Mauro Icardi

[Sassuolu]

There are so many variables, just look at Adriano all the potential in the world to be great then his dad passed away and his career ended up going down the toilet.

 

[ZeruTituli]

Bianchi scored 18 goals in 2006/7 aged 24 and flopped at Man City after moving for 13m euros.

Sadly for fap, the only compelling argument in his favour is Goran Pandev who scored 14 goals for Lazio in 2007/08 aged 24 (same age as Bianchi) and we did sign him. He came, won the treble, and he left. Not too many people on here are sad about that.

The truth is, there is scant evidence either way because young players very rarely score 10 goals. A historical argument will not work here. In my view, this exceptional feat (with almost no precedence) is in itself enough to suggest that he is worth the outlay.

 

[Shaun]

http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/10...5667/PlayerStatistics/Italy-Serie-A-2011-2012

There is a systematic way to do this Browha. This is the 2011/12 stats. All you have to do is change the year at the top and look at players who scored 10 or more goals. Plenty of examples of players who scored that many not to be a success (or an Inter level player).

If I were you I'd make the argument that in a team like Samp everything is geared towards you, the forward, scoring. So you get average players having phenomenal seasons with small clubs because everything they do is geared towards that individual scoring (e.g. Pazzini or Gilardino). However once they move to a big club, everyone is good, and play isn't geared around them. As a consequence they struggle.

Dude, you're missing the point

 

[.h.]

http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/10...5667/PlayerStatistics/Italy-Serie-A-2011-2012

There is a systematic way to do this Browha. This is the 2011/12 stats. All you have to do is change the year at the top and look at players who scored 10 or more goals. Plenty of examples of players who scored that many not to be a success (or an Inter level player).

If I were you I'd make the argument that in a team like Samp everything is geared towards you, the forward, scoring. So you get average players having phenomenal seasons with small clubs because everything they do is geared towards that individual scoring (e.g. Pazzini or Gilardino). However once they move to a big club, everyone is good, and play isn't geared around them. As a consequence they struggle.

The problem is partially getting the goalscorer stats, but more than anything it is the fac tthat I have to hand-check every single player to see what season he was in in his career. A few places will list it with age as well, which is helpful, but not definitive.

And, yes, you're absolutely correct - your argument is another perspective which I hadn't considered. Mine was personally more geared towards one hit wonders and people who flop badly.

- - - Updated - - -

Bianchi scored 18 goals in 2006/7 aged 24 and flopped at Man City after moving for 13m euros.

Sadly for fap, the only compelling argument in his favour is Goran Pandev who scored 14 goals for Lazio in 2007/08 aged 24 (same age as Bianchi) and we did sign him. He came, won the treble, and he left. Not too many people on here are sad about that.

The truth is, there is scant evidence either way because young players very rarely score 10 goals. A historical argument will not work here. In my view, this exceptional feat (with almost no precedence) is in itself enough to suggest that he is worth the outlay.

You are of course also correct here that there is scant evidence - because few strikers DO score 10 goals or so in their first season. People shouldnt take this the wrong way - I am hugely in favour of Icardi and think he could be awesome - but I'm still not convinced the prior argument was the right one to make, as such. The arguments in favour of his quality should be more qualitative, based on his movement and so on, rather than just the goals in games.

 

[Pajo]

What about the conversion rate? Do you remember that stat? He was one of those with best conversion rate in Serie A. He didn't get much chances in Samp, quite the contrary. But he delivered almost every time he got clear cut chance.

edit: there we go

he runs a lot, 10 goals and 4 assists in his first season on the age of 19, i'd say he did pretty damn good. Great off the ball movement, tidy finish, decent heading and strength, decent pace, pretty much complete striker. Needs a lot of work of course, but he can be one hell of a striker.

I can not express how much i was yelling at his second goal vs. JuBe away :epicwin: He stopped running since he was in offside, samp players passed him the ball, he went into tight angle, and one of the best finishes i've seen in Serie A last season. Daaaamn, what a goal that was.

 

[.h.]

Again its completely prone to one hit wonders. We can all sit here and jizz over converssion rates and so on, but when you score 9 goals, 1 more or less makes a huge difference. One goal less puts him down to 18.6% conversion rate. 2 less puts him down at nearly Benteke's level.

The point is with such low statistics, these arguments are all meaningless.

AGAIN I will re-state.

If you want to argue about a player's quality like Icardi, you should be appealing to the qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative one. Talk about his attributes, his movement, his skills.

 

[Pajo]

If you want to argue about a player's quality like Icardi, you should be appealing to the qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative one. Talk about his attributes, his movement, his skills.

Definitely, that's why i mentioned the second goal vs. JuBe, and his overall play. Complete striker, modern one, can be huge with the right attitude and guidance..

 

[.h.]

Oh I agree. He looks like a very good striker, I've never disputed that. I just disagree to the reasons why - I dont care about his goals, its the movement and technique I want to see for now. Intelligence, more than anything. If he's an intelligent player, we can make him a good player.

 

[Pajo]

I even said about next year, for him and Belfodil. Even if they do not score, i just want the to CONTRIBUTE, to play well overall, bang goals now and then, and i want them to improve.

This was the goal i was talking about:

[youtube]oU2M1lMRmlI[/youtube]

Look at his movement on and off the ball. He stopped since he saw he was in offside - one advantage, offside awareness. Then he got the ball and showed more than decent agility and acceleration. Moved in tight angle, and he didnt took the shot with his eyes closed, but he saw where Buffon was, knew where he wants the ball placed, and took the shot. And scored. I love these kind of goals from strikers. One goal that shows much about his movement.

 

[.h.]

Oh, I agree. That's a good summary of his movement, and he is intelligent from that side.

This is why I dont like the goals argument. If he only scores 7 this season everyone will be hating him. We should be looking for development. We dont expect Belfodil-Icardi to score 20-30 goals between them this season, we expect them to score 30 in a few years time.

See, though, Juventus was exactly my point. His other goal - if Buffon hadnt fucked it up, then he wouldnt have the best conversion rate in europe. Stats like that, when you only have a small number to contribute to it, are very open to fluctuation on small things. Which is why that quantitative argument fails in that case.

 

[Shaun]

Goals are the result of things like movement, instincts, strength, speed, technique, and composure. All those things bar speed improve with experience. Therefore the goals argument actually makes perfect sense in both Icardi's and Belfodil's examples. Yes, it's a rather simplistic argument, but one you cannot argue with, especially when a good level of opposition is involved.

 

[Pajo]

ALso if anything, stikers always performed under Mazzarri. I am actually VERY excited to see the trio Palacio - Belfodil - Icardi. I know two out of those three will be starters, but with only 3 for 2 positions, all will play quite a lot.

 

[.h.]

Indeed, but it is very possible to have all those aspects and *NOT* score goals when you're at that age.

Shit, Milito is a nice example of that, 12 goals in his first 86 matches. Indeed over his first five seasons are 37 in 148.

Palacio was 15 in 53, going to 26 in 91 if you go to his first four seasons

It works both ways.

 

[ZeruTituli]

Goals are the result of things like movement, instincts, strength, speed, technique, and composure. All those things bar speed improve with experience.

On this point, why do we suppose in football that speed deteriorates with age, when 5 of the 8 olympic 100m finalists last year were aged 27-31?

I've always been curious as to why in football a young 21 year old is presumed to be faster than a 31 year old. Is it because football is a contact sport where injuries to the legs are more common, thus affecting acceleration? Has there been any research into this? Sprints in football are rarely 100m (more like 10-30m) and so perhaps acceleration is more important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_100_metres#Final
Looking at this, the top 4 reaction times were all sprinters aged 27+, so that at least need not be a factor.

The comments by everyone on this page and the one previousy is FIF at its best. Good, technical discussion rather than needless negativity and thoughtless guff.

*waits for Trollace*

 

[KevinB]

This is what I disagree with. I think it's shown that young strikers who perform from year dot almost always succeed.

Also, Mido shouldn't be included in this argument as his first season was at Gent.

Mido had maybe 3 good seasons in his career.

(Damn what a player he was at Gent :closeenough: )

 

[thatdude]

On this point, why do we suppose in football that speed deteriorates with age, when 5 of the 8 olympic 100m finalists last year were aged 27-31?

I've always been curious as to why in football a young 21 year old is presumed to be faster than a 31 year old. Is it because football is a contact sport where injuries to the legs are more common, thus affecting acceleration? Has there been any research into this? Sprints in football are rarely 100m (more like 10-30m) and so perhaps acceleration is more important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_100_metres#Final
Looking at this, the top 4 reaction times were all sprinters aged 27+, so that at least need not be a factor.

The comments by everyone on this page and the one previousy is FIF at its best. Good, technical discussion rather than needless negativity and thoughtless guff.

*waits for Trollace*

I get your point here. I think that most would agree the prime age for footballers is also 27-31. However, I don't think comparing sprinters to footballers is a great comparison. More goes into sprinting than just being able to run fast. It takes a lot of years of perfecting form and reaction time. SImilar to how at 27-31 a footballers mental attributes are at the best they have been in their career, while their legs are still able to carry out the ideas. A sprinter peaks at that age, because he has been molding and sculpting his body for years to reach that level.

I'm sure some footballers have been able to improve their speed, while some have decided to ease off the pedal and let the ball work. You can't tell me a 31 year old Ibrahimovic is moving faster than a 21 year old. Anyways like you said, acceleration is more important than flat out sprinting anyways.

 

[Shaun]

On this point, why do we suppose in football that speed deteriorates with age, when 5 of the 8 olympic 100m finalists last year were aged 27-31?

I've always been curious as to why in football a young 21 year old is presumed to be faster than a 31 year old. Is it because football is a contact sport where injuries to the legs are more common, thus affecting acceleration? Has there been any research into this? Sprints in football are rarely 100m (more like 10-30m) and so perhaps acceleration is more important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres#Final
Looking at this, the top 4 reaction times were all sprinters aged 27+, so that at least need not be a factor.


*waits for Trollace*

Well I think sprinting and speed are different things as stupid as it sounds. I'm sure a sprinters improvements are often down to more refined sprinting technique, better training, and more composure in the starting gate etc etc. Also, I don't necessarily think players speed drops between 21 and 31 when it comes to footballer, but rather it's probably not going to improve like others skill might.

 

[Batman]

okerface:

 

[Pimpin]

SWAG

 

[Hugo Boss]

okerface:

:yuno: