QuoteIt doesnt blow any argument out of the water, you're comparing two completely different nations!Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Um no because the stats I showed clearly indicated the pretty much the entire spine of the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euros was with players that left when they were 16/17. Which is proven when you look at the side Denmark selected for their matches at Euro 2021.
No the evidence actually leans heavily towards my argument, what posters like Pineapple are trying to do is pull the wool over you're eyes and twist reality in an efforts to suit their narrative.
I've already listed the key players in the spine of that Danish side and the ages which they left Denmark and its proven by simply looking at their wikipedia pages, if you want to believe that because they had a bunch of squad players that stayed in Denmark until after they were in their 20s and that's the way to go then you can choose to believe that but the only person you are fooling is yourself.
It doesnt blow any argument out of the water, you're comparing two completely different nations!
FWIW I looked at our current extended squad, the guys who would basically generally be in a squad when fit and excluded the 9 lads who grew up in England or Scotland.
15 (2) Collins, Parrott
16 (13) everyone else
17 (1) Travers
18 (3) Doherty, Manning, Browne
19 (1) O’Brien
20 (2) Ogbene, Coleman
23 (2) Scales, McGrath
Everyone else: Bazunu, Kelleher, O'Shea, Omobamidele, Duffy, Egan, Brady, Hendrick, Molumby, Knight, Ebosele, Ferguson, Idah
In fact I knew Pineappler wouldn't be able to resist Googling the relevant number I'd only half remembered & was too lazy to do it myself. But wool over my eyes ... very good. Carry on.
Lesser aspects of your personality starting to come through in your use of vocabulary there, when challenged also.
You've proven nothing.
The issue is when you starting saying things like "[COLOR=#333333]in some respects we've developed beyond what we should have given the resources at our disposal" you start delving into the world of subjectivity as you start to create a scenario where you can never be wrong. The fact of the matter is the end result suggests things arent as bad as being made out which would indicate that clearly something is being done right that we are underestimating or maybe the theory we use for what lead to success at underage level is wrong.
The simple fact is all the talk of contact hours and resources etc, whatever way we look at it if things were as terrible as you'd suggest we'd be at the bottom of European football and yet we arent, in fact we are in the top 10 in Europe at u17 & u19 level and in pot 2 at u21 level (which in itself is impressive given we lose more u21s to our senior team than most nations, in fact in the last u21 campaign the only nation that lost more than us was Luxembourg) so either we are doing something right in both regards in some way, or maybe neither regard is as crucial as we make it out to be. Either way simply saying things like "we are doing better than we should" doesnt really fly with me when its on a consistent basis that we are doing well at underage level, the table I mentioned is over 3-4 campaigns so not just a flukey one off table, so clearly something is being done right behind the scene's in both regards or its just not as crucial as made out, which one is it?[/COLOR]
Crafty, you can stoop to personal insults all you want, I've already shown you the numbers that prove I'm right. Pineappler has a history of twisting reality to suit his narrative and if you choose to believe him go right ahead but the facts clearly show I'm right on this occasion.
Just an FYI - Uruguayan players can only leave at the age of 18. Torreira was an exception cause he was a Spanish citizen, so was entitled to play anywhere in the EU from 16. Just worth factoring in. Basically their clock of availability starts in the first transfer window after their 18th birthday.
I remember hearing a Danish journalist on the radio, probably just over a decade ago. He said they basically had a two tier approach. The truly elite kids, he used Eriksen as his example, who was at Ajax at the time. He said to maximise his potential, he needed to go to leave Denmark, but the second tier of players were better served staying in Denmark till later. The numbers re Denmark's players basically show that's what happened
Last edited by elatedscum; 23/07/2024 at 7:10 PM.
Wasn't a problem when you were comparing Denmark to us.
Because Ireland and Denmark are in the EU and can move to another EU nation at 16, Croatia before 2013 was not EU so most of their players couldn't move until they were 18...same applies for Uruguay as elated stated.
That's fine, as is the idea of a truly elite player moving early. But the point being made was
That's clearly nowhere near being true. And Croatia and Uruguay have clearly not suffered from having their players stay until 18-22 sort of age.For example at Euro 2020 the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euro's the vast majority of those players left Denmark at 16/17 years old, obviously the odd exception will exist but the majority left at an age most Irish players leave.
And it was in response to Stutts' point bemoaning our lack of academy coaches here -
Finn Sherlock is not a truly elite player for example. I'd classify your "truly elite player" as CSAD's "odd exception"And in what universe is celebrating 16 year olds going to Germany to learn a trade a good thing
Last edited by pineapple stu; 23/07/2024 at 4:47 PM.
If that's the case then the person interviewed wasnt completely accurate as the only Danish player that left that could be classified as potentially a "truly elite" prospect was Eriksen & Christiansen and possibly Dolberg (worth noting he was seen as a similar category to Eriksen when he was young but sadly never fulfilled his potential). So what about the other players that left at that age?
What I said was clearly true, you just tried to twist my words to suit you're agenda as always.
In fairness CSAD, you stated that the vast majority of the Denmark squad left at 16/17 and named the 6 players who did, 6 players in a squad of 23 is not a 'vast majority'.
I think we can all agree that the best players will always leave younger, and others benefit from staying home longer and that our grassroots and youth football is doing something right, it is not where it needs to be for sustainable success.
He knows very well what I meant, he chose to bring us down this rabbit hole by twisting my words to suit his agenda. The reality is the defining factor for a nations success will be how well the best players who are aged 16/17 develop when the move abroad. The other key area for success for our youth players will be the career decision they make, that for me has been the biggest concern of all.
Thats an ugly looking bell curve... you'd ideally want that spike spread out more in the 19, 20 and 21 groupings.
edit: similar to the Uruguay post actually. That looks pretty reasonable.
Of course, none of these posts account for the 99% of youth and club players that go over and dont make the national squad.
Last edited by SkStu; 23/07/2024 at 6:31 PM.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
No twisting. I just disproved your point is all. You then changed what you claimed to have said, and even then it wasn't correct. It's clear their best players not moving abroad at 16/17 hasn't hindered Croatia or Uruguay for example. That they weren't able to is irrelevant.
Stutts' point was correct, and was not refuted by your incorrect assertion that "For example at Euro 2020 the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euro's the vast majority of those players left Denmark at 16/17 years old, obviously the odd exception will exist but the majority left at an age most Irish players leave", or any vague interpretations of that you want to assume.
Yes, he does that, a kernel of fact surrounded by opinion & then split hairs ongoing till the conversation is hopelessly side tracked & pointless. Its very annoying, its regular and I'm well aware of it.
Thing is he hasn't done it on this subject. Not today.
You argument didn't stand any scrutiny and that's nobody's fault.
The sweet spot is clearly both options, tailored to the individual needs of the young people involved who mature at different rates.
No you just switched the focus from Denmark to Croatia/Uruguay because you know very welly point about Denmark was correct. And the fact they "weren't able to" isn't "irrelevant".
The point wasn't correct, and my assertion was correct.
He has done it today though, I'm very used to it now to the point ive decided not to provide his attempts any oxygen.
My argument does stand to scrutiny, just check wikipedia and it'll back me up. Just because you dont like the answer it will provide doesnt mean it doesnt "stand up to scrutiny" Crafty.
Lads, I know there's been some calls for lighter touch moderation, but the argument about the argument is off topic and frankly stupid. Back on topic or take it to PMs.
You can't spell failure without FAI
This is great craic altogether!
CSAD, in all fairness, offering stats to support a counter-argument isn’t twisting truth, it’s just supporting an argument with data. You’re making it sound like Pineappler and our collective media have an agenda to actually improve conditions in Irish football just for the sheer disruptive contrarian heck of it, or are spurred on by some mystical sinister force (George Soros maybe?) determined to undermine John Delaney’s golden legacy.
I think we all agree and enjoy that the underage teams are doing well and that is proof that some things are done right. And the counter-factual - might it be better? - can’t be proven but would appear to be likely based on comparable countries’ experience. We have a deep on-the-ground football culture in this country so you’d expect a certain level of achievement but ultimately it’s a numbers game: the more kids that are well coached and that get the hours required the higher the potential standard of the system in general. I’d say that’s necessary but not sufficient. You need to add infrastructure, pathways, a functional national governance structure and all that too.
I think it’s a red herring that Croatia or Uruguay players faced legal impediments to moving abroad until 18. The point is that they didn’t all move abroad and it seems that benefitted them. Causation and correlation and all that notwithstanding.
And there’s nothing new in the observation that any small/mid-sized nation needs a core of good players peppered with some exceptional players to challenge at the very top.
I’d add an slightly ethereal factor at play too: culture. Much was made of Spain’s culture at the Euros, the shared national appreciation of how to play football, support teammates, find space etc. Spain’s culture was superior to England’s. Now obviously England has lots of coaches and academies and rarely export players abroad but I’d argue that it’s hard to create a culture without retaining players at home for longer and having lots of coaches teaching to a common philosophy. Denmark, Croatia and Uruguay are all countries with an identifiable and durable football culture.
If it was possible to run a regression analysis on the factors that contribute to a successful system I’d say the independent factors that some of us are citing would have high coefficients. Some of us are saying we’re doing OK despite obvious failings, whereas you seem to be saying relax, we’re doing fine, changes are only required at the margins.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks