If we were playing for internet points I'd have been relegated 4 times by now and be plying my trade in the lower reaches of non-league football.
After coming on as an 89th minute substitute because there's simply no-one else.Throwing up on the sidelines for the local pub team
not sure what this debate is all about but if people want to know how sports science is effecting the game then have a read....
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18887653
Yep, Otis, the Blyth Spartans of Skybluestalk.If we were playing for internet points I'd have been relegated 4 times by now and be plying my trade in the lower reaches of non-league football.
I have answered it a hundred times FFS
Its impossible to debate with someone who answers a question with a question.....it shows you for what you are.What have I actually avoided and why would I avoid it given the pipsqueak level of opposing debaters?
"The physical outputs of players have been shown to go up and up over the last five or six years," says Dr Sam Erith.
That can't be true. The experts on here (sickboys catchphrase) have told us nothing has changed in the last 10 years.
A bit of a sidetrack from our important debate, but I've just got home, been using my mobile; half the comments that are viewable on tapatalk, aren't showing on the desktop site.
Obviously one for Nick, is there a delay in mobile comments being posted?
"The physical outputs of players have been shown to go up and up over the last five or six years," says Dr Sam Erith.
That can't be true. The experts on here (sickboys catchphrase) have told us nothing has changed in the last 10 years.
Maybe it has a bullshit filter fitted?A bit of a sidetrack from our important debate, but I've just got home, been using my mobile; half the comments that are viewable on tapatalk, aren't showing on the desktop site.
Obviously one for Nick, is there a delay in mobile comments being posted?
Of course the technology has changed. Do you agree that it is not possible to compare a player from 2016 to one from 2006 due to this?
Hang on, I'm lost.
So what a load of people are arguing is that Joe Cole should have come to us even more fit than Wise when he came here, because Cole was benefitting from the amazing progress of sports science in the top flight?
It seems not
It seems Science says Dennis Wise benefited from played in the era he did
Rise of sport science cannot hold back sands of time for footballers....
What is striking, though, is how much faster football has become in the past decade. TV commentators in the 1970s and 1980s were fond of talking about matches being played at 100-miles-an-hour. It was a Sunday morning pootle compared to today's game.
Average sprint distances.
In 2006-07 the average number of sprints per team in a Premier League match was 330.2. This season Prozone's data show that it is 431.1, a 30.6% increase. Meanwhile recovery time between high intensity sprints (speeds of greater than 5.5 metres per second) has dropped from 54.6 seconds to 43.5 seconds, a decline of 20%.
Perhaps it is not surprising there are so few full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards over 33. They play in positions where a dip in pace is more likely to affect performance. It is not only in road safety adverts where speed kills.
So basically everyone agrees with me that we should never have took a risk on signing someone whose recovery time was slow and would hamper the team if selected in the interim.
That signing someone if that age whose recovery time is apparently slower than others was a huge risk?
Seems odd that people arguing against me are spending all night googling theories that prove my point.
It stands to reason.
And Grendel took the majority opinion of everyone on here as a guide...stunning, given he called them 'intellectually bereft'.
....you couldn't make it up
Some people even slower are better than other people who are fitter and faster
Again, this can't be true. The experts on here have claimed different. Ain't that right Sickboy and Grendull :laugh:
This is hilarious
I have mentioned serval times on this thread now that we should get Cole signed up for another year, possibly even with a view to go into coaching, as he expressed an interest in it in the past.
My opinion, your opinion.
I've been witness to the advances in just the last 4 or 5 years here.
Fitness has undoubtedly improved in the last ten years, but that doesn't make a difference to the player at the time, they just have to be up to the standards at that time.
Stanley Matthews was 50 when he retired in the 1950s, Ryan Giggs was 40 when he retired in the 2010s.
Kevin Keegan retired at age 33 in the 1980s, Joe Cole is still playing at 33.
Players have to be up to the fitness standard of any given time. Certain players will have the physicality to maintain, certain players won't.
At the top level that is probably true, if you made the argument with respect to league 2/conference clubs it may hold some weight as lots of the small clubs have easier access to technology and equipment they probably didn't have 10 years ago.The notion that fitness/training methods are so different nowadays compared to 10 years ago is pushing it, to be fair.
I think that we're almost arguing the same point, correct me if I'm wrong:
- You're saying Wise and Cole shouldn't be compared because of the differing fitness standards of the time.
- I'm saying, the fitness standards are irrelevant, because they where both at the standard they needed to be at that time. They shouldn't be compared because they're completely different types of player.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?