| A learning experience - Report on 09:41 - Sep 6 with 1403 views | francisbowles |
| A learning experience - Report on 01:13 - Sep 6 by stainrods_elbow |
Thanks for the microlecture on the importance of critical thinking, but at least I took the trouble to produce some statistical analysis, which is more than I've seen from other posters here, my intention with which was to talk about the pace of the game as well. I find this data interesting rather than random. My other (mostly unanswered) points about how the game has got easier for modern players stand regardless.
I don't buy into the contemporary tendency to treat modern footballers as snowflakes who can't possibly be expected to string three properly energised performances together in a week, have given several fairly straightforward reasons for that view, and don't see too much reason to revise that view, that's all. It hardly makes me a controversialist, just not a slavish conformist. If others want to identify with the downward direction of 'expectation management' in the modern game, that's up to them, but I won't be joining them. The players should have done better at Swansea, end of story, so bite me! [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 1:14]
|
Tactical R has produced a stat above which perfectly illustrates how the game has changed.
It's not just the games either, the warm ups and cool downs are much longer, in fact they barely existed in the 70s. Yes they are to prepare and recover but they are still physical effort.
Training is the same when they can fit it in. Which is extremely difficult in a three game week. it is no longer just kicking a ball around and/or a few laps of the pitch.
Cumulative fatigue is a thing whether or not you are buying into it. Every single sporting coach would understand this. |  | |  |
| A learning experience - Report on 10:24 - Sep 6 with 1323 views | stainrods_elbow |
| A learning experience - Report on 09:41 - Sep 6 by francisbowles |
Tactical R has produced a stat above which perfectly illustrates how the game has changed.
It's not just the games either, the warm ups and cool downs are much longer, in fact they barely existed in the 70s. Yes they are to prepare and recover but they are still physical effort.
Training is the same when they can fit it in. Which is extremely difficult in a three game week. it is no longer just kicking a ball around and/or a few laps of the pitch.
Cumulative fatigue is a thing whether or not you are buying into it. Every single sporting coach would understand this. |
Good god. some people really do just go on in the belief that if they insist on something often enough, it magically becomes true.
As for yuor parody of former training regimes in the pro game, Dave Sexton, one of the great innovators and hardest-working coaches of his time, would be spinning in his grave. Do you really think that great side worked less hard in training than the 2022/23 iteration? Give me a break!
Three games a week has been going on for decades in pro football, ffs, and in fact often clubs played more games in the past, with cup replays and so on. With smaller squads and next to 'rotation' for said cups. On far worse pitches. With much more danger to limb if not life from the agricultural aspects of the game. In games where the ball was typically in play for a lot longer, when shithousery/timewasting was minimal. With much poorer medical/nutritional support. Give me strength!
The biggest thing that's changed in the modern game is we've been educated to expect less from it, with fan buy-in to same probably to help some of us dilute (or sublimate) their own anger and disappointments. As often as not, football is much more of a rip-off than it was, price-wise and everything else. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 10:55]
|  |
| |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:02 - Sep 6 with 1311 views | francisbowles |
| A learning experience - Report on 10:24 - Sep 6 by stainrods_elbow |
Good god. some people really do just go on in the belief that if they insist on something often enough, it magically becomes true.
As for yuor parody of former training regimes in the pro game, Dave Sexton, one of the great innovators and hardest-working coaches of his time, would be spinning in his grave. Do you really think that great side worked less hard in training than the 2022/23 iteration? Give me a break!
Three games a week has been going on for decades in pro football, ffs, and in fact often clubs played more games in the past, with cup replays and so on. With smaller squads and next to 'rotation' for said cups. On far worse pitches. With much more danger to limb if not life from the agricultural aspects of the game. In games where the ball was typically in play for a lot longer, when shithousery/timewasting was minimal. With much poorer medical/nutritional support. Give me strength!
The biggest thing that's changed in the modern game is we've been educated to expect less from it, with fan buy-in to same probably to help some of us dilute (or sublimate) their own anger and disappointments. As often as not, football is much more of a rip-off than it was, price-wise and everything else. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 10:55]
|
........and some people think if they repeat the same nonsense enough, it will become true.
Look I watched Rangers in the 70s and most of what you say about pitches, tackles etc, I don't disagree with.
However, as has been illustrated by the evidence that Tactical R posted, which you have not commented on, it is fact that modern players cover far greater distances and, as you have conceded, it is a at a greater intensity or higher speed. When they train properly, I would suggest, it is similar.
The Great Dave Sexton and Gordon Jago, I feel sure, would concede that the game, with the sports science knowledge about fitness now available, is far more advanced in all ways. I also believe that they would have embraced the ever increasing use of this information and the changes that leads to. Whether it is better or not, especially from a spectator POV is open to debate and personal preference.;
At the end of all this REST is key to performance. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:15 - Sep 6 with 1302 views | TeddRanger |
| A learning experience - Report on 09:56 - Sep 5 by TeddRanger |
Interesting debate to be had about the standard of football in the Championship.
For me, it's (mainly) a very good product. The skills on display and the overall "watch" are light years better than the channel ball hoofing of 10-15 years ago.
Not hard to see why- the standard of players in the prem has got better and better and players that once would've made the cut at that level are now plying their trade in the Championship. |
I was interested in your take on this Clive given these two sentences:
a product where everybody is basically as shit as everybody else.
the result is an already poor product goes further south still — injuries stack up, players play on the needle, and while tired and as the weather turns and the pitches start to cut up you end up with, frankly, a footballing slop, difficult to sit through for 90 minutes even if you care about and are invested in the outcome.
I take it you disagree with my view that the product is a much better watch than 10-15 years ago? | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:21 - Sep 6 with 1297 views | Northernr |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:15 - Sep 6 by TeddRanger |
I was interested in your take on this Clive given these two sentences:
a product where everybody is basically as shit as everybody else.
the result is an already poor product goes further south still — injuries stack up, players play on the needle, and while tired and as the weather turns and the pitches start to cut up you end up with, frankly, a footballing slop, difficult to sit through for 90 minutes even if you care about and are invested in the outcome.
I take it you disagree with my view that the product is a much better watch than 10-15 years ago? |
I think it's much the same to be honest, mainly sludge back then with the occasional good game or player, and mainly sludge now. I find myself very bored and frustrated watching a great deal of football at this level, even when I've got huge emotional investment in the outcome.
One thing that has changed that I agree with in your first post is there's more attempt to play 'football' rather than channel ball. Lot more teams like Swansea at this level. But, again, does that necessarily mean better? Neil Warnock said don't pass the ball in your own half, don't give it to Adel there etc, best season of QPR football I've watched in about 20 years. Swansea I find dull as hell.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:17 - Sep 6 with 1227 views | stainrods_elbow |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:02 - Sep 6 by francisbowles |
........and some people think if they repeat the same nonsense enough, it will become true.
Look I watched Rangers in the 70s and most of what you say about pitches, tackles etc, I don't disagree with.
However, as has been illustrated by the evidence that Tactical R posted, which you have not commented on, it is fact that modern players cover far greater distances and, as you have conceded, it is a at a greater intensity or higher speed. When they train properly, I would suggest, it is similar.
The Great Dave Sexton and Gordon Jago, I feel sure, would concede that the game, with the sports science knowledge about fitness now available, is far more advanced in all ways. I also believe that they would have embraced the ever increasing use of this information and the changes that leads to. Whether it is better or not, especially from a spectator POV is open to debate and personal preference.;
At the end of all this REST is key to performance. |
| |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:20 - Sep 6 with 1216 views | stainrods_elbow |
What's most noteworthy is how dogmatists and highminded/superior 'realists' like you present interpretation (of the allegedly good reasons - actually only one reason - as to why modern footballers can't manage the same, or often lighter, working schedules as in the past), as if it were fact. My view is just that - a view - though one which I have given several strands of evidence for, most of which neither you (nor anyone else) have 'commented on', so I suggest you go away and have a think. You can disagree with it if you wish, but telling people that they're wrong on a topic like fatigue and the use made of such an excuse for sub-par performances that is largely contestable, tends to be symptomatic of the age in which we live, where people confuse views with objective realities. The amazing thing is that any of this actually needs pointing out.
In short, learn a bit of history, cultivate some hermeneutical suspicion (as any good journalist should, as I presume Clive will have to agree) and try to realise how manufactured and manipulated perception is in these things - then you may find people pulling the wool over your eyes less often! | |
| |
| A learning experience - Report on 12:36 - Sep 6 with 1184 views | stainrods_elbow |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:02 - Sep 6 by francisbowles |
........and some people think if they repeat the same nonsense enough, it will become true.
Look I watched Rangers in the 70s and most of what you say about pitches, tackles etc, I don't disagree with.
However, as has been illustrated by the evidence that Tactical R posted, which you have not commented on, it is fact that modern players cover far greater distances and, as you have conceded, it is a at a greater intensity or higher speed. When they train properly, I would suggest, it is similar.
The Great Dave Sexton and Gordon Jago, I feel sure, would concede that the game, with the sports science knowledge about fitness now available, is far more advanced in all ways. I also believe that they would have embraced the ever increasing use of this information and the changes that leads to. Whether it is better or not, especially from a spectator POV is open to debate and personal preference.;
At the end of all this REST is key to performance. |
What's most noteworthy is how dogmatists and highminded/superior 'realists' like you present interpretation (of the allegedly good reasons - actually only one reason - as to why modern footballers can't manage the same, or often lighter, working schedules as in the past), as if it were fact. My view is just that - a view - though one which I have given several strands of evidence for, most of which neither you (nor anyone else) have 'commented on', so I suggest you go away and have a think. You can disagree with it if you wish, but telling people that they're spouting 'nonsense' on a topic like fatigue and the use made of such an excuse for sub-par performances that is largely contestable, tends to be symptomatic of the age in which we live, where people confuse views with objective realities and impugn the rest, nonsensically. The amazing thing is that any of this actually needs pointing out.
In short, learn a bit of history, cultivate some hermeneutical suspicion (as any good journalist should, as I presume Clive will have to agree) and try to realise how manufactured, manipulated and continuously revised perception is in these things - then you may find people pulling the wool over your eyes less often! The thing that makes me smile here is those one or two who tell me I'm only a 70s nostalgic while being completely blind to the ways in which they themselves are so conditioned by/susceptible to the enforced conformities of their own times. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 12:40]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A learning experience - Report on 14:11 - Sep 6 with 1143 views | PinnerPaul |
I'm more with than against SE on this one.
But think he and his opponents are using the wrong comparison, we should be comparing Swansea's workload with ours.
They had two away games prior to Saturday, and we had one home and one round the corner.
No reason on earth why we should be any more 'tired' than them, not that Mick Beale really phrased it like that. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:22 - Sep 6 with 1133 views | Northernr |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:11 - Sep 6 by PinnerPaul |
I'm more with than against SE on this one.
But think he and his opponents are using the wrong comparison, we should be comparing Swansea's workload with ours.
They had two away games prior to Saturday, and we had one home and one round the corner.
No reason on earth why we should be any more 'tired' than them, not that Mick Beale really phrased it like that. |
They made changes though, we didn't. That's the point that Beale made, and that I've made. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:25 - Sep 6 with 1121 views | PinnerPaul |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:22 - Sep 6 by Northernr |
They made changes though, we didn't. That's the point that Beale made, and that I've made. |
Yes that's fair enough, but presume they didn't make 11 of them? | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:43 - Sep 6 with 1097 views | Northernr |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:25 - Sep 6 by PinnerPaul |
Yes that's fair enough, but presume they didn't make 11 of them? |
No they didn't. Four I think, different keeper, Darling and Fulton to the bench, Paterson in from the start, Ntcham and Obafemi dropped entirely, two players making a debut off the bench. Just a freshener. Which I believe is what Beale's said we could have done with in hindsight, and I think was pretty obvious looking at the way our midfield played compared to the prior two games. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:58 - Sep 6 with 1060 views | PinnerPaul |
| A learning experience - Report on 14:43 - Sep 6 by Northernr |
No they didn't. Four I think, different keeper, Darling and Fulton to the bench, Paterson in from the start, Ntcham and Obafemi dropped entirely, two players making a debut off the bench. Just a freshener. Which I believe is what Beale's said we could have done with in hindsight, and I think was pretty obvious looking at the way our midfield played compared to the prior two games. |
Fair enough. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:01 - Sep 6 with 1057 views | Benny_the_Ball |
Interesting as these stats may be, you can't compare Serie A to the Championship. |  | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:11 - Sep 6 with 1029 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| A learning experience - Report on 09:41 - Sep 6 by francisbowles |
Tactical R has produced a stat above which perfectly illustrates how the game has changed.
It's not just the games either, the warm ups and cool downs are much longer, in fact they barely existed in the 70s. Yes they are to prepare and recover but they are still physical effort.
Training is the same when they can fit it in. Which is extremely difficult in a three game week. it is no longer just kicking a ball around and/or a few laps of the pitch.
Cumulative fatigue is a thing whether or not you are buying into it. Every single sporting coach would understand this. |
With all due respect, he's produced a stat which illustrates how football in Serie A has changed. In the 1970s Italian football was like a game of chess. Tactically it's even less relevant to today's Championship than comparisons with English football in the 1970s. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:51 - Sep 6 with 970 views | TeddRanger |
| A learning experience - Report on 11:21 - Sep 6 by Northernr |
I think it's much the same to be honest, mainly sludge back then with the occasional good game or player, and mainly sludge now. I find myself very bored and frustrated watching a great deal of football at this level, even when I've got huge emotional investment in the outcome.
One thing that has changed that I agree with in your first post is there's more attempt to play 'football' rather than channel ball. Lot more teams like Swansea at this level. But, again, does that necessarily mean better? Neil Warnock said don't pass the ball in your own half, don't give it to Adel there etc, best season of QPR football I've watched in about 20 years. Swansea I find dull as hell.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to watch Swansea every week either. Deadly dull. And watching Adel was the best thing I've seen in 20 years.( albeit far, far away from channel ball that it was)
I still contend that the vast majority of teams play a style that's far easier on the eye than 10-15 years ago.
What has got worse is the timewasting. Balances itself out, I guess? | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:55 - Sep 6 with 939 views | stainrods_elbow |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:51 - Sep 6 by TeddRanger |
I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to watch Swansea every week either. Deadly dull. And watching Adel was the best thing I've seen in 20 years.( albeit far, far away from channel ball that it was)
I still contend that the vast majority of teams play a style that's far easier on the eye than 10-15 years ago.
What has got worse is the timewasting. Balances itself out, I guess? |
I'd say all the timewasting/shithousery, fake injuries/ water breaks etc. etc. do a great deal to balance out some players running around a bit more than they did. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 21:41]
| |
| |
| A learning experience - Report on 16:01 - Sep 6 with 934 views | Northernr |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:51 - Sep 6 by TeddRanger |
I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to watch Swansea every week either. Deadly dull. And watching Adel was the best thing I've seen in 20 years.( albeit far, far away from channel ball that it was)
I still contend that the vast majority of teams play a style that's far easier on the eye than 10-15 years ago.
What has got worse is the timewasting. Balances itself out, I guess? |
Yeh, and again seeing the ball in play around 50% of the time, lowest of any European league, speaks to what a dire watch it is much of the time. | | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 16:18 - Sep 6 with 901 views | francisbowles |
| A learning experience - Report on 12:36 - Sep 6 by stainrods_elbow |
What's most noteworthy is how dogmatists and highminded/superior 'realists' like you present interpretation (of the allegedly good reasons - actually only one reason - as to why modern footballers can't manage the same, or often lighter, working schedules as in the past), as if it were fact. My view is just that - a view - though one which I have given several strands of evidence for, most of which neither you (nor anyone else) have 'commented on', so I suggest you go away and have a think. You can disagree with it if you wish, but telling people that they're spouting 'nonsense' on a topic like fatigue and the use made of such an excuse for sub-par performances that is largely contestable, tends to be symptomatic of the age in which we live, where people confuse views with objective realities and impugn the rest, nonsensically. The amazing thing is that any of this actually needs pointing out.
In short, learn a bit of history, cultivate some hermeneutical suspicion (as any good journalist should, as I presume Clive will have to agree) and try to realise how manufactured, manipulated and continuously revised perception is in these things - then you may find people pulling the wool over your eyes less often! The thing that makes me smile here is those one or two who tell me I'm only a 70s nostalgic while being completely blind to the ways in which they themselves are so conditioned by/susceptible to the enforced conformities of their own times. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 12:40]
|
Firstly, I don't need to learn a bit of history. I have been watching the game since the '66 world cup, probably about the same time as you.
Secondly, I am not, don't profess to be and it's a bit late in life now to become a journalist.
Thirdly, I have a little knowledge of the science from helping a young athlete with a club that was among the top three in the country.
You are disagreeing with the stated views almost everybody involved with the professional game and the vast majority of other sports as well. I am not a 'high minded superior realist'. I am simply agreeing with the up to date evidence and those that present it and utilise it. What makes you think as a fan that you know better than them?
Play too frequently and you will go stale. Play too frequently and struggle to get enough rest and recovery time and you will also fatigue. It makes it more difficult to execute a peak performance. If that makes me a dogmatist then bow wow.  [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 16:19]
| | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 16:20 - Sep 6 with 895 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| A learning experience - Report on 15:55 - Sep 6 by stainrods_elbow |
I'd say all the timewasting/shithousery, fake injuries/ water breaks etc. etc. do a great deal to balance out some players running around a bit more than they did. [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 21:41]
|
I'm not convinced that this in itself balances things out as referees add on more time than they used to. However I do agree that back in the day squads were much smaller, the pitches were in worse condition and aggressive tackling legal.
In addition, there were fewer substitutes. In the 1970s only 1 sub was allowed. This was increased to 2 in 1988 and then 3 in 1995. This season managers can make up to 5 substitutions plus an additional one in the event of a head concussion.
All of the above for me somewhat counter balances the simple assertion that the game is faster and therefore players more vulnerable to injury/fatigue/stress. For me it's more about asset protection and insurance implications. Sports science exists as much to support this as to maximise performance. Players are now trading for huge fees and earning wages that were unheard of in the 1970s. With budgets under pressure, the modern club is now more focussed on trying to protect its assets by not unnecessarily overburdening players.
On a lighter note, can you imagine a sports scientist advising Brian Clough not to select a player because his stats show that he's operating at 85%?  [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 17:08]
| | | |
| A learning experience - Report on 21:48 - Sep 6 with 734 views | stainrods_elbow |
| A learning experience - Report on 16:20 - Sep 6 by Benny_the_Ball |
I'm not convinced that this in itself balances things out as referees add on more time than they used to. However I do agree that back in the day squads were much smaller, the pitches were in worse condition and aggressive tackling legal.
In addition, there were fewer substitutes. In the 1970s only 1 sub was allowed. This was increased to 2 in 1988 and then 3 in 1995. This season managers can make up to 5 substitutions plus an additional one in the event of a head concussion.
All of the above for me somewhat counter balances the simple assertion that the game is faster and therefore players more vulnerable to injury/fatigue/stress. For me it's more about asset protection and insurance implications. Sports science exists as much to support this as to maximise performance. Players are now trading for huge fees and earning wages that were unheard of in the 1970s. With budgets under pressure, the modern club is now more focussed on trying to protect its assets by not unnecessarily overburdening players.
On a lighter note, can you imagine a sports scientist advising Brian Clough not to select a player because his stats show that he's operating at 85%? [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 17:08]
|
Thanks for some balanced sanity at last. I hadn't even thought to mention the ridiculously large number of subs now permitted, which Clive himself has critiqued elsewhere, if memory serves. (Sometimes I don't think it's what one says on this board but who says it that matters to some, but I'll leave that for now.) To repeat, just because some players run around more and the game's a bit faster, when juxtaposed with the numerous other factors I and one or two others have cited, makes it ridiculously simplistic to keep insisting that modern players get more tired more easily for this one reason alone. Since pro football is mostly a far more monetised business now than in the past, it is indeed also a matter of asset protection - something the snowflakes also egregiously overlook. The business of 'protecting' players now extends, as we know, season after season at QPR as well as elswwhere, to undermining a club's competitiveness in cup competions thereby disrespecting the game and taking fans for mugs.
This is just one example of what I mean by fans being conditioned to accept a different kind of compromised product in such a way they don't even notice their minds have been changed, i.e. through the application of a 'boiling frog syndrome'. Can you imagine, for exmample, the thought of Manchester United being permitted by the FA to withdraw from the F A Cup in 1999-2000 (the Cup holders no less) crossing anyone's radar in the 70s, 80s or 90s? The game in the past had different values - not all great, but many that were - but one needs to have watched it for a long time to understand this. It's sold its soul slowly, and is now so mired in money and corruption it's probably irreclaimable. The shutout and tear-gassing of Liverpool fans at the European Cup Final in Paris, the pinnacle contest in European football, really brought home how fans now are seen as both an inconvenience and a threat. The game isn't for us - it simulates being for us. I suspect the football authorties would have been delighted for the pandemic to have been declared perpetual and football grounds just to go on with fake fans and fake noise for the rest of time.
Why do I still follow QPR, you may ask? Because (my) love is a sickness, and there's no cure for it. The blue-and-white bastards! [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 22:03]
| |
| |
| A learning experience - Report on 16:21 - Sep 7 with 541 views | Damo1962 |
| A learning experience - Report on 21:48 - Sep 6 by stainrods_elbow |
Thanks for some balanced sanity at last. I hadn't even thought to mention the ridiculously large number of subs now permitted, which Clive himself has critiqued elsewhere, if memory serves. (Sometimes I don't think it's what one says on this board but who says it that matters to some, but I'll leave that for now.) To repeat, just because some players run around more and the game's a bit faster, when juxtaposed with the numerous other factors I and one or two others have cited, makes it ridiculously simplistic to keep insisting that modern players get more tired more easily for this one reason alone. Since pro football is mostly a far more monetised business now than in the past, it is indeed also a matter of asset protection - something the snowflakes also egregiously overlook. The business of 'protecting' players now extends, as we know, season after season at QPR as well as elswwhere, to undermining a club's competitiveness in cup competions thereby disrespecting the game and taking fans for mugs.
This is just one example of what I mean by fans being conditioned to accept a different kind of compromised product in such a way they don't even notice their minds have been changed, i.e. through the application of a 'boiling frog syndrome'. Can you imagine, for exmample, the thought of Manchester United being permitted by the FA to withdraw from the F A Cup in 1999-2000 (the Cup holders no less) crossing anyone's radar in the 70s, 80s or 90s? The game in the past had different values - not all great, but many that were - but one needs to have watched it for a long time to understand this. It's sold its soul slowly, and is now so mired in money and corruption it's probably irreclaimable. The shutout and tear-gassing of Liverpool fans at the European Cup Final in Paris, the pinnacle contest in European football, really brought home how fans now are seen as both an inconvenience and a threat. The game isn't for us - it simulates being for us. I suspect the football authorties would have been delighted for the pandemic to have been declared perpetual and football grounds just to go on with fake fans and fake noise for the rest of time.
Why do I still follow QPR, you may ask? Because (my) love is a sickness, and there's no cure for it. The blue-and-white bastards! [Post edited 6 Sep 2022 22:03]
|
That last sentence is so true. Shame football has become what it is. It's not the "beautiful game" for me anymore...that's for sure. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
