwing it dirt? That's just code language for me that you want to deny that the deal was made and do not want to correct injustice that has happened on the field... and off the field. That you don't want to distant yourself from the the dishonest ways of dealing of a former regime that also used to be bad for the Argentina people you know? That you settle for winning in a way other than the honest one. It is also a way of negatively portraying people who try to raise a fair point after reading the conclusions of a court case. But worst of all, not giving a damn for the 13 victims that were imprisoned, beaten and tortured as a result of this rigged game. Because if you say raising this point is throwing dirt, then you say what I do and others is a negative thing we shouldn't. The lopsided thing about that is, that you think it's more important to go out claiming WC victory, than caring for 13 tortured people and who knows what has happened to them. If you bring it to it's essence, not going after correcting this injustice, is being not any better than the former regime. They too thought looking good to the outside world and having some bragging rights was more important than human rights or human life for that matter. 13 people for a football match? This case only reveals what people's priority's in their value system are. Leopold Luque knows his ones. He has heard what Ledesma told the Buenos Aires Court and by his words: “With what I know now, I can’t say I am proud of my victory,” . Hardly? If you deny what has happened, then Netherlands has nothing to complain about. Why do you say hardly? Or Argentina rigged a game and cheated their way to the final, shouldn't be there and have to be stripped from their WC title (or better, have the own willingness to do so) as they have not taken the sequence of tests that are put in place in a WC to take one after the other (and is the reason for it's prestige) or this deal where 13 people where imprisoned and tortured never happened, dismissing the Buenos Aires court case. Either--Or. No because this is not a SA vs Europe debate. NT football is nation vs nation. Also merits? This is the second time you leave the door a bit open. Why do you leave room that fraud and cheating happened? Or the 13 humans where traded for winning a game with a big margin .... or not. A WC should be a celebration of human athletic ability and the sport of football should be carried with dignity. I am not talking about an account book with fouls in a first half or a second half, but about basic human rights where 13 people were being traded in order to win a game with a huge margin so it could advance to the final game. Not being committed to correct that injustice is not being any better then the people who committed these crimes. If you accept the deal happened then Argentina cheated their way to the WC final paying a horrible price, committed fraud, should be stripped from their WC title and even have no notation in the tournament any longer.
Argentina cheated their way to the final? This is news to me, and it's telling that over 30 years on and despite the number of people involved, no proof has ever come of this. Yes, it is throwing dirt that somehow you already are convinced of these accusations, in spite of the old axiom that the chances of uncovering a conspiracy increase exponentially as the number of people involved grows arithmetically. Since arguing with you on this topic just gives credence to your arguments, feel free to justify Netherlands' loss any way you want, all I can say is Kempes and Bertoni outclassed the Dutch defense that day.
Holland wasn't inferior in the first 90 minutes of the final. It is funny that you are complaining about the hacking of Bertoni, most Dutch players had an other impression. Also some foreign reports such as the one of David Yallop had an other impression, that the ref was slightly biased against Holland. Yallop suggests it was an conspiracy and cites the the changing of refs for the final. I think it is an advantage that most big football markets enjoy. Italians have a nice football-word to indicate this process: "psychological subordination". Which means that referees are, even if they don't want to, psychologically inclined to favour the bigger teams and nations.
But Ledesma is in a Buenos Aires Court. He is not accusing. The Argentinians want the truth themselves appointing a special judge: Judge Noberto Oyarbide. And why is it dirt throwing from me if a member of the former squad himself says: “With what I know now, I can’t say I am proud of my victory,” --> Leopoldo Luque, an Argentinean striker in 1978. Then what is he in your view, if me pointing out what is happening in Buenos Aires Court is throwing dirt? I would like to hear what the term is you have ready for him, as he is member of an NT and squad you try to defend here at all cost. He is not even proud of the win anymore. You have been the one here said that even starting to equate Argentina with the Netherlands is completely ridiculous. Those two NT's operate on total different levels as the one has won 2 WC's and the other 0. End of discussion. If you deal in such absolute's, want to maintain a black and white view and want to use the WC as the great measuring stick you like to do, then the team better has fulfilled the demands that a WC puts in place. The demand of a WC is that a team has been able to solve a sequence of problems on it's way to the final. The final problem (in this case the Netherlands) does not necessarily have to be the biggest problem. A WC is a road that has to be traveled. You can't claim solving the final problem if you had to cheat the problem before that, being scared you would fail and so felt to rigging a game. Besides explaining why Argentina beating Netherlands is irrelevant, I would also like to point out that you at least could have used one sentence to express some kind of curiosity if people were indeed traded and tortured and if so hoping some have survived their imprisonment. You seem to see only the win/lose football side of things, yet I am under the impression you have passed the age of 15 (arbitrary age, but I try to make a point here).
that may be so, but my point was that threads like these invariably attract those with strong dislikes for particular countries, where rational thought takes a back seat in favour of emotive vitriol.
If you mean a good number" than I can agree. It can also be that people have a sense of injustice of how a country is generally ranked in the general discourse or in the world of football and they just think they get a bit to respected, get to much attention, fill up to much space in general discussions without them having the record or current squad to justify all that. Simultaneously you can like watching their NT and release one or two endorphin's when seeing the Three Lions on your TV. I don't see how that perse would exclude each other. The amount of hate England gets here though is a bit much and quite some people in this thread were only here to flame towards them.
Holland was definitely inferior throughout the match, besides Argentina missing some sitters, particularly Luque's mist-imed touch on an empty net, the Dutch goal came pretty much against the run of play and was a rather unspectacular thing. The political situation in Argentina during this time is much before my age, and to be frank my interest. I understand it was corrupt and unjust, but this does not mean that it affected the WC, not to any greater extent that all WC hosts have enjoyed in tournaments before or since. To me, Peru folding up in the way they did is incongrous to their form during the group stage and leading to the WC, but whatever the circumstances, they folded to both Brazil and Argentina equally. For all the rumors nothing certain has ever been uncovered, and until proven otherwise, I am happy to believe that Argentina won it because they were indeed the best team of the tournament, yet splashed with the natural dose of luck and favoritism that all WC winners have had to have their way. As for the Netherlands, to me it wasn't so much a so-called favored opponent that beat them but, as in WC74 and WC10, the ocassion did more in beating them than the rival. Uruguay aside, perhaps you do need the collective breath of 30 million or more people behind you to win the World Cup.