Age Concern For Robin
While I'm sure some of the language may have been appropriated from loftier sources, I'd like to commend published today. I've been an avid reader of pretty much everything F365 has posted over the past 10 years, and I cannot remember a better written and (gasp) more moving article written on the subject of ageing players.
The list of players who objectively improved in their later years is relatively scant, particularly with today's microscopic study of any and all measureable variables in a player's game. Improvement in later years is often put down to a better understanding of the game, the fabled "football brain", which, particularly for attacking players, is by oft associated with increasing subtlety in a player, highlighted by greater efficiency in movement and use of the ball, both of which will reduce what seems to be key statistics in today's game; touches and distance covered.
As the game becomes more and more of an athletic contest, with supposed superhuman athletes like Ronaldo and Bale providing a template for the modern player, one hopes that there will always be room for a veteran in any team, someone that the fans can relate to, particularly those of us the wrong side of 30 with dodgy knees and sore backs.
Do not go quietly into that good night Robin...
...Reading your , I don't feel gives him the credit he deserves. Yes, it hasn't been a great season for him by any stretch. Just to kick the elephant out of the room, no I do not want him in the United starting XI for the City game.
Coming back from two injuries (I think....) is hard for any player, especially a player who is as broken as RVP. That one season for United (he was the top goal scorer) has been his only non-injury season and he performed at a top level. This season he has played 24 games and scored 10 coming back from injuries this is normally a promising record.
As heis a striker lets rate him on goals, he is the second top goal scorer for United, so why shouldn't he have his chance to play? Looking at the fantasy league he is joint third on points (with Mata.....when did that happen...?) for United
The article says they gained more points without RVP than with, however those games with RVP we were trying to force the 3-5-2 (not the 3-4-3 which spanked Madrid pre season...) and then the diamond 4-1-2-1-2 which was nice but at a very slow pace. You cant blame a striker for slow build up play, especially as I imagine he was the top scorer for United at the time.
He shouldn't start in the starting XI as United seem to have found their flow without him. Give him a chance to prove himself, stick him back into this 4-3-3 and I don't think United would suffer to badly.
Stoky-Boy
Cream. Sh-Boogie Bop
The topic du jour right now appears to be Greg Dyke and how we do what we can to make sure that talented English youngsters realise their potential and so give us a chance to do well in international competitions. Now this is a complex situation and when presented with complex situations my modus operandi is to analyse it and get to the very crux of the matter. I have found this approach has served me well. So in this situation I believe the overriding issue is this - does the cream rise to the top?
The issue of foreigners in England has been around for quite a while now but I have always felt that if a player was good enough then they are very likely to find their way somehow into a position where they will be recognised as such. Yes, some clubs give opportunities to youngsters more than others but if a player is good enough he will be wanted elsewhere and given a chance to show what he can do. So, am I right to think this? In terms of England squads we really only need 40-50 making regular appearances in the Premier League to choose from as in theory these should be the best available to us no matter what. Who cares if foreigners are taking every other space available as they're only blocking players we probably don't need because there are 40-50 better than them?
Until (who else) Harry Kane and to a lesser extent Ryan Mason came along I was pretty convinced I was right. These players were not getting the opportunity to show what they could do, their cream hadn't risen, so to speak. Perhaps they would have genuinely benefitted from quotas that maybe would have artificially got them onto the pitch but once there their performances speak for themselves. I'm struggling to come to a definitive conclusion here because probably there isn't one. Where there is no doubt though is looking at a different solution to the problems of the England team. A year ago Greg Dyke made some comments that completely missed the mark. I wrote a mail to you that wasn't printed (a fate likely to be shared with this one) that he should be concentrating on grass roots coaching where skillful, technical players were prioritised over those who happened to be bigger or faster than the rest. If we can improve this situation then it matters less whether or not their route to the top is impeded by a foreigner or two because we will have more cream to begin with.
Jim, Stansted
Thinking about Greg Dyke's war to rid English football of johnny foreigner's campaign of forcing the English national team to bottle every major international tournament they compete in since the birth of the PL era, perhaps a compromise could be found.
Of course the influence of foreign players should have evolved young English players technique and raised the bar and added quality to the top league. However there does appear to be a lot of rubbish being imported at the same time. That is unavoidable in some cases. The reason is probably due to English players premium price tags.
How about a registration tax on imports? Not sure on the rates. 50% would seem high but discounts could be applied for international caps etc. Maybe the clubs will only go for the best foreign talent or be forced to consider taking a chance on young English players instead of risking higher costs on exotic but sometimes fruitless investments.
Dickie
...In response to Mike, Edinburgh, I want to cite the example that you used. Coquelin is another success story, but he is not English. Kane is phenomenal, while Mason has been good but great. More impressive than Mason (and a player that Sherwood can actually take credit for) is Nabil Bentaleb. He has been crucial for the Spurs midfield, but again, he is not English.
Young players are certainly being given a chance, but seems like the English ones just aren't making the cut. Take a look at Chambers, a youngster given a run in the Arsenal first team before being overshadowed by the very impressive and very French Bellerin.
Like it has been mentioned time and time again, it's a coaching problem, not a foreigners-taking-our-jobs problem. Take a look at recent young English players who have/are getting first team football and what they bring to their teams. Kyle Walker, Danny Rose, Andros Townsend, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Theo Walcott - all very fast.
Walcott was often criticised for poor finishing and crossing, Rose and Walker have been called in this very mailbox the worst full back fairing in the league, Townsend is horrible, we all know what happened with Andy Carroll, etc. But at least they've got a bit of pace right? And don't forget about midfield stars Livermore and Rodwell. At the same time, players like Mata and Berbatov are lambasted for their lack of pace despite oozing skill with the ball.
Removing foreigners doesn't make Kyle Walker a good full-back or Smalling as good as Varane. It's only going to force Chelsea to sign Matt Jarvis instead of Cuadrado as a backup winger. And honestly, Kane was a total fluke. He didn't impress in any of his loan spells and no one could have seen his form coming. He must've made a deal with the devil or something.
Carlos, Peru
Ta Ra, Theo
If Theo is right, and there is no rift regarding his contract, then the only reason he is not starting is that he isn't rated as highly as the players that are. With Sanchez, Cazorla and Ozil, that's fair enough, but Danny Welbeck and the Ox (when fit) were being picked ahead of him. He is now at the same level in the pecking order as 34-year-old Rosicky.
If we get a decent offer this summer, I can see Theo on his way out. I'm not sure how I feel about this because I think he does offer something the others don't with his excellent running off the ball, but I guess maybe Wenger has finally had enough and no longer thinks we need him.
Adonis (is the proper football back yet?) Stevenson, AFC
Hart Problem
The reason (English) people view Joe Hart with "widespread disdain" - an exaggeration, I think, but anyway - is the same reason English football fans eventually view the majority of their players with widespread disdain.
A few years ago, commentators, pundits and those fans who had apparently never seen any other goalkeepers play were regularly referring to Hart Dog as the best goalkeeper in the world. This was ludicrous. It then turned out he wasn't that good, so the fans swung the exaggeration dial back the other way and decided he was rubbish and also a bit of a nob. This is forever and ever the pattern of English football fans with newly emerging players. Say they're the best something in the world, realise they're not, get angry about it.
From reading your mailbox the last week or so, it seems it's already started to happen with poor little Raheem Sterling and the guy's barely 20. At least Hart Dog got past his mid-twenties before everyone dismissed him.
Stephen O'S, MUFC
Retro Action
The red card that was originally shown to Gareth McAuley has been transferred to his team-mate Craig Dawson. Referee Neil Swarbrick admitted that he made a mistake in incorrectly identifying McAuley as the guilty party. How did Neil come to this realisation? Did he have a post match epiphany whereby the heavens were opened and his mistake was revealed to him? Was he told unanimously by all of his friends and family, by well-wishers and passersby that he had made a mistake, causing him to bow to overwhelming pressure and changing his decision? Or is it just possible, however far-fetched and ridiculous this may sound, that he watched a replay of the incident? Watching a replay would have given him empirical evidence that the decision he made on the field was incorrect. Without a replay it's all just a matter of opinion. Without a replay there is no opportunity for him to identify his mistake.
Martin Skrtel has been charged by the FA for a stamp on David De Gea at the end of the match on Sunday. Did referee Martin Atkinson not see the incident? Of course he saw it, the ball was rolling toward the keeper and Skrtel was racing after it to try and get there first. Where else would the referee have been looking if not at a crucial incident that if timed slightly differently could have cost Manchester United two points? So if the referee saw the incident and decided not to make any call, how is that that Skrtel is serving a three match ban? Clearly while the referee saw the incident as a whole he missed a vital aspect of it, the stamp by Skrtel on De Gea's leg. The FA has reviewed video of the incident and decided to suspend the Liverpool defender for three games.
In both cases the subsequent calls were the correct ones. The case of mistaken identity in the West Brom game is obvious, and so it's a no brainer to transfer the ban. The violent conduct charge may be a little more open to interpretation, but that too seems pretty clear and I don't think Skrtel has much cause for complaint.
How are these incidents any different than others that we see in matches every week? "I saw player X foul the attacker denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, so I sent him off" seems very similar to "I saw player X commit a foul in the penalty area, and so I called a penalty". In the first case where the offender was actually player Y retroactive action can be taken, in the second case if the attacker has dived in the area when no contact was made it cannot.
Other sports have implemented reviews in critical situations to ensure they get decisions correct. Rugby has it, so does cricket, tennis, NFL football, NHL hockey and now Major League baseball. I'm not honestly that convinced that instant replay should be added into football, but if the officials in other sports can admit that they are not 100% sure of their decision in the heat of battle, why can't the FA consider the possibility that their referees may not always make the right decisions?
The FA has indicated that it wants to clamp down on diving, and it seems to me the best way is to punish offenders if they are found guilty after the fact. Just because they are able to fool the referee on the field, shouldn't mean that they can get away with it.
While I'm sure some of the language may have been appropriated from loftier sources, I'd like to commend published today. I've been an avid reader of pretty much everything F365 has posted over the past 10 years, and I cannot remember a better written and (gasp) more moving article written on the subject of ageing players.
The list of players who objectively improved in their later years is relatively scant, particularly with today's microscopic study of any and all measureable variables in a player's game. Improvement in later years is often put down to a better understanding of the game, the fabled "football brain", which, particularly for attacking players, is by oft associated with increasing subtlety in a player, highlighted by greater efficiency in movement and use of the ball, both of which will reduce what seems to be key statistics in today's game; touches and distance covered.
As the game becomes more and more of an athletic contest, with supposed superhuman athletes like Ronaldo and Bale providing a template for the modern player, one hopes that there will always be room for a veteran in any team, someone that the fans can relate to, particularly those of us the wrong side of 30 with dodgy knees and sore backs.
Do not go quietly into that good night Robin...
...Reading your , I don't feel gives him the credit he deserves. Yes, it hasn't been a great season for him by any stretch. Just to kick the elephant out of the room, no I do not want him in the United starting XI for the City game.
Coming back from two injuries (I think....) is hard for any player, especially a player who is as broken as RVP. That one season for United (he was the top goal scorer) has been his only non-injury season and he performed at a top level. This season he has played 24 games and scored 10 coming back from injuries this is normally a promising record.
As heis a striker lets rate him on goals, he is the second top goal scorer for United, so why shouldn't he have his chance to play? Looking at the fantasy league he is joint third on points (with Mata.....when did that happen...?) for United
The article says they gained more points without RVP than with, however those games with RVP we were trying to force the 3-5-2 (not the 3-4-3 which spanked Madrid pre season...) and then the diamond 4-1-2-1-2 which was nice but at a very slow pace. You cant blame a striker for slow build up play, especially as I imagine he was the top scorer for United at the time.
He shouldn't start in the starting XI as United seem to have found their flow without him. Give him a chance to prove himself, stick him back into this 4-3-3 and I don't think United would suffer to badly.
Stoky-Boy
Cream. Sh-Boogie Bop
The topic du jour right now appears to be Greg Dyke and how we do what we can to make sure that talented English youngsters realise their potential and so give us a chance to do well in international competitions. Now this is a complex situation and when presented with complex situations my modus operandi is to analyse it and get to the very crux of the matter. I have found this approach has served me well. So in this situation I believe the overriding issue is this - does the cream rise to the top?
The issue of foreigners in England has been around for quite a while now but I have always felt that if a player was good enough then they are very likely to find their way somehow into a position where they will be recognised as such. Yes, some clubs give opportunities to youngsters more than others but if a player is good enough he will be wanted elsewhere and given a chance to show what he can do. So, am I right to think this? In terms of England squads we really only need 40-50 making regular appearances in the Premier League to choose from as in theory these should be the best available to us no matter what. Who cares if foreigners are taking every other space available as they're only blocking players we probably don't need because there are 40-50 better than them?
Until (who else) Harry Kane and to a lesser extent Ryan Mason came along I was pretty convinced I was right. These players were not getting the opportunity to show what they could do, their cream hadn't risen, so to speak. Perhaps they would have genuinely benefitted from quotas that maybe would have artificially got them onto the pitch but once there their performances speak for themselves. I'm struggling to come to a definitive conclusion here because probably there isn't one. Where there is no doubt though is looking at a different solution to the problems of the England team. A year ago Greg Dyke made some comments that completely missed the mark. I wrote a mail to you that wasn't printed (a fate likely to be shared with this one) that he should be concentrating on grass roots coaching where skillful, technical players were prioritised over those who happened to be bigger or faster than the rest. If we can improve this situation then it matters less whether or not their route to the top is impeded by a foreigner or two because we will have more cream to begin with.
Jim, Stansted
Thinking about Greg Dyke's war to rid English football of johnny foreigner's campaign of forcing the English national team to bottle every major international tournament they compete in since the birth of the PL era, perhaps a compromise could be found.
Of course the influence of foreign players should have evolved young English players technique and raised the bar and added quality to the top league. However there does appear to be a lot of rubbish being imported at the same time. That is unavoidable in some cases. The reason is probably due to English players premium price tags.
How about a registration tax on imports? Not sure on the rates. 50% would seem high but discounts could be applied for international caps etc. Maybe the clubs will only go for the best foreign talent or be forced to consider taking a chance on young English players instead of risking higher costs on exotic but sometimes fruitless investments.
Dickie
...In response to Mike, Edinburgh, I want to cite the example that you used. Coquelin is another success story, but he is not English. Kane is phenomenal, while Mason has been good but great. More impressive than Mason (and a player that Sherwood can actually take credit for) is Nabil Bentaleb. He has been crucial for the Spurs midfield, but again, he is not English.
Young players are certainly being given a chance, but seems like the English ones just aren't making the cut. Take a look at Chambers, a youngster given a run in the Arsenal first team before being overshadowed by the very impressive and very French Bellerin.
Like it has been mentioned time and time again, it's a coaching problem, not a foreigners-taking-our-jobs problem. Take a look at recent young English players who have/are getting first team football and what they bring to their teams. Kyle Walker, Danny Rose, Andros Townsend, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Theo Walcott - all very fast.
Walcott was often criticised for poor finishing and crossing, Rose and Walker have been called in this very mailbox the worst full back fairing in the league, Townsend is horrible, we all know what happened with Andy Carroll, etc. But at least they've got a bit of pace right? And don't forget about midfield stars Livermore and Rodwell. At the same time, players like Mata and Berbatov are lambasted for their lack of pace despite oozing skill with the ball.
Removing foreigners doesn't make Kyle Walker a good full-back or Smalling as good as Varane. It's only going to force Chelsea to sign Matt Jarvis instead of Cuadrado as a backup winger. And honestly, Kane was a total fluke. He didn't impress in any of his loan spells and no one could have seen his form coming. He must've made a deal with the devil or something.
Carlos, Peru
Ta Ra, Theo
If Theo is right, and there is no rift regarding his contract, then the only reason he is not starting is that he isn't rated as highly as the players that are. With Sanchez, Cazorla and Ozil, that's fair enough, but Danny Welbeck and the Ox (when fit) were being picked ahead of him. He is now at the same level in the pecking order as 34-year-old Rosicky.
If we get a decent offer this summer, I can see Theo on his way out. I'm not sure how I feel about this because I think he does offer something the others don't with his excellent running off the ball, but I guess maybe Wenger has finally had enough and no longer thinks we need him.
Adonis (is the proper football back yet?) Stevenson, AFC
Hart Problem
The reason (English) people view Joe Hart with "widespread disdain" - an exaggeration, I think, but anyway - is the same reason English football fans eventually view the majority of their players with widespread disdain.
A few years ago, commentators, pundits and those fans who had apparently never seen any other goalkeepers play were regularly referring to Hart Dog as the best goalkeeper in the world. This was ludicrous. It then turned out he wasn't that good, so the fans swung the exaggeration dial back the other way and decided he was rubbish and also a bit of a nob. This is forever and ever the pattern of English football fans with newly emerging players. Say they're the best something in the world, realise they're not, get angry about it.
From reading your mailbox the last week or so, it seems it's already started to happen with poor little Raheem Sterling and the guy's barely 20. At least Hart Dog got past his mid-twenties before everyone dismissed him.
Stephen O'S, MUFC
Retro Action
The red card that was originally shown to Gareth McAuley has been transferred to his team-mate Craig Dawson. Referee Neil Swarbrick admitted that he made a mistake in incorrectly identifying McAuley as the guilty party. How did Neil come to this realisation? Did he have a post match epiphany whereby the heavens were opened and his mistake was revealed to him? Was he told unanimously by all of his friends and family, by well-wishers and passersby that he had made a mistake, causing him to bow to overwhelming pressure and changing his decision? Or is it just possible, however far-fetched and ridiculous this may sound, that he watched a replay of the incident? Watching a replay would have given him empirical evidence that the decision he made on the field was incorrect. Without a replay it's all just a matter of opinion. Without a replay there is no opportunity for him to identify his mistake.
Martin Skrtel has been charged by the FA for a stamp on David De Gea at the end of the match on Sunday. Did referee Martin Atkinson not see the incident? Of course he saw it, the ball was rolling toward the keeper and Skrtel was racing after it to try and get there first. Where else would the referee have been looking if not at a crucial incident that if timed slightly differently could have cost Manchester United two points? So if the referee saw the incident and decided not to make any call, how is that that Skrtel is serving a three match ban? Clearly while the referee saw the incident as a whole he missed a vital aspect of it, the stamp by Skrtel on De Gea's leg. The FA has reviewed video of the incident and decided to suspend the Liverpool defender for three games.
In both cases the subsequent calls were the correct ones. The case of mistaken identity in the West Brom game is obvious, and so it's a no brainer to transfer the ban. The violent conduct charge may be a little more open to interpretation, but that too seems pretty clear and I don't think Skrtel has much cause for complaint.
How are these incidents any different than others that we see in matches every week? "I saw player X foul the attacker denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, so I sent him off" seems very similar to "I saw player X commit a foul in the penalty area, and so I called a penalty". In the first case where the offender was actually player Y retroactive action can be taken, in the second case if the attacker has dived in the area when no contact was made it cannot.
Other sports have implemented reviews in critical situations to ensure they get decisions correct. Rugby has it, so does cricket, tennis, NFL football, NHL hockey and now Major League baseball. I'm not honestly that convinced that instant replay should be added into football, but if the officials in other sports can admit that they are not 100% sure of their decision in the heat of battle, why can't the FA consider the possibility that their referees may not always make the right decisions?
The FA has indicated that it wants to clamp down on diving, and it seems to me the best way is to punish offenders if they are found guilty after the fact. Just because they are able to fool the referee on the field, shouldn't mean that they can get away with it.