|
On June 21 2015 18:59 Faruko wrote:
One can indeed ask more of Messi because he is Messi, and one has to agree that Argentina has (based on names alone) a top3 team, easily.
Its not like he is forced to play with 10 rocks at his side also, their mid-forward players are by far one of the best. For example, if you take Neymar and Dani Alves out of Brazil, give them a green shirt and you could easily pass them as Bulgary without Stoichkov (No offense), they are terrible, easily the worst Brazil ive seen (I mean, they are still brazil but you get what i mean...).
And while i do believe this is more od a coach problem, i cant believe those guys are force to play like that.
It is a coach problem, it has been for more than 10 years. Forcing him to play in an unnatural position and weighting him down alone with all the work he does not do alone in Barcelona is what I see as a bad decision.
Argentina has non existent midfield (not because the players are not there but instead because the strategy does not involve them as the center of creativity and they just play like appends of Messi), you can see how they throw the ball to Di maria to run and make a chip pass or Messi to do magic and create an opportunity.
That is why Pastore has so low impact and Gago, when he plays has a relatively bigger impact but just because he plays further back and the ball must go through him before reaching Messi, but again is Messi plus someone instead of three or four mid fields playing together to create opportunities for Messi, like it is done in Barcelona.
|
Edit: Double post.
On June 21 2015 19:42 Faruko wrote:
Those numbers doesnt add mmm
2010: 10 goals on the qualis
CA2011: 0 goals
WC2014: 4 goals
Where does the other 5 come from ? I tried to see the source (the one the argetinian site has) but it doesnt lead to anywhere
It could be either elimination stages of WC2014 or friendly matches, I am not sure, I did not check myself.
|
I mean, like i said i believe this is a coach problem (since Bielsa every single coach has been awful besides Sabella on 2014), most of the time it does feel they put 10 players on the field and expect them to do the same magic they do in each team.
Its that... I have hard time believing that Aguero, Di Maria, Higuain, Messi, Tevez, Pastore, Lavezzi, etc... Having a hard time creating chances and plays
Yeah, at the end... It is a coach problem.
|
On June 21 2015 19:48 Faruko wrote:
I mean, like i said i believe this is a coach problem (since Bielsa every single coach has been awful besides Sabella on 2014), most of the time it does feel they put 10 players on the field and expect them to do the same magic they do in each team.
Its that... I have hard time believing that Aguero, Di Maria, Higuain, Messi, Tevez, Pastore, Lavezzi, etc... Having a hard time creating chances and plays
Yeah, at the end... It is a coach problem.
I believe so too, I could say Pekerman did also a relatively good job.
I don't think those players have hard times creating chances, I think they were not given a specific way to do so, then they have to find it in the field. Also, it is not fair for a player who plays every day of his life in a position with an objective to be put somewhere else and give him a different directive then expect him to perform at the same level. Valid for Messi and for everyone else in that situation.
Argentina have low performance in a lot of players but I think that, as you say, it is due to coach decisions.
Martino also had a really bad season with Barcelona, the same team and players that won everything this year. My guess would be that Martino can't handle good players. He is good with average players and is able to get the most of them but not with better players. That seems to be the case up until now.
|
Racket, those stats are taken from an article from fivethirtyeight article last year around the time of the WC.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/
Nearly all the stats are based on shot efficiency - which is understandable given that it comes from Americans used to the analytics of NBA basketball where efficiency is everything. To say that Messi performs better for the NT than Ronaldo based on shot efficiency is a bit silly. This doesn't make as much sense in football as it does in basketball - 1 goal in 10 shots is as valuable as 1 goal in 2 shots if both lead to a final result of 1-0. The numbers don't take into account differences in playing style nor, for example, the fact that Ronaldo takes a higher volume of headers which naturally convert at a lower level.
|
On June 21 2015 20:37 warding wrote:Racket, those stats are taken from an article from fivethirtyeight article last year around the time of the WC. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/Nearly all the stats are based on shot efficiency - which is understandable given that it comes from Americans used to the analytics of NBA basketball where efficiency is everything. To say that Messi performs better for the NT than Ronaldo based on shot efficiency is a bit silly. This doesn't make as much sense in football as it does in basketball - 1 goal in 10 shots is as valuable as 1 goal in 2 shots if both lead to a final result of 1-0. The numbers don't take into account differences in playing style nor, for example, the fact that Ronaldo takes a higher volume of headers which naturally convert at a lower level.
The statistics are about the player and the impact he has on the game, not the result of those games. Of course, tactics and strategies are highly involved in the performance of the player, that is why in Argentina, Messi is always blamed because he does not perform as well as in Barcelona and the NT is never as effective as Barcelona.
That is the point, he is a good player and he makes his team perform better overall, but he can't do everything by himself and there is where you find that the team is as important as the player.
Both in Barcelona and NT he play against defensive tactics mostly, but Barcelona deals with that better than the NT, be it tactics, strategies or names.
Edit: Also, you do not find comparisons between forwards and defenders, so it is not so off the mark.
|
On June 21 2015 20:48 Racket wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 20:37 warding wrote:Racket, those stats are taken from an article from fivethirtyeight article last year around the time of the WC. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/Nearly all the stats are based on shot efficiency - which is understandable given that it comes from Americans used to the analytics of NBA basketball where efficiency is everything. To say that Messi performs better for the NT than Ronaldo based on shot efficiency is a bit silly. This doesn't make as much sense in football as it does in basketball - 1 goal in 10 shots is as valuable as 1 goal in 2 shots if both lead to a final result of 1-0. The numbers don't take into account differences in playing style nor, for example, the fact that Ronaldo takes a higher volume of headers which naturally convert at a lower level. The statistics are about the player and the impact he has on the game, not the result of those games. Of course, tactics and strategies are highly involved in the performance of the player, that is why in Argentina, Messi is always blamed because he does not perform as well as in Barcelona and the NT is never as effective as Barcelona. That is the point, he is a good player and he makes his team perform better overall, but he can't do everything by himself and there is where you find that the team is as important as the player. Both in Barcelona and NT he play against defensive tactics mostly, but Barcelona deals with that better than the NT, be it tactics, strategies or names. Edit: Also, you do not find comparisons between forwards and defenders, so it is not so off the mark.
Statistic tell nothing about the impact of player on the game, player with 0 touches of the ball can be the most impactful person on the pitch, as he can create space for teammates to score with good movement off the ball that absorbs defenders.
Or your DM with lots of tackles and interceptions and 100% tackle rate can be reason you lose because he hasn't backtracked after lost ball despite looking amazing in the stats. Lots of very importnat things isn't measurable by stats, also football stats are generally out of context.
|
On June 21 2015 21:04 lprk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 20:48 Racket wrote:On June 21 2015 20:37 warding wrote:Racket, those stats are taken from an article from fivethirtyeight article last year around the time of the WC. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lionel-messi-is-impossible/Nearly all the stats are based on shot efficiency - which is understandable given that it comes from Americans used to the analytics of NBA basketball where efficiency is everything. To say that Messi performs better for the NT than Ronaldo based on shot efficiency is a bit silly. This doesn't make as much sense in football as it does in basketball - 1 goal in 10 shots is as valuable as 1 goal in 2 shots if both lead to a final result of 1-0. The numbers don't take into account differences in playing style nor, for example, the fact that Ronaldo takes a higher volume of headers which naturally convert at a lower level. The statistics are about the player and the impact he has on the game, not the result of those games. Of course, tactics and strategies are highly involved in the performance of the player, that is why in Argentina, Messi is always blamed because he does not perform as well as in Barcelona and the NT is never as effective as Barcelona. That is the point, he is a good player and he makes his team perform better overall, but he can't do everything by himself and there is where you find that the team is as important as the player. Both in Barcelona and NT he play against defensive tactics mostly, but Barcelona deals with that better than the NT, be it tactics, strategies or names. Edit: Also, you do not find comparisons between forwards and defenders, so it is not so off the mark. Statistic tell nothing about the impact of player on the game, player with 0 touches of the ball can be the most impactful person on the pitch, as he can create space for teammates to score with good movement off the ball that absorbs defenders. Or your DM with lots of tackles and interceptions and 100% tackle rate can be reason you lose because he hasn't backtracked after lost ball despite looking amazing in the stats. Lots of very importnat things isn't measurable by stats, also football stats are generally out of context.
Ok
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
|
1:1 and 0:0 for the drawing of lots, it has to happen some time.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On June 21 2015 05:05 Mafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 04:18 TanGeng wrote:
One thing I always wonder about is why don't Copa America get the three Guyanas to field a team so they can invite 3 teams for NA/CA and get 4 groups.
Do Suriname, Guyana, French Guyana not have enough interest to field a football team?
From what I understand, these nations are culturally much closer to the caribbean than to the rest of south america. I think they once were colonies from uk, france and netherlands, while the current conmebol nations were spanish/portuguese colonies. This is still reflected by the languages today. Afaik the main sport in guyana at least is cricket, while many good suriname football players also are eligible for netherlands (and in the past have chosen the netherlands over suriname, according to wikipedia edgar davids, seedorf and hasselbaink were born in suriname). Same for french guyana and france I suppose. So they might essentially water down the niveau of the competition, while probably not being financially attractive inclusions either.
On June 21 2015 05:42 haitike wrote:
I investigated a little and 43% of Guyana population is descendent from Indian population, and 27% of Suriname too. In both countries Hindustani descendants are the biggest ethnic groups.
That can explain the Cricket popularity and lack of football insterest, the same that India xD
Surimane and Guyana are CONCACAF countries anyway, they play qualifiers for Golden Cup.
Thanks for being so informative!
Wow, How in the world did so many Hindus make it to Guyana.
|
Only an insane person would say that "Argentina's messi" could be the best player in the world, seriously. And use those specific numbers to have a claim that "that" Messi > Ronaldo on Madrid.
Damn Im surprised Mexico is out in 4th place!
|
On June 21 2015 23:42 Raidern wrote:
Only an insane person would say that "Argentina's messi" could be the best player in the world, seriously. And use those specific numbers to have a claim that "that" Messi > Ronaldo on Madrid.
Damn Im surprised Mexico is out in 4th place!
I don't say it, the numbers say it, numbers of a small sample, mostly not representative.
|
Yea keep 0.45 goal/match messi with 1 shoot/goal ratio. I'll have Ronaldo 1.1 goal/match with 0.02 shoot/goal ratio anytime.
|
On June 21 2015 23:54 Raidern wrote:
Yea keep 0.45 goal/match messi with 1 shoot/goal ratio. I'll have Ronaldo 1.1 goal/match with 0.02 shoot/goal ratio anytime.
Did you read the article?
If Argentina instead of reaching the finals would have dropped on group stages they could not claim that.
You have to read the article, stop arguing with me, I didn't write the article.
|
On June 21 2015 23:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 05:05 Mafe wrote:On June 21 2015 04:18 TanGeng wrote:
One thing I always wonder about is why don't Copa America get the three Guyanas to field a team so they can invite 3 teams for NA/CA and get 4 groups.
Do Suriname, Guyana, French Guyana not have enough interest to field a football team?
From what I understand, these nations are culturally much closer to the caribbean than to the rest of south america. I think they once were colonies from uk, france and netherlands, while the current conmebol nations were spanish/portuguese colonies. This is still reflected by the languages today. Afaik the main sport in guyana at least is cricket, while many good suriname football players also are eligible for netherlands (and in the past have chosen the netherlands over suriname, according to wikipedia edgar davids, seedorf and hasselbaink were born in suriname). Same for french guyana and france I suppose. So they might essentially water down the niveau of the competition, while probably not being financially attractive inclusions either. Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 05:42 haitike wrote:
I investigated a little and 43% of Guyana population is descendent from Indian population, and 27% of Suriname too. In both countries Hindustani descendants are the biggest ethnic groups.
That can explain the Cricket popularity and lack of football insterest, the same that India xD
Surimane and Guyana are CONCACAF countries anyway, they play qualifiers for Golden Cup. Thanks for being so informative! Wow, How in the world did so many Hindus make it to Guyana.
When slavery was abolished, the black African slaves of Guyana left the plantations and went to villages and towns. As Britain needed new workers for the sugar plantations, and India was a British colony too, they migrated hindu unemployed workers to work on Guyana for a very low salary.
|
I can't read spanish, i can only understand isolated sentences. I read your tldr though.
|
On June 22 2015 00:14 Raidern wrote:
I can't read spanish, i can only understand isolated sentences. I read your tldr though.
There it is in english.
|
On June 22 2015 00:01 haitike wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 23:29 TanGeng wrote:On June 21 2015 05:05 Mafe wrote:On June 21 2015 04:18 TanGeng wrote:
One thing I always wonder about is why don't Copa America get the three Guyanas to field a team so they can invite 3 teams for NA/CA and get 4 groups.
Do Suriname, Guyana, French Guyana not have enough interest to field a football team?
From what I understand, these nations are culturally much closer to the caribbean than to the rest of south america. I think they once were colonies from uk, france and netherlands, while the current conmebol nations were spanish/portuguese colonies. This is still reflected by the languages today. Afaik the main sport in guyana at least is cricket, while many good suriname football players also are eligible for netherlands (and in the past have chosen the netherlands over suriname, according to wikipedia edgar davids, seedorf and hasselbaink were born in suriname). Same for french guyana and france I suppose. So they might essentially water down the niveau of the competition, while probably not being financially attractive inclusions either. On June 21 2015 05:42 haitike wrote:
I investigated a little and 43% of Guyana population is descendent from Indian population, and 27% of Suriname too. In both countries Hindustani descendants are the biggest ethnic groups.
That can explain the Cricket popularity and lack of football insterest, the same that India xD
Surimane and Guyana are CONCACAF countries anyway, they play qualifiers for Golden Cup. Thanks for being so informative! Wow, How in the world did so many Hindus make it to Guyana. When slavery was abolished, the black African slaves of Guyana left the plantations and went to villages and towns. As Britain needed new workers for the sugar plantations, and India was a British colony too, they migrated hindu unemployed workers to work on Guyana for a very low salary.
Ahh I see. I guess it's the same reason so many Africans made it to the Americas. Thanks!
|
On June 21 2015 23:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 05:05 Mafe wrote:On June 21 2015 04:18 TanGeng wrote:
One thing I always wonder about is why don't Copa America get the three Guyanas to field a team so they can invite 3 teams for NA/CA and get 4 groups.
Do Suriname, Guyana, French Guyana not have enough interest to field a football team?
From what I understand, these nations are culturally much closer to the caribbean than to the rest of south america. I think they once were colonies from uk, france and netherlands, while the current conmebol nations were spanish/portuguese colonies. This is still reflected by the languages today. Afaik the main sport in guyana at least is cricket, while many good suriname football players also are eligible for netherlands (and in the past have chosen the netherlands over suriname, according to wikipedia edgar davids, seedorf and hasselbaink were born in suriname). Same for french guyana and france I suppose. So they might essentially water down the niveau of the competition, while probably not being financially attractive inclusions either. Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 05:42 haitike wrote:
I investigated a little and 43% of Guyana population is descendent from Indian population, and 27% of Suriname too. In both countries Hindustani descendants are the biggest ethnic groups.
That can explain the Cricket popularity and lack of football insterest, the same that India xD
Surimane and Guyana are CONCACAF countries anyway, they play qualifiers for Golden Cup. Thanks for being so informative! Wow, How in the world did so many Hindus make it to Guyana.
Oh I could have told you that since I am probably the only person on TL who watches as much cricket as football lol.
East African (Tanzania, Madagascar, even South Africa) as well as some Islands in the Caribbean had alot of Indian immigrants from the colonial era. Basically the British brought their peons and servants and soldiers along and they just stayed. Guyana is where they all ended up convering on.
The only thing the Caribbean Islands do as one nation is play cricket. Its literally the only thing they do together and are called "The West Indies".
Especially Christian Indians from early portuguese settlements from Goa etc on the east side of Indias coast (the easiest place to sail from)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/ix8sb/4d551c5ad9.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/ix8tx/fc6131ec34.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/ix8uV/df8dac7afc.png)
