Isakly what we need

[The Nomad]

So there is a thread here entitled "Isakly what we need" and at the same time EKITIKE, who is our main Number 9 and who has already scored 2 goals in 2 games ACTUALLY playing for us, has no thread of his own. Like, WTF?

Its almost like he's not called Hugo Boss.

Fucking hell. Bring back Brendan.

You are a fucking headwand!

 

[peterhague]

Hahahaha, you think that's what I thought was going to happen?

I just wanted a different flavour of bullshit bare assertions.

I think the role of a striker for a while was considerably more complicated than it used to be, and the role of the winger less specialized to work at the line without space. I don't know whether the overall talent is better or worse, but I do believe Gakpo in another era is a striker, as are many of the same sorts of inverted forwards, and because of that, in the aggregate, players with height, pace, and technical ability, are not now strikers as much as they would have been, and hence the market is worse.

It didn't require much imagination to think that strikers would be in demand once again.

No I didn't really think you expected that I was just illustrating how far you were from actually putting forward a point people are going to engage with.

Assuming the above is all sound, my best guess is that academies just have no interest in evenly supplying the market. It's not what they're there for. If it's easier to get some player into the first team in a wide position than at centre forward, say (let's just assume that's the reason for the initial bias here), then presumably each academy would focus on those positions. Each academy would succeed while still creating an overall imbalance. They wouldn't necessarily be anticipating the resulting shortage and so wouldn't be incentivised to split their focus more evenly.

But ultimately I'm just pulling that out of thin air.

 

[Hansern]

Strand Larsen to Newcastle seem to be gathering pace. If they get that over the line then Isak will happen next week

 

[Farkmaster]

No I didn't really think you expected that I was just illustrating how far you were from actually putting forward a point people are going to engage with.

Assuming the above is all sound, my best guess is that academies just have no interest in evenly supplying the market. It's not what they're there for. If it's easier to get some player into the first team in a wide position than at centre forward, say (let's just assume that's the reason for the initial bias here), then presumably each academy would focus on those positions. Each academy would succeed while still creating an overall imbalance. They wouldn't necessarily be anticipating the resulting shortage and so wouldn't be incentivised to split their focus more evenly.

But ultimately I'm just pulling that out of thin air.

I agree, that's the mechanism, but the effect is that in the end the most valued position across the history of football is underdeveloped due to the whim of aping the current meta. There's also half as many cfs playing with the demise of a 4-4-2 and if you are coming up you are more likely to play if you can demonstrate your ability outside the box, rather than within it. I know some academies want players breaking in, and that makes sense, but you'd thing a team like Chelsea, who clearly don't give a fuck, would have taken an interest, and they never did. They're going to sell their abject failures at a profit due to inventory, and it was still their least represented position.

Further, many of the strikers who are actually strikers tend to play on teams that don't have the ball as much.

 

[Fabio]

Strand Larsen to Newcastle seem to be gathering pace. If they get that over the line then Isak will happen next week

i don't think he and wissa are anywhere near the calibre they want to sell Isak

 

[Farkmaster]

i don't think he and wissa are anywhere near the calibre they want to sell Isak

That game of musical chairs is over though, isn't it?

 

[peterhague]

I agree, that's the mechanism, but the effect is that in the end the most valued position across the history of football is underdeveloped due to the whim of aping the current meta. There's also half as many cfs playing with the demise of a 4-4-2 and if you are coming up you are more likely to play if you can demonstrate your ability outside the box, rather than within it. I know some academies want players breaking in, and that makes sense, but you'd thing a team like Chelsea, who clearly don't give a fuck, would have taken an interest, and they never did. They're going to sell their abject failures at a profit due to inventory, and it was still their least represented position.

Further, many of the strikers who are actually strikers tend to play on teams that don't have the ball as much.

It's just a bubble really isn't it? It happens, people aren't that wise or strategic.

 

[Hansern]

That game of musical chairs is over though, isn't it?

Do they have any choice now?

 

[Farkmaster]

It's just a bubble really isn't it? It happens, people aren't that wise or strategic.

I'm reliably informed that everyone is in the thrall of a data driven approach. Funnily enough, this is the same issue with ai, that it ingests its own vomit.

I'm just saying, people are really up their own arses if they forgot that strikers are important in football.

 

[peterhague]

I'm reliably informed that everyone is in the thrall of a data driven approach. Funnily enough, this is the same issue with ai, that it ingests its own vomit.

I'm just saying, people are really up their own arses if they forgot that strikers are important in football.

Did they forget though? It's not necessary for people to have forgotten for that process we just discussed to have happened - that's just a market failure issue.

But yes, I do actually think they probably did forget AS WELL. You know, the whole strikerless Pep thing. This is what I was trying to get at when I said it's a really hard topic to spark debate on because it's just a large unexamined (and actually unproven) issue.

It probably exists (ie it's not just a coincidence).
It probably has at least something to do with move towards inverted forwards.'
It probably also has something to do with a pretentious trend against strikers.
Probably a lot more besides.

I'm not very expert at football tactics so I can't really say much more than that tbh.