*Official* English Football Season 2016-17

[Lillian Thomson]

All this Champions League stuff is next season isn't it?

The last dregs of this thread should be focussing on the Under 21 tournament...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............................

 

[Scaly piscine]

Guess what, a more experienced player wouldn't have the same nerves, because they've been there before.

No they'll have different nerves/anxiety. Most players, particularly English players get progressively more anxious from repeat experiences of failure and getting slaughtered in the media. Thanks for playing.

 

[Uppercut]

No they'll have different nerves/anxiety. Most players, particularly English players get progressively more anxious from repeat experiences of failure and getting slaughtered in the media. Thanks for playing.

I agree with you that marc's point was an inane cliché with no basis in reality, but I don't really think this is true either. For my money the player that choked the worst at the Euros was Kane, who had no experience. Experienced guys like Rooney, Wilshere, and Hart played shite, but they're crap for their clubs too. They're just not very good anymore. Kane is a brilliant player and looked like he'd never seen a football before.

TBH I don't think anyone is psychologically equipped to play for England in the current climate. We can talk shite about "mental strength" all day, but almost nobody performs at their best when failure means becoming a national hate figure. I suspect a lot of them would rather just not bother with international football, but saying so would only make the abuse worse.

 

[sledger]

Specific incidents and players aside, would anyone really contest the notion that experience improves (or at least influences) performance?

A player's ability at any point in time is literally the result of all of their professional experiences up to that time. E.g. player A did not just wake up one day and suddenly become good.

I can't think of a single profession in the entire world where you do not become better through having more experience. That's not to say that experience cannot also hinder talent/progression (i.e. through the development of bad habits and whatnot), but on the whole there's a reason why more often than not you'd go with a seasoned pro rather than someone who's never played a first team match. As I say, I'm sure you could make such an analogy in relation to nearly any profession.

 

[Uppercut]

Specific incidents and players aside, would anyone really contest the notion that experience improves (or at least influences) performance?

A player's ability at any point in time is literally the result of all of their professional experiences up to that time. E.g. player A did not just wake up one day and suddenly become good.

I can't think of a single profession in the entire world where you do not become better through having more experience. That's not to say that experience cannot also hinder talent/progression (i.e. through the development of bad habits and whatnot), but on the whole there's a reason why more often than not you'd go with a seasoned pro rather than someone who's never played a first team match. As I say, I'm sure you could make such an analogy in relation to nearly any profession.

I don't think anyone would contest that, no, it's pretty obvious. Scaly's argument isn't that experience doesn't affect ability, it's that experience isn't useful independent of its effect on ability.

So the objection isn't to someone saying "Kane is better than Rashford because he's more experienced, so we should pick him". It's to someone saying "I know Kane is the better player, but we should pick Rooney anyway for his experience".

 

[sledger]

I don't think anyone would contest that, no, it's pretty obvious. Scaly's argument isn't that experience doesn't affect ability, it's that experience isn't useful independent of its effect on ability.

So the objection isn't to someone saying "Kane is better than Rashford because he's more experienced, so we should pick him". It's to someone saying "I know Kane is the better player, but we should pick Rooney anyway for his experience".

But does anyone actually say things like this? (edit: other than cretins like the Alan Shearers and Robbie Savages of this world)

Seems to me what's actually more often said is something like "so and so demonstrated a lack of experience in that situation", or "a more experienced player would have likely handled that situation differently/better", both of which in principle are perfectly valid observations imo. But if I recall from previous exchanges with Beevs, he considers these sorts of observations to be nonsense.

 

[Uppercut]

But does anyone actually say things like this? (edit: other than cretins like the Alan Shearers and Robbie Savages of this world)

Seems to me what's actually more often said is something like "so and so demonstrated a lack of experience in that situation", or "a more experienced player would have likely handled that situation differently/better", both of which in principle are perfectly valid observations imo. But if I recall from previous exchanges with Beevs, he considers these sorts of observations to be nonsense.

Yeah, I think those observations are fine in principle too. But in practice they're almost always bollocks, so I can see where Scaly is coming from. I think older players tend to make more sensible positional decisions when closing out a game, for example. But usually it's when a young player misses a chance because he "snatched at it/dallied" when a more experienced player would have "showed some composure/had the confidence to take it first time", and in those instances it's basically just bollocks.

I moreso object when it's used as an argument between players. Last week people in Ireland were saying Glen Whelan should be picked ahead of Harry Arter "for his experience". I thought that was a completely bankrupt argument. Arter, apart from being better at literally every aspect of the game, is very obviously the player with more footballing intelligence, which is probably what "experience" is supposed to proxy for.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I think those observations are fine in principle too. But in practice they're almost always bollocks, so I can see where Scaly is coming from. I think older players tend to make more sensible positional decisions when closing out a game, for example. But usually it's when a young player misses a chance because he "snatched at it/dallied" when a more experienced player would have "showed some composure/had the confidence to take it first time", and in those instances it's basically just bollocks.

I moreso object when it's used as an argument between players. Last week people in Ireland were saying Glen Whelan should be picked ahead of Harry Arter "for his experience". I thought that was a completely bankrupt argument. Arter, apart from being better at literally every aspect of the game, is very obviously the player with more footballing intelligence, which is probably what "experience" is supposed to proxy for.

Yeah, don't disagree with any of this.

I think there is room for a more nuanced (and ultimately pointless) analysis though, which ties to your point about positional decisions. For example, a more experienced player who makes better positional decisions might find that his superior positional decision-making might mean he would be less likely to even be in a position from which he would have to snatch at a chance. This could form the basis of an argument by which one might argue young players snatch at chances more frequently. Not that it would necessarily be a very convincing argument mind you, but still.

But this is probably thinking about it too much, because it seems to me there is no way things like this could ever be meaningfully studied haha.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The season rounds off nicely with England Under 21's losing on penalties to Germany.

 

[Cabinet96]

How come Spain's u21s have guys like Saul and Asensio, who have scored in Champions League semi finals and finals, in their squad but England constantly think their best young talents are above the competition?

 

[GIMH]

It's probably more to keep the clubs quiet than an England decision

 

[sledger]

Spain actually have players that keep their best young talents out of their main national squad tbf.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Most of Germany's best young players are at the Confederation Cup giving their senior players a rest.

 

[grecian]

One day I'm going to have to start putting money on the team that misses the first pen winning the shoot-out, just keeps on happening for some bizarre reason.

of course if I finally did put my money where my mouth is, it'd only happen once in every 50 times.

 

[Furball]

How come Spain's u21s have guys like Saul and Asensio, who have scored in Champions League semi finals and finals, in their squad but England constantly think their best young talents are above the competition?

But a season playing against Middlesbrough and Sunderland is just far more intense and demanding so guys like Rashford who spent half the season on the bench really need the rest.

 

[imespn]

when the football world cup is started???

 

[fredfertang]

when the football world cup is started???

1930

 

[grecian]

1930

Not counting West Auckland's win then?

 

[cpr]

1930

is that GMT or local?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Why is the Prem season starting on a Friday night?