ECNL. The C stands for Cartel

[RandomSoccerFan]

Wow I really touched a nerve huh? Lashing out a bit? Not sure what the issue with your kid is and I’m sorry if it hurt your feelings. No moral judgment is intended. It doesn’t make football a lesser sport…just a less technical one. In any case as I said I’ve gotten an intimate peak into that world and it’s not some random family member but my nephew who is in fact playing de for a top 20 SoCal high school program, varsity as a sophomore. I can assure you he got the position through no prior training on his part and almost exclusively due to his height and physique.

you are free to disagree but I’m not pulling out the time thing out of my ass. 1. It’s a razor. You are quite correct that quality matters but that’s not the function of a razor and 2. Over time that quality evens out given a long enough time horizon. Based on the work of Ericsson and Gladwell and covered in the soccernomics stuff too. It’s where the entire 10,000 hours thing came from.

Look, you posted something dumb and uninformed. For reference, here's what you posted:

Football is a low skilled sport for most positions (QB, receiver and certain other positions exempted)

When called on it, instead of backing down, you doubled down on the stupid. We both posted and I thought it was done, but then you posted again and included insults.

It doesn't matter that you posted something dumb and uninformed, it's what keeps internet forums going. What matters is that you both didn't stop, and expected other people to.

Of course there are going to be differing requirements by sport, activity, you name it. And the priorities for how to stand out in that sport are going to differ. Some are going to be standouts by spending 1000's of hours at it. Some are going to be standouts by spending far less. Some of that is due to body type, some of it isn't. But describing an entire sport as if some of its positions are unskilled, because your nephew plays on a high school team so you know what you're talking about - deserves to be called out and shamed.

 

[Woobie06]

Are you saying the best athletes play soccer in other countries? What I am saying is that you are falling into the trap of thinking that the best athletes would be the best soccer players - it doesn't follow. For sure, you have to be athletic, i.e. fit, to play soccer, but the pro development academies are not looking for athletes and then saying they can make them soccer players ... they are looking for soccer players, knowing they can make them athletic (enough).

When the US changes their mindset to that, then they will be on the right path - zero chance obv. with the current youth/college coaching setups though.

It’s not a Zero Sum Game that the Best Athlete =‘s the Best Player in every sport.

There are tons of factors that go into making a player great at their sport. It’s a combination of things and athleticism is huge component.

Athleticism is coveted across the board in all sports, even soccer in Europe…speed, agility, how high you can jump, hand eye / foot eye coordination, spatial awareness, etc., etc. Those traits are coveted for players in soccer around the world.

Why do they have the NFL Combine for example…it’s an athleticism event. Athleticism matters a lot.

 

[Squishy]

Are you saying the best athletes play soccer in other countries? What I am saying is that you are falling into the trap of thinking that the best athletes would be the best soccer players - it doesn't follow. For sure, you have to be athletic, i.e. fit, to play soccer, but the pro development academies are not looking for athletes and then saying they can make them soccer players ... they are looking for soccer players, knowing they can make them athletic (enough).

When the US changes their mindset to that, then they will be on the right path - zero chance obv. with the current youth/college coaching setups though.

Usain Bolt

 

[whatithink]

Dolphins Tyreek Hill says he could have been a famous soccer star

Miami Dolphins star wide receiver Tyreek Hill believes he could have been a star soccer player if he didn't focus solely on football starting in high school.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Must be true then

 

[whatithink]

It’s not a Zero Sum Game that the Best Athlete =‘s the Best Player in every sport.

There are tons of factors that go into making a player great at their sport. It’s a combination of things and athleticism is huge component.

Athleticism is coveted across the board in all sports, even soccer in Europe…speed, agility, how high you can jump, hand eye / foot eye coordination, spatial awareness, etc., etc. Those traits are coveted for players in soccer around the world.

Why do they have the NFL Combine for example…it’s an athleticism event. Athleticism matters a lot.

Yes it matters hugely for the NFL, above anything else for many positions ... as I said, you have to be athletic to play soccer. Glad we agree.

 

[Grace T.]

Look, you posted something dumb and uninformed. For reference, here's what you posted:



When called on it, instead of backing down, you doubled down on the stupid. We both posted and I thought it was done, but then you posted again and included insults.

It doesn't matter that you posted something dumb and uninformed, it's what keeps internet forums going. What matters is that you both didn't stop, and expected other people to.

Of course there are going to be differing requirements by sport, activity, you name it. And the priorities for how to stand out in that sport are going to differ. Some are going to be standouts by spending 1000's of hours at it. Some are going to be standouts by spending far less. Some of that is due to body type, some of it isn't. But describing an entire sport as if some of its positions are unskilled, because your nephew plays on a high school team so you know what you're talking about - deserves to be called out and shamed.

What insulting? I've already stated I have no intention of insulting anyone. I don't consider saying McDonalds is cheaper than Morton's an insult....hey call me crazy but I actually prefer the McDonalds. If you take offense, that's something way beyond my control and says way more about you than it does me. I also carved out several positions. You have any issue with "low skill"? O.k. how about if I tell you "lower skilled" would have been a better characterization? Satisfied? Or are you seriously going to sit there and defend and say linesmen are higher skilled on par with soccer???

 

[Grace T.]

What insulting? I've already stated I have no intention of insulting anyone. I don't consider saying McDonalds is cheaper than Morton's an insult....hey call me crazy but I actually prefer the McDonalds. If you take offense, that's something way beyond my control and says way more about you than it does me. I also carved out several positions. You have any issue with "low skill"? O.k. how about if I tell you "lower skilled" would have been a better characterization? Satisfied? Or are you seriously going to sit there and defend and say linesmen are higher skilled on par with soccer???

p.s. might surprise you to know that up until all the political nonsense got swept up in it, I'm actually a bigger football fan than I am a soccer fan. Frankly, I think soccer as a game is a bit broken and football is far more suited to the American character. I enjoy friday night lights with the nephew far more than any surf cup with the kiddo. Just an opinion, but I think it's a better game.

 

[Woobie06]

Must be true then

If it is on the internet, must be true.

Also, never said US Soccer Players are not athletic. I said US Men’s Soccer is not comprised of the best athletes in our country.

Croatia, Brazil, etc. the countries you mentioned, soccer is the first choice sport for almost all kids. Success is also predicated on coaching, etc., which the US does not have the right person leading the ship. We are on pace for another mediocre finish…2nd Round, maybe the quarters at best. As I said, Triple G is not the guy. Maybe we can factor in some more childish over-involved youth like club parents in-fighting and some more domestic violence allegations, and shakedowns. Our National Team Leadership has been quite the joke.

Better than Italy, which has missed two cycles in a row and have a great soccer culture and one of the best leagues in the world.

Honduras beats our Mens National Team…I what world is that possible…we have players with the mental make up of Dest…cut that clown. I’m sure T&T and Honduras have rich and extensive development European like academies to draw talent from.

Why does the USMNT continue to struggle against these nations? Our lack of European style academies???

Here, many play early, but move on to FB, BBall, and Base Ball. Soccer is third choice at best, most likely fourth choice by many high end youth male athletes in the US. Again, our top athletic talent does not choose soccer regularly as their top choice. That is all I am saying. Which I think is a significant factor to the mediocrity in US Men’s Soccer.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

What insulting? I've already stated I have no intention of insulting anyone. I don't consider saying McDonalds is cheaper than Morton's an insult....hey call me crazy but I actually prefer the McDonalds. If you take offense, that's something way beyond my control and says way more about you than it does me. I also carved out several positions. You have any issue with "low skill"? O.k. how about if I tell you "lower skilled" would have been a better characterization? Satisfied? Or are you seriously going to sit there and defend and say linesmen are higher skilled on par with soccer???

Do you actually not realize that saying something insulting or dumb, getting called on it, and then stating that is more on the reader than the poster - is insulting? It's the same as considering "I'm sorry that you feel that way" a valid apology. It's just as dumb.

Linesmen in the NFL are making 7 figures for understanding exactly what they need to do, and the hundreds of ways to do it, on every play. Linesmen on a high school football team are a different discussion, and will range from those that have been doing it for years and those that picked it up last week. It's not a demeaning statement to say that people come in to playing football later in life, as playing it as it is actually played as you get older here in the US requires bigger, more mature bodies than all pre-teens and many teens are going to have.

The insult to football players in general compared to soccer players stands on its own.

The hours thing by Gladwell and company is overplayed, and is already on the downswing. I've met him a few times, I've read him, and I'm telling you, you probably shouldn't be taking his ideas and quoting his thoughts very far - they won't age well. Even in the team you are probably most familiar with, whichever you would consider your son's primary soccer team - rank the players on that team from top to bottom, by whatever measure of goodness (except hours spent) that makes the most sense to you, whether impact to the team, goals scored, ball-handling, etc. Then rank them by number of hours spent per week that they spend bettering themselves, in group practice, individual training, and game time. Plot both of them. If hours spent trying to to get better (and continue to improve) was a reasonable metric to measure skill, you'd have a very close correlation between the two lines. But since it doesn't really work like that, there will probably be very little correlation. Some of the players are going to be awesome, and spend comparatively little time outside of practice, even if they make them all. Some of the players are going to eat/sleep/breath soccer 24/7 all week, and they still will rarely touch the pitch on game day. Many would call the first group the skilled ones and the second less skilled, unless skill is redefined to mean nothing but how many hours are applied on task.

 

[Grace T.]

Do you actually not realize that saying something insulting or dumb, getting called on it, and then stating that is more on the reader than the poster - is insulting? It's the same as considering "I'm sorry that you feel that way" a valid apology. It's just as dumb.

Linesmen in the NFL are making 7 figures for understanding exactly what they need to do, and the hundreds of ways to do it, on every play. Linesmen on a high school football team are a different discussion, and will range from those that have been doing it for years and those that picked it up last week. It's not a demeaning statement to say that people come in to playing football later in life, as playing it as it is actually played as you get older here in the US requires bigger, more mature bodies than all pre-teens and many teens are going to have.

The insult to football players in general compared to soccer players stands on its own.

The hours thing by Gladwell and company is overplayed, and is already on the downswing. I've met him a few times, I've read him, and I'm telling you, you probably shouldn't be taking his ideas and quoting his thoughts very far - they won't age well. Even in the team you are probably most familiar with, whichever you would consider your son's primary soccer team - rank the players on that team from top to bottom, by whatever measure of goodness (except hours spent) that makes the most sense to you, whether impact to the team, goals scored, ball-handling, etc. Then rank them by number of hours spent per week that they spend bettering themselves, in group practice, individual training, and game time. Plot both of them. If hours spent trying to to get better (and continue to improve) was a reasonable metric to measure skill, you'd have a very close correlation between the two lines. But since it doesn't really work like that, there will probably be very little correlation. Some of the players are going to be awesome, and spend comparatively little time outside of practice, even if they make them all. Some of the players are going to eat/sleep/breath soccer 24/7 all week, and they still will rarely touch the pitch on game day. Many would call the first group the skilled ones and the second less skilled, unless skill is redefined to mean nothing but how many hours are applied on task.

I didn't think you'd double down on it and actually defend the position that "linesmen are a higher skilled position", but there you go. You are way off the range on that one. Even football itself distinguishes between what they call the skilled and nonskilled positions (their words not mine....see the attached wikipedia and corresponding citations). I'll give you this....you have cajones. As to Gladwell, it's a fair critique but I wouldn't go so far as you do...it's a razor, and it's utility is limited to a razor. But I also disagree with you re observations, besides my kiddos 3 teams currently, as well as the goalkeepers I've seen out on the community, there most definitely is a time/skill correlation...it's not 1 to 1, but it's there and it's a strong correlation.

Skill position - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I didn't think you'd double down on it and actually defend the position that "linesmen are a higher skilled position", but there you go. You are way off the range on that one. Even football itself distinguishes between what they call the skilled and nonskilled positions (their words not mine....see the attached wikipedia and corresponding citations). I'll give you this....you have cajones. As to Gladwell, it's a fair critique but I wouldn't go so far as you do...it's a razor, and it's utility is limited to a razor. But I also disagree with you re observations, besides my kiddos 3 teams currently, as well as the goalkeepers I've seen out on the community, there most definitely is a time/skill correlation...it's not 1 to 1, but it's there and it's a strong correlation.

Skill position - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nowhere in this link or any other will someone refer to the positions other than the listed skill positions as low-skill or un-skilled. And if they did - anyone who has ever been any good at those other positions would take issue with that description. Whether talking about the high-level label "This is a skill position", or separate but underlying meaning "This position takes skill to play", it would be wrong to assume the inverse. At the highest levels, every position on the field requires a tremendous amount of skill (along with athleticism, body type, luck, connections), because if it weren't present - they wouldn't be there very long.

 

[Grace T.]

Nowhere in this link or any other will someone refer to the positions other than the listed skill positions as low-skill or un-skilled. And if they did - anyone who has ever been any good at those other positions would take issue with that description. Whether talking about the high-level label "This is a skill position", or separate but underlying meaning "This position takes skill to play", it would be wrong to assume the inverse. At the highest levels, every position on the field requires a tremendous amount of skill (along with athleticism, body type, luck, connections), because if it weren't present - they wouldn't be there very long.

You are stretching now. You know the label sets aside everything else that is not contained within it. That's just basic venn diagram stuff. It's possible there are other categories of stuff outside the circle, but there is nothing else within. Hence "skilled/non-skilled". One of the citations even uses the words "non-skilled" and the wikipedia article uses the words "by contrast".

So now we're on the highest levels? Even Gladwell concedes that not all subject matters are equivalent. Of course to get to expert requires more hours than amateur. The question, however, is a relative one, which is why I said it's fair to complain about my use of words from "low skilled" which is an objective measure v. "lower skilled" which is a relative one. I take your point on that, have reiterated that no insult was intended, and one of my failings has always been a lack of precision, given how quickly I'm moving...fine hold the "er" against me if you like. But you aren't seriously arguing it takes the same time and expertise for a linesman pro v. a soccer pro at the highest level of their respective sport??? That's the cajones part that you show because we (collectively) have laid out a whole bunch on our side: Ericsson/Gladwell, the wikipedia definition and cites, the Usain video, my own comparison of my son/nephew (who are similar in grade level and age), Mahe, but it's awfully short on yours. Clearly touched a nerve, so would help to know what in your own experiences is causing the reaction.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It's really not that deep. You stated, with words, that most positions of football were low-skill. This remains an untrue statement that someone can either roll their eyes at or decide to call out. It takes no stretch to take that to mean that soccer is a high-skill sport, but football (for most positions) was low-skill.

Of course that was inflammatory, of course it was uninformed, and of course there might be some dumbass (i.e. me) who will call you out for it. The fact that someone can walk on to a high school team, or even a college team, for some positions if everything else was a fit - doesn't mean that the position that they turn out to be quite good at (hopefully) - doesn't require much skill. It just means that they inherently have the skill to perform well from the start, including the athleticism, body type, smarts, etc.

Reasonable people can disagree about how relevant or necessary the amount of hours put in to learning a certain position relates to how well one can perform in that position - but I don't see how they can disagree that the ultimate measure has nothing to do with hours, it's simply their performance on the field.

 

[Grace T.]

It's really not that deep. You stated, with words, that most positions of football were low-skill. This remains an untrue statement that someone can either roll their eyes at or decide to call out. It takes no stretch to take that to mean that soccer is a high-skill sport, but football (for most positions) was low-skill.

Of course that was inflammatory, of course it was uninformed, and of course there might be some dumbass (i.e. me) who will call you out for it. The fact that someone can walk on to a high school team, or even a college team, for some positions if everything else was a fit - doesn't mean that the position that they turn out to be quite good at (hopefully) - doesn't require much skill. It just means that they inherently have the skill to perform well from the start, including the athleticism, body type, smarts, etc.

Reasonable people can disagree about how relevant or necessary the amount of hours put in to learning a certain position relates to how well one can perform in that position - but I don't see how they can disagree that the ultimate measure has nothing to do with hours, it's simply their performance on the field.

Well, you are back to objecting to the distinction between soccer and football, which I do still stand by, and which you've been presented the not quite mountain but most definitely a hill without rebutting evidence on your part. I stand by the position that soccer (or for that matter QB) is a more skilled based than football positions, at least linesman. We just disagree with that. I get getting hurt over the omission of the "er" and making it an objective measure. But on the relative, you just don't have a leg to stand on and have advanced nothing that disputes that beyond "I believe". The one argument you've made is that linemen are highly paid, but that doesn't follow a priori that they are skilled either (particularly since you dispute hours as a representation of skill)...just because an actor or a singer is highly paid doesn't make them skilled either.

The reason your "ultimate measure" doesn't work is because there is no rubric to compare a violin player to a drummer, a chess player to a checkers player, a soccer player to a football linesman besides money (which I've pointed out to you is another fallacy) and time, at least when comparing the difficulty of one discipline to another. Hence the necessity for a razor which, while the correlation is not 1 to 1, is high. The more you do something the better you get at it, which means mastery is simply a function of the difficulty of the endeavor from a skills perspective, the preordained innate level of elements required (which as I've said is higher in football than soccer), and the time put it (hence the high but not perfect correlation between time and mastery). That's just an economics analysis.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

In real life, one doesn't win an argument if they can find enough citations that tangentially support the point they are trying to make. They are either right or wrong. And in most cases, both tend to leave in opposite directions and continue to believe they are right.

Suggesting that I need to prove that NFL linesman are highly skilled is absurd. Suggesting that the hours put in is the right measure to compare the skill needed to do something - when that something included in the data set is a top-flight athlete, is equally absurd. It is just as easy, and even easier, to measure the output and make inferences and decisions based on that. For pretty much any level, but especially the highest level, all that needs to be shown is that they (the player) exists and keeps their position. Because if they didn't, it follows that they didn't have the skill, along with all accompanying necessities, to show that they were the best choice for that position. It's silly for the person losing that position to try and convince people that they've put in more hours over the years than their replacement. It's even sillier to use that hours metric when comparing whether a football linesman or a soccer player or a hockey winger both require and possess a higher level of skill.

The 10,000 hours and mastery discussion applies to a point, it isn't wrong on its face, but it just outweighed by all of the other factors that are involved - tied to whatever the ultimate measure of success is - not the amount of effort put in. Same as there are people who have played golf for 50 years and couldn't hit the ocean if they were on a beach, while there are scratch golfers who aren't yet 10 years old. Of course time put in both short-term and long-term should make a difference - but it's awfully easy to look at the scorecard at the end of 18 holes and decide which golfer has the most skill.

 

[Woobie06]

NFL Players are not unskilled, at any position. I would argue on Offense, QB and Center have the largest cognitive load.

On Defense, MLB and Free Safety.

Do some do insanely dumb stuff off the field, yes…So do many pro athletes in all sports…Pairing young adults with little life experience and tons of money…what could go wrong…but to say they are unskilled athletes is not a fair statement in my opinion.

Skilled positions refer to Receivers, Running Backs, QB’s, Receiving TE’s and DB’s. Skilled really refers to players that handle the ball more so than anything else.

Kickers, Punters, and Long Snappers are Specialists.

 

[Grace T.]

NFL Players are not unskilled, at any position. I would argue on Offense, QB and Center have the largest cognitive load.

On Defense, MLB and Free Safety.

Do some do insanely dumb stuff off the field, yes…So do many pro athletes in all sports…Pairing young adults with little life experience and tons of money…what could go wrong…but to say they are unskilled athletes is not a fair statement in my opinion.

Skilled positions refer to Receivers, Running Backs, QB’s, Receiving TE’s and DB’s. Skilled really refers to players that handle the ball more so than anything else.

Kickers, Punters, and Long Snappers are Specialists.

The issue isn't NFL players v. a high school freshman or novice just starting out in the game. All professionals are higher learned skilled than novice across all sports. The question is the amount of effort (for which time is razor) it takes to get skilled at the game (which will be different for each individual but likely averages out over time into various bell curves). The secondary question is how that relates to other sports...the relative measure of how long it takes to get skilled at one game v another.

My nephew is able to walk on as a freshman who hadn't played (outside of some peewee football really early on and touch in pe) football as de at a top 20 socal school and make varsity as a sophomore. Despite his height and athleticism, he could not do the same with an MLS Next team let alone my kid's varsity team. The Usain bolt video above is very illustrative...I'd venture running track is a lower skilled sport and the main variable there really is athleticism...like the SAT you can improve with practice and education but at heart the SAT is an IQ test especially once you get to the 80th percentile.

 

[Woobie06]

The issue isn't NFL players v. a high school freshman or novice just starting out in the game. All professionals are higher learned skilled than novice across all sports. The question is the amount of effort (for which time is razor) it takes to get skilled at the game (which will be different for each individual but likely averages out over time into various bell curves). The secondary question is how that relates to other sports...the relative measure of how long it takes to get skilled at one game v another.

My nephew is able to walk on as a freshman who hadn't played (outside of some peewee football really early on and touch in pe) football as de at a top 20 socal school and make varsity as a sophomore. Despite his height and athleticism, he could not do the same with an MLS Next team let alone my kid's varsity team. The Usain bolt video above is very illustrative...I'd venture running track is a lower skilled sport and the main variable there really is athleticism...like the SAT you can improve with practice and education but at heart the SAT is an IQ test especially once you get to the 80th percentile.

Some people are smarter, some are more athletic, some work harder for the same result as those that have to put in little effort. The SAT and ACT are Academic Events you can train for, and get better results if you are better trained or very smart and can rock a test. Like a combine….Some people are more talented in areas than others…not everyone is equal. Whats the point of this conversation again?

The amount of time it takes to get skilled has to do with athleticism, work ethic, ability, a wide array of things…hours spent is not a good metric…showing up to practice versus practicing with purpose is a different thing.

Why are we talking about hours of practice?

 

[Chelsea dad g09]

If anyone thinks the amount of footwork needed to be an nfl lineman, the hand and elbow placement, punch off the snap, ability to shed blockers, ability on pass vs run block, hips and center of gravity while a 275+ lb man is trying to move you out the way, is without any high technical skill, they don’t know anything about football. I’ve seen the most athletic big men on the line who can’t even keep their thumbs out, so just because you don’t see and understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[Grace T.]

Some people are smarter, some are more athletic, some work harder for the same result as those that have to put in little effort. The SAT and ACT are Academic Events you can train for, and get better results if you are better trained or very smart and can rock a test. Like a combine….Some people are more talented in areas than others…not everyone is equal. Whats the point of this conversation again?

The amount of time it takes to get skilled has to do with athleticism, work ethic, ability, a wide array of things…hours spent is not a good metric…showing up to practice versus practicing with purpose is a different thing.

Why are we talking about hours of practice?

Hours of practice is definitively a function of mastery. The economic model would be mastery on the x axis time on the y. There is a direct correlation. The slope is determined by a. How difficult the activity is and b. The innate ability of the athlete. You can factor out b. by taking a bell curve (the economic argument then is what set and is the mean or median). Reason we are talking about it is you raised the argument that the other sports divert talent. The counter was the other sports aren’t good equivalents. The more persuasive argument you raised is that it doesn’t just divert Dennis Rodman away from soccer, but also potential Messi’s. That’s a better argument though your remaining issue is it still leaves a pool that is larger than Honduras or Uruguay.

 

[Grace T.]

If anyone thinks the amount of footwork needed to be an nfl lineman, the hand and elbow placement, punch off the snap, ability to shed blockers, ability on pass vs run block, hips and center of gravity while a 275+ lb man is trying to move you out the way, is without any high technical skill, they don’t know anything about football. I’ve seen the most athletic big men on the line who can’t even keep their thumbs out, so just because you don’t see and understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

The question isn’t whether there is any skill involved particularly on the pro level. The question is how much, how easy is it to learn and how does that compare to the other sports. As shown above, football itself draws a distinction between the so-called skilled and non-skilled positions (again their words, not mine). The relative argument is that all other things being equal (proper body type/work ethic) it is easier to pick up being a linesman than either a qb or soccer player. Kids aren’t walking onto high school and college play as novice qbs. Then aren’t walking onto mls next teams as novices on college. They are in high school and has been pointed out even in college for linesmen. Nothing offered so far rebuts that.