| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Quote:
It is partially the way that he uses Jauzion in particular that impresses me. He always looks like he has options - almost like he knows something the defense doesn't. The way he combines with Yashvili is also excellent, and seems to increase his options though I don't fully see how. More than anything else, I felt that the spaces in the ENG defense in the 6N match were caused by the fact that the backs were scrambling to cover all the options that Michelak seemed to have, when in reality, he had no more than ENG did. The defense seemed to be very nervy, which is something I haven't seen for a couple of years and I put that down to Michelak. NL did not equit themselves as well as they might. Apart from the fact that they are made up of players who are not quite good enough to get a county contract (which makes it hard to compete aginst a county team!), thier fundamental problem is a lack of bowlers with penetration. They have some firepower with the bat - they bat all the way down, and some of thier top order can really thump it - and thier medium pacers are amongst the best around. When Feiko Kloppenburg shifted Spearman and reduced Gloucs to a crawl, NL took the intiative. If they had been able to bring a strike bowler on when Gidman went and shifted two wickets - or even just one of Weston and Windows, - I reckon they might have kept you to a pretty unimpressive score and pinched a win. As it was, Kloppenburg and Reekers ran out of overs and the only option they had were identikit wobbly medium pacers and, as I predicted before the match, Gloucs slipped the noose. Unfortunately, conditions over here are identical to England, and so there are very few quick or spin bowlers playing the game. There are medium pace bowling all rounders by the hundred, but in essence the entire NL team is made up of bits and pieces. NL are slowly turning into a lesser clone of ENG...... |
| |||
| Argh! I've been off the boards for a couple of days, I return, and look what I've started! I made a brief mention of football and this happens! I notice that the debate on young footballers has focussed on Owen and Rooney. Why just them? Yes, Owen has had a bad season at Liverpool, but who at Liverpool, has had the best season? By unanimous consent of just about every pundit, fan, manager etc., it is Steven Gerrard, aged 22. Here is a list of recent young British footballers who have all been world class before they were 22: Owen Gerrard the Man U. class of 92 - even if you don't like the Nevilles that leaves Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Butt Rio Ferdinand (great WC 2002 when he was 22) Sol Campbell (he was brilliant in the 1998 World Cup when he was only about 23) Ashley Cole that's half the current England side! I really don't see why we are concentrating on the relative merits of just Owen and Rooney when there are all these players we can argue over! And I thought the argument against youth was setttled once and for all when Alan Hansen said "you can't win anything with kids" about the 1994 United side, who promptly went on to win the title (and many more things beside). That United side was very, very good, and its spine was made up of young British players. To go back to the Owen point, he won the European player of the year award when he was 21, which is a pretty amazing achivement, not least because a lot of these awards are notoriously anti-English (I think he was the first British player to win an award of this type since Keegan in the 70s). But the continent had seen and noticed his scintillating performances, and knew that he was a great, great player. He's also had to cope with way more media pressure than any cricketer ever will, burst onto the scene aged only 18 and yet has managed to progress from there. He's not remained just a boy wonder. He has over 100 Premiership goals for Lverpool. Yes, he hasn't done well this eason, but he is playing in a poor side, and in any case, all players, however young/old, good or bad have dips in form. And whoever it was mentioned Cristiano Ronaldo...please! yes, he is only 18, but at the moment he isn't fit to be compared to the 18 yr old Michael Owen! I would also point out that a lot of Rachel's criticism of Owen is unjustified - he does have a left foot - to pick a famous example, one of the goals he scored in the 2001 Cup final was brilliantly taken wth his left, as many others have been. He has a lot more to his game than "pace into space" - you simply wouldn't survive at the highest level if you didn't. Ryan Giggs was another they said wouldn't last past 23, when his pace burnt out, and yet he's continued, because he always did have more to his game - trickery, passing abilty, a good footballing brain. It's a shame we never got to see him at a major championships. Not just this, but many young footballers show qualities we associate with older players. For example: At age 18, Rio Ferdinand had a brilliant footballing brain, more mature than many twice his age. Tony Adams was Arsenal captain at 22 and was a strong, mature leader of the back line for the next decade. Steven Gerrard is another young captain, who has been a driving, inspirational force this season. David Beckham, from as young as 21, could pick out passes and angles like very few other players. From as young as 20, Paul Scholes had perfected the art of running into to the penalty box from deep positions to score goals - a very Sheringham-esque art, which, incidentally, Sheringham was good at from as young as 24-ish! The above qualities I have mentioned are all traditionally assciated with older players. They are not the traditional "young" skills of pace, power, etc. All these players showed an exceptional footballing (if not off-the-field) maturity at very young ages. Nor is this a new thing in English football. Bobby Moore captained England aged 22. The "Busby Babes" had only a few years to show us what they could do before they were killed in the Munich air crash, but are still universally recognised to be some of the greatest players ever. The succeeding generation at Man United, containing Bobby Charlton, Brian Kidd, Denis Law and George Best, all made their impact at young ages. I could go on and on and on - but I think you have the message! I hope I have proved that English (and British) football has no problem developing young players. With English cricket, and tennis, as Rachel said initially, there is perhaps a problem with outlook. Last edited by sostenurter : 07-05-2004 at 11:54 AM. |
07-05-2004, 09:42 PM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "Argh! I've been off the boards for a..." | |||
| |||
| OK... lets say (for the sake of argument) that footballers in the UK do mature as rapidly as players from elsewhere in the world (not convinced: if the standard argument is right that Brits are notoriously crude in their soccor skills compared with cultured Europeans.. our guys NEVER mature.. but leave that to one side)... then is there any good reason to expect some major difference between early maturity in football (bizarre notion: didn't Shearer stamp on someone's head recently.. and isn't it still the case that we'd be looking at front-page headline news if Scholes actualy times a tackle well enough to NOT deserve a booking?)... and late maturity in cricket, tennis and the like. The obvious issues are class... domestic structure / facilities... and climate / attitudes to seasons. Any suggestions? |
| |||||
| Rachael Again, I'm just not following what you're saying here! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Scott |
| |||
| Quote:
I don't see why you are not convinced. I posted a long and, I thought, coherent and convincing argument about why footballers do mature, as footballers (not as people) earlier than their cricketing counterparts - you then reply saying you're not convinced but give no reasons for it! I thought my post deserved more than that. Also in an earlier post, you say mentioned Cristiano Ronaldo as being an example of a mature young player, unlike young Brits. He is actually an example of all that is flawed about youth - he is technically pretty good, but has no experience of how to apply this in a match situation, is not a great team player, seems to care more about himself/showboating, and gets very little end product for all his skills. Ask any football manager/fan/pundit if they'd rather have him or Rooney, or who is the more mature player, and they'd all say Rooney. The cricketing equivalent of Ronaldo is..ohh, say, Yuvraj Singh, or Virender Sehwag, people you normally aren't too keen on! In my earlier post I made a distinction between footballing maturity and non-footballing maturity- A player can have a very mature footballing brain and still remain a bit of a thug, or childish. In fact this is quite common. The obvious example is Paul Gascoigne, who was a brilliant player from a very young age and who had a very mature footballing brain - he could spot passes others wouldn't, see where there was space to run into etc. Shearer did (kind of) stamp on someone - but it wasn't that recent, it was five years ago, and if you want to find examples of footballers behaving badly, you could have found a lot that were a lot more recently than that! I don't know what you are saying about Scholes, I don't think he has any kind of a reputation for bad tackles. The "standard argument is right that Brits are notoriously crude in their soccor [sic] skills compared with cultured Europeans" is just that, a standard, stereotyped argument. It perhaps stems from the 70s and 80s, when England did have a slight dearth of technically accomplished players (though even then we had Keegan, Lineker, Brooking etc.). Before that, we produced players such as Edwards, Finney, Matthews, Best, Law, Charlton, Moore, Hurst, Peters, Banks. Since then we've had a lot of new academies that have brought forth the players I have mentioned. In fact, the argument that the British are "crude" is very often a stereotype of jealous Europeans who dislike the British team ethic that (and this is true more of club sides, Liverpool in the 70s and 80s esp.) often ensures that the whole of British teams is more than the sum of their parts. Now, when this is the case in a cricket side - NZ for example, you praise them to the skies for it! |
|
08-05-2004, 07:37 AM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "Rachel,
I don't see why you are not..." | |||
| |||
| Sostenurter - I'm not arguing against you on the football front, and the post suggested going along with you on that front: I'll do so with a degree of scepticism... but certainly, until I can be bothered to do some more thinking / research to construct a better argument, I'll go along with you. The question remains... if your case is sound.. why do we have the ongoing perception of "late developers" in sports like tennis and cricket? |
| ||||
 Christian Ronaldo cartoon!!!!  Last edited by R W S : 08-05-2004 at 12:13 PM. |
| |||
| Quote:
*chuckle* That pretty much sums the guy up, all tricks, dives whenever possible for the freekick and oh yeah of course - he's European! Scott |
|
08-05-2004, 12:17 PM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "Rachel,
I don't see why you are not..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
Phew! What a great post, summed this all up really well, and well put - I agree 100%! Scott |
| |||
| Quote:
His case is sound, in my opinon and well thought through. The answer to your question, I think, has a lot more to do with 'identifying talent early enough' in the two sports you specifically mention. The reason this differs in soccer, is due in my mind to the much higher profile soccer has in this country when compared to say tennis and cricket. Soccer is big business and big money throughout the world and no different in this country. Pretty much every single professional Football club all have youth teams operating, and the scouts are always on the look out for the next 'Beckham', 'Rooney' or 'Gascoine'. Getting a home grown youngster to come through the youth teams and blossom into a good player can bring in massive cash injections into the lower clubs, many of which couldn't survive without this money. I think this is the main difference - Tennis and Cricket just aren't seen as the 'cash cows' Soccer Clubs are and many youngsters these days want to get in where they money is - and that is currently Soccer. Scott |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
