Enugu II wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
That is assuming that players develop uniformly and make the transition from youth to senior ranks at the same pace. That is clearly not the case.
It does not assume the above on the individual player level but certainly we can assume that at the group level except if you are insinuating that the weather or whatever else may affect the Europeans differently.
By "transition" I do not mean the "automatic promotion" that Nigeria normally does at this level. I mean instead transition to the first team. Clearly players do not transition to first team football as a group, but individually, and based on different developmental patterns. Some are fast, some are slow...We are talking about the same thing. I do not talk of automatic promotion either but transition to elite football. The point is that such transition can be compared at the Group level.
2ndly, it would appear that the U-17 level is ur frame for comparison of both sets of players. First not every country uses its best available U-17 players for the FIFA tournament. In Europe, the more important tournament at this level is often the UEFA U-19.
Each country uses what is considered its best available players at the U17 compared to the U19 levels. What is different is that at the U19 level it is much easier to predict who may be more successful. The fact that you do not see European U17 players progressing successfully to higher levels does not negate the fact that at the U17 they were considered among the best in their country.
That is quite incorrect. Using England as an example, most of the Academies do not release players to the FIFA tournament because of conflicting domestic schedules. It is well established that only the African, Asian and S/C. American countries routinely use their best U-17 players at the U-17 level.
txj, the England U17 team is made up of players from the academies of mostly elite clubs and get the training of that academy. You may argue that one or two top players did not go to the World Cup and the same argument can be made for every other country, BTW. Bottom line is that England relies on players from elite academies and not schoolboys.
3rd, most development coaches will tell you that at this level, the most important metric for measuring development is not tournaments won.
Of course, there are other metrics but ultimately the end (winning) indicates how well the other indices have been successful at every stage. I guess the Germans do not enter the U17 to win and only Nigeria does? That must be a revelation, txj. For the FIFA U17,do not be fooled, every country enters a team to win it. The fact that Europe may not win it as much as the others cannot now evolve from age-cheating complaints to not being serious about winning it. When Africa wins the World Cup it will be that Europeans are no longer interested but only interested in the club championships. Forget those excuses. I don't buy them for a second. Try that explanation elsewhere.
Winning doesn't [color=#000000]necessarily indicate how well other indices are performing. That is clearly obvious. Look at the Nigerian case for instance. How well has winning translated in the development of our players?
Its not about being serious about winning it. You should try not to twist my words or meaning. The issue is about the development of players and what metrics track individual development and performance.
Of course winning is vital in every competitive sport. But at youth level, the measures of development are often tracked at INDIVIDUAL not group level.
For instance, in 2007 Nigeria won the tournament and Germany did not. By the measure of winning, Nigerian players are supposedly superior. But go back and look at the development trajectory of players in both squads and it tells a far different story![/color]
Bros, both individual and group measures are important and WINNING is absolutely a measure and an important one that defines the progress and effectiveness of the group. That is not ignored when developing individual players as it does help measure character and other important aspects of the individual measure.
4th what our youth team successes have repeatedly shown is the depth of our talent base. The transition to higher levels unfortunately shows a high level of attrition, specifically in terms of players never really reaching the performance level that their talent initially suggests.
txj, another statement not based on facts. In April, I will be releasing data based on study planned with Damunk that involves 525 players drawn from all over the world to test that theory. From my preliminary observation, however, the attrition is actually similar across the globe except for less attrition among a few countries. This myth of unusual attrition is widely spread but has no backing whatsoever by research.
[color=#0000FF]Just an advice. If you want to do a true study, you should expand the sample frame to include youth players across domestic football, not just the U-17 selection. There are multiple other U-17 Nigerian players coming through the ranks at the club level. How are they performing? How well are they transiting to the senior level? How well are they being developed?The study is not about U17 Nigerian players only but about U17 players all over the world. We have set up the modalities for our study and I am sure we are doing fine based on the modalities that we already have and they focus on the U17 FIFA World Cup as an important marker that allows comparability, an important aspect of such studies.
I believe it continues to be a major denigration of work done in Africa to think that our successes are based solely on talent. Far from it. Players, in Nigeria and elsewhere, benefit demonstratively from coaching locally in Africa and Europe. This is not just on individual basis but on team basis as well.[/color]
I don't speak about Africa, I speak about Nigeria. Look at the evidence and not the pan-African advocacy! Successive SE coaches have all had to rely on players abroad. Successive youth team and domestic league players have had to move abroad to grow their game.
The evidence is starring at you in the face!!!The underlined is not the reason for players moving from Nigeria. The reason is primarily financial. It is that reason that parental attitude is changing and the basic reason for players moving abroad. Of course, their game grows when they go oversea but that should never negate the growth that takes place before then.
1. Development or growth of youth players and ultimately their transition to senior football is measured at individual levels by youth coaches, because players develop based on individual characteristics, not the group. While for someone interested in statistics it may be interesting to look at group comparisons, technically from a football perspective, it means very little.
2. EII, the top U-17 talent in England are usually not made available to their U17 team. I follow youth football closely and know this for a fact. I believe someone like Waffiman can collaborate this. Teams like Nigeria typically use the best U17 players they can find, including those whose level can be said to be much higher than the U17 category.
The main point here is that the FIFA U17 tourney for some countries like Nigeria is the most significant pathway to the NT for a youth player. For England for instance, it is breaking thru from the academy to the first team. Wales for instance is about to cap Liverpool's Ben Woodburn, as they did Harry Wilson earlier, both after breaking thru from LFC's academy.
3. True winning is an important measure in building team morale, but youth player development and performance is ultimately measured at individual level, not the group. Group measures more often are used at the systemic level to measure the performance of an entire program, and even then not by everybody. Countries like Germany, France, England and Holland instead track progress to the first team.
4. My point is that using the FIFA U-17 squads as the framework is misleading as it doesn't capture a true representative sample of a country's player population at that level. Further the data is compromised by the disparate nature of player development; some being slow, others being rapid. That is why most such studies look instead at the U-20 level, when some of those distortions might have been removed by the passage of time.Or better yet, look at it from a more representative sample frame, such as players U-17 before 1/1/07 for instance and track their progress to the first team and subsequently the NT over a 10yr period, whether or not they were in the FIFA U-17 tournament.
If I had the time, I would look at it by sampling players of that category in the top 5 clubs and track how many have had successful careers, measured by 1st team and NT appearances. You probably will find countries that have not had anywhere near the success of Nigeria in winning the FIFA U17 tournaments, but have far more players transitioning to top professional and international careers.
5. Again the evidence is right there in your face. My point, perhaps not properly stated is that our players are only able to show growth in their game by playing in Europe, whatever maybe their reasons for going abroad.
True their is some progress in their game before they move abroad, but that is more often the product of maturity (hours played) than the product of any significant modern curriculum. No less a person than Wenger has commented on the relative poor quality of youth players coming through from Nigeria in recent years. I mean look at Iheanacho's struggles to come to terms with the modern team game at City, even for such a high talent; although I do recognize the challenges in Pep's methodology...
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.
We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp