28 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by hopscotchItaly won the last world cup and they've had foreigners for a long time. I think you're over-reading this quite a fair bit. I also definitely don't think the English players in the 90s or early 00s were any better that the current crop so again I don't see much causation there.
For this campaign:
Capello deserves a chunk of the blame for making stupid like-for-like changes and sticking to his 4-4-2 with the forwards being virtually static up there, when he needed to change things, while Germany pushed and had more in midfield and made a mockery of his tactical outset.
As for the players, some underperformed, some played wel right. Too many foreign players in your league ruin your national team's chances. See: Italy.
As for Germany, they don't have a single top class player in their team. Maybe Oezil has potential, but it's early to tell. The difference is that they are a proper team, they play as a team and so they win. The German model has many good points, but I definitely don't think it has improved the quality of German footballers. If anything, their teamsheet is less impressive now than in the 90s.
And, by the way, what is the percentage of foreigners in the EPL? How does it compare to other leagues? The only info I found (quick google search) was this from 1999:
Total number of foreigners per league
Spain 200
Germany 185
Italy 163
Netherlands 161
England 116 (players from outside Britain)
France 80
And a decade later, Spain have an incredible number of top class players. Why didn't they get smothered?
28 Jun 10
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11064/1/MPRA_paper_11064.pdf
I investigate the impact of foreign players on international football performance of club teams and national teams in this paper. My empirical findings show that foreign players have a positive effect on club teams’ international performance. Howewer, foreign players don’t have any effect on performance of national teams.
Some basic regressions, with many potential problems, but still better than just eyeballing some stats.
28 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynkais there any chance that you could interpret this data for us noobs? I understand the comment in italics, but what about the others stuff, the regression statistics etc.
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11064/1/MPRA_paper_11064.pdf
I investigate the impact of foreign players on international football performance of club teams and national teams in this paper. My empirical findings show that foreign players have a positive effect on club teams’ international performance. Howewer, foreign players don’t have any effect on sic regressions, with many potential problems, but still better than just eyeballing some stats.
28 Jun 10
1 edit
And another question is why are there so few English players playing abroad?
Ok, this looks like a good source:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/courses/01/09/64/93/extract_annual_review_2009.pdf
In page 13 it actually looks like the percentage of matches played by club-trained footballers is quite low in Germany compared to England, France or Spain. This despite England having indeed the highest percentage of foreigners playing in their league by far.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you look at Table 3, the value of 10.7848 means that on average having a proportion of foreigners players (PFP) 1 percentage point higher is associated with a FIFA ranking which is 10.78 points higher.
is there any chance that you could interpret this data for us noobs? I understand the comment in italics, but what about the others stuff, the regression statistics etc.
However, these results are not robust when you control for the correlation between FPF and other variables (like percentage of world population or Gross National Income) and the impact of a 1pp higher PFP becomes statistically insignificant (which means that you can reject the hypothesis that it has no impact).
28 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkaspoken like a true economist! sigh
If you look at Table 3, the value of 10.7848 means that on average having a proportion of foreigners players (PFP) 1 percentage point higher is associated with a FIFA ranking which is 10.78 points higher.
However, these results are not robust when you control for the correlation between FPF and other variables (like percentage of world population or Gross ...[text shortened]... tistically insignificant (which means that you can reject the hypothesis that it has no impact).
i have always kind of associated great football nations with poverty, thus in the generations from the nineteen fifties when Britain was emerging from the economic effects of war, there were generally great footballers, one thinks of the Liverpool side from the eighties, Dagleish, Souness, Hansen all from that epoch etc, then we think of the south American nations, stricken with poverty all consistent and great footballing nations. Portugal's own Ronaldo as well as Frances Zidane were all from humble backgrounds. One would think that through greater economic power, there would be greater facilities that this would lead to greater footballers, but natural talent is not like that i think. Why should poverty be linked with great footballers, i do not know and i expect my theory to go up in flames as if it were a big mac hitting ones stomach as a meteorite hits the atmosphere.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by hopscotchI think it's about how many youngsters play and how the system allows them to blossom up to the age of 18. Spain has a lot of foreigners in the top flight, but they also have strong youth academias.
Very interesting.
So what are your conclusions? Do you think it's just random genetics and evolution mixed with a bit of luck that makes a country produce good players?
I don't know what's the solution. Maybe the fact that these clubs are large and diverse (not football only, but many other sports) make them adept at being "youth factories". This brings a social culture that it's not just about football in the top flight. For example, having goods youth teams (not just in football) is important for a club like Barcelona from a social point of view. It's almost like a matter of having local respect.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe if you can afford a Playstation or an Xbox you spend less time outside playing football with your friends...
spoken like a true economist! sigh
i have always kind of associated great football nations with poverty, thus in the generations from the nineteen fifties when Britain was emerging from the economic effects of war, there were generally great footballers, one thinks of the Liverpool side from the eighties, Dagleish, Souness, Hansen all from that ...[text shortened]... o up in flames as if it were a big mac hitting ones stomach as a meteorite hits the atmosphere.
28 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkayou could have a point, i remember the Thatcherite years when we were teenagers, all we did was smoke ganja and play football, what else was there?
Maybe if you can afford a Playstation or an Xbox you spend less time outside playing football with your friends...
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieKaka didn't grow up from a poor background. However, I understand what you're saying.
spoken like a true economist! sigh
i have always kind of associated great football nations with poverty, thus in the generations from the nineteen fifties when Britain was emerging from the economic effects of war, there were generally great footballers, one thinks of the Liverpool side from the eighties, Dagleish, Souness, Hansen all from that ...[text shortened]... o up in flames as if it were a big mac hitting ones stomach as a meteorite hits the atmosphere.
