Wayne Rooney

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 26th March 2008, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Tell you what, Chief, you're on a roll in this thead!

You are one sorry fellow if you can't see how natural talent can never improve. But applied skills can.

fredthered · 26th March 2008, 17:16

I dont give a shit what anyone says.

Rooney scoring or not is the most influential player in the squad.

If Rooney were banging in goals left right and centre I will bet you any money you like Ronaldo wouldnt have half the bag he has got.

Rooney isnt there to be the main striker. His job isnt to bang them in like Ruud did. His job is to work the defences so that the likes of Ronaldo can have the space to apply their skills to the max.

Anyone who thinks Rooney should be as prolific as Henry or Ruud or even Torres for that matter is living in a complete fantasy world.

Torres scores because the others play the ball into positions so he can score. Rooney is the one laying the ball into the positions so that others can.

Thats the big difference.

Sylar · 26th March 2008, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tibs

We need the new RvN, one Dirt Kuyt

I actually like going through threads and reading old comments.

Anyway, once Rooney gets a goal, he will go on a roll like he did at the end of last season. I actually think he would be putting away all these one on ones had he not picked up that injury against Reading.

Psmith · 26th March 2008, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

I dont give a shit what anyone says.

Rooney scoring or not is the most influential player in the squad.

If Rooney were banging in goals left right and centre I will bet you any money you like Ronaldo wouldnt have half the bag he has got.

Rooney isnt there to be the main striker. His job isnt to bang them in like Ruud did. His job is to work the defences so that the likes of Ronaldo can have the space to apply their skills to the max.

Anyone who thinks Rooney should be as prolific as Henry or Ruud or even Torres for that matter is living in a complete fantasy world.

Torres scores because the others play the ball into positions so he can score. Rooney is the one laying the ball into the positions so that others can.

Thats the big difference.

You can't just dismiss that aspect of his game though. He's a striker, part of his job is to score goals. And people's gripe is that he's not scoring enough given his talent and ability.

I'd say Rio, Ronaldo and Rooney are our most influential players. In that order.

Bape · 26th March 2008, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psmith

You can't just dismiss that aspect of his game though. He's a striker, part of his job is to score goals. And people's gripe is that he's not scoring enough given his talent and ability.

Well said.

Pogue Mahone · 26th March 2008, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psmith

You can't just dismiss that aspect of his game though. He's a striker, part of his job is to score goals. And people's gripe is that he's not scoring enough given his talent and ability.

I'd say Rio, Ronaldo and Rooney are our most influential players. In that order.

Part of his job, yes. And I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with not far off 20 goals by the end of the season. And a shit-load of assists.Which means he has being doing his job pretty fecking well.

And that's before we even mention the fractured metatarsal and the ankle-knack he got playing head tennis.

There's a time and a place for a gripe about the contribution of certain players. I don't think anyone can whinge about Rooney's contribution to our season as a whole.

AttackingFlair · 26th March 2008, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

I dont give a shit what anyone says.

Rooney scoring or not is the most influential player in the squad.

If Rooney were banging in goals left right and centre I will bet you any money you like Ronaldo wouldnt have half the bag he has got.

Rooney isnt there to be the main striker. His job isnt to bang them in like Ruud did. His job is to work the defences so that the likes of Ronaldo can have the space to apply their skills to the max.

Anyone who thinks Rooney should be as prolific as Henry or Ruud or even Torres for that matter is living in a complete fantasy world.

Torres scores because the others play the ball into positions so he can score. Rooney is the one laying the ball into the positions so that others can.

Thats the big difference.

He scored 23 last season, people have a right to expect goals and this is a credit to Rooney's talents. He's not expected to be as prolific as Ruud but a good tally is what's expected and rightfully IMO. He's already proved he can do the setting up job and scoring like he did last season, that's why expectations are on him to replicate them even considering last season wasn't one of his best apparently.

marcus agrippa · 26th March 2008, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Look at the case of Ruud and Henry. Ruud is a natural goal scorer. Scores goals in ways that can't be taught. Always at the right place at the right time, effortlessly. Give him 3 chances he will put away 2. Due to ice in the veins. An ability/talent he was born with. It's second nature. No coach or training method could impart it.

Henry, isn't a natural finisher or goal scorer. By any stretch of the imagination. Give him 3 chances and he will probably score 1. He works so hard to get himself into the right positions to score. Yet, even when he first arrived in England, like Rooney he was not prolific. In fact he was far worse than Rooney is now! But Wenger worked with him on his finishing skills. Henry improved his decision making when shooting at goal and his shooting technique in one one one situations. Thus, his finishing skill increased. So naturally his goal scoring rate increased. And since he had far more natural ability and work rate to call on, than a Ruud, he ended up being more prolific than Ruud in the league. Yet Henry even now still misses the simplest of chances even when on top form. The type only a pure and natural goal scorer can take. The champions league competition was what always showed the difference between skills and natural ability. For all Henry's skills. He could never outscore Ruud in that competition.

i understand what you are saying, but imo you are contradicting Scholesy, whom you agreed with in the first place, since you claim that improvement is possible. his opinion is that practice is more a thing to get into shape physically and mentally, than a process by which one may hone one's skills.

it is appealing and romantic to ascribe some nebulous notion of natural talent to certain things in football. i can understand that. and certainly when people like a young Pele , Georgie or Maradona, Messi, Ronnie, Rooney etc come along, you say, well, there you go. i don't debate these players have a natural (as in born-with/innate) ability that wasn't taught. this, however, doesn't mean that it can't be taught or learnt. to imply that would fly in the face of everything we now know about the brain and how we learn physical tasks.

this is separate from the mental aspect of things, which can be innate. so, certain players make very mature decisions that belie their age (Rooney being an excellent example). nevertheless, certain players begin to come into their own and make such decisions later on in their careers (Zidane, Deco etc). it is easy to say, like Scholesy likely would, that this was there all along and all he needed was to acquire the experience. but how does one prove this scientifically? - imo, such an explanation is very ad hoc, unfalsifiable and therefore unpalatable.

now, on the Ruud vs. Henry example, what you describe is more temperament that anything. and that is innate. certain players are simply composed in front of goal, and it shows in their chance conversion rate. Ruud has the ability to be at the right place at the right time, and i'd wager this is natural, but it can be taught. i was reading an interview with Paloschi, the young Milan striker, and he was asked about a goal he'd scored against Samp i believe. he said he'd learnt a great deal from talking with arguably the poacher's poacher of world football: Inzaghi, who had instructed him on what positions to take up in the box. after that point, natural temperament takes over, which has as much to do with nature as it does confidence.

also, Henry is more of a footballer. it is no coincidence that he is often not inside the box when the ball gets there. Ruud, on the other hand, thrives in within those 12 yards. he is therefore more likely to score typical poacher's goals.

Sam#1 · 26th March 2008, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Truth is they are both bad. But for me B is worse because he takes
twice the amount of chances to have the same effect as player A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scholesy

There is no point, it will never improve. Hes not a bad finisher, he just doesnt make the right decisions.

Christ on a Bike!

IhabX7 · 26th March 2008, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

That is class!!

Pogue Mahone · 26th March 2008, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

i understand what you are saying, but imo you are contradicting Scholesy, whom you agreed with in the first place, since you claim that improvement is possible. his opinion is that practice is more a thing to get into shape physically and mentally, than a process by which one may hone one's skills.

it is appealing and romantic to ascribe some nebulous notion of natural talent to certain things in football. i can understand that. and certainly when people like a young Pele , Georgie or Maradona, Messi, Ronnie, Rooney etc come along, you say, well, there you go. i don't debate these players have a natural (as in born-with/innate) ability that wasn't taught. this, however, doesn't mean that it can't be taught or learnt. to imply that would fly in the face of everything we now know about the brain and how we learn physical tasks.

this is separate from the mental aspect of things, which can be innate. so, certain players make very mature decisions that belie their age (Rooney being an excellent example). nevertheless, certain players begin to come into their own and make such decisions later on in their careers (Zidane, Deco etc). it is easy to say, like Scholesy likely would, that this was there all along and all he needed was to acquire the experience. but how does one prove this scientifically? - imo, such an explanation is very ad hoc, unfalsifiable and therefore unpalatable.

now, on the Ruud vs. Henry example, what you describe is more temperament that anything. and that is innate. certain players are simply composed in front of goal, and it shows in their chance conversion rate. Ruud has the ability to be at the right place at the right time, and i'd wager this is natural, but it can be taught. i was reading an interview with Paloschi, the young Milan striker, and he was asked about a goal he'd scored against Samp i believe. he said he'd learnt a great deal from talking with arguably the poacher's poacher of world football: Inzaghi, who had instructed him on what positions to take up in the box. after that point, natural temperament takes over, which has as much to do with nature as it does confidence.

also, Henry is more of a footballer. it is no coincidence that he is often not inside the box when the ball gets there. Ruud, on the other hand, thrives in within those 12 yards. he is therefore more likely to score typical poacher's goals.

Some players are dealt a good hand to begin with, when it comes to certain attributes, but the mistake that Chief and Scholesy is making is that they're extrapolating from this that others can't learn and develop these exact same attributes.

Of course, if the player who has a head-start to begin with works on their football as hard as everyone else, they will always be ahead of the pack. But if they don't put the graft in then it's quite possible for player's with less natural talent to catch up or even surpass them.

Ronaldo is a great example of someone who is blessed with an amazing talent to begin with (based mainly around his athleticism) but continues to work his bollox off in training to be the best that he can be. Which means that he is getting better and better at a frightening rate.

Rooney is very similar, as it happens, but he is doomed to be continually compared with someone who is already the best player in the world at the tender age of 22. And that's always gonna be a harsh comparison.

marcus agrippa · 26th March 2008, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Some players are dealt a good hand to begin with, when it comes to certain attributes, but the mistake that Chief and Scholesy is making is that they're extrapolating from this that others can't learn and develop these exact same attributes.

Of course, if the player who has a head-start to begin with works on their football as hard as everyone else, they will always be ahead of the pack. But if they don't put the graft in then it's quite possible for player's with less natural talent to catch up or even surpass them.

Ronaldo is a great example of someone who is blessed with an amazing talent to begin with (based mainly around his athleticism) but continues to work his bollox off in training to be the best that he can be. Which means that he is getting better and better at a frightening rate.

Rooney is very similar, as it happens, but he is doomed to be continually compared with someone who is already the best player in the world at the tender age of 22. And that's always gonna be a harsh comparison.

agreed.

sadly, i couldn't make my argument as concise.

Pogue Mahone · 26th March 2008, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

agreed.

sadly, i couldn't make my argument as concise.

I only managed to make it that concise by ignoring the whole "footballing intelligence" thing and the way Rooney has always been old beyond his years when it comes to this part of his game.

I started trying to separate that out from Ronaldo's youthful athleticism but it got a bit long-winded and confusing!

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 27th March 2008, 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredthered

I dont give a shit what anyone says.

Rooney scoring or not is the most influential player in the squad.

If Rooney were banging in goals left right and centre I will bet you any money you like Ronaldo wouldnt have half the bag he has got.

Rooney isnt there to be the main striker. His job isnt to bang them in like Ruud did. His job is to work the defences so that the likes of Ronaldo can have the space to apply their skills to the max.

Anyone who thinks Rooney should be as prolific as Henry or Ruud or even Torres for that matter is living in a complete fantasy world.

Torres scores because the others play the ball into positions so he can score. Rooney is the one laying the ball into the positions so that others can.

Thats the big difference.

Well your dead wrong. First off, Rooney despite play making still gets played into and plays himself into enough positions to be as prolific as a Henry. Just his finishing isn't quite there yet. But don't expect that status quo to last forever. Rooney's too good for that to happen.

Secondly, Ferdinand is the most influential player in the team. Bar none.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 27th March 2008, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

i understand what you are saying, but imo you are contradicting Scholesy, whom you agreed with in the first place, since you claim that improvement is possible. his opinion is that practice is more a thing to get into shape physically and mentally, than a process by which one may hone one's skills.

That is true. I have only just realised this. We weren't quite on the same page with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

it is appealing and romantic to ascribe some nebulous notion of natural talent to certain things in football. i can understand that. and certainly when people like a young Pele , Georgie or Maradona, Messi, Ronnie, Rooney etc come along, you say, well, there you go. i don't debate these players have a natural (as in born-with/innate) ability that wasn't taught. this, however, doesn't mean that it can't be taught or learnt. to imply that would fly in the face of everything we now know about the brain and how we learn physical tasks.

I disagree. Natural talent is like the arms and legs you were born with. You will never grow others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

this is separate from the mental aspect of things, which can be innate. so, certain players make very mature decisions that belie their age (Rooney being an excellent example). nevertheless, certain players begin to come into their own and make such decisions later on in their careers (Zidane, Deco etc). it is easy to say, like Scholesy likely would, that this was there all along and all he needed was to acquire the experience. but how does one prove this scientifically? - imo, such an explanation is very ad hoc, unfalsifiable and therefore unpalatable.

But it's all provable. Especially if you play sports. People constantly keep mixing natural talent with skills. Because skills can be constantly improved until they become second nature. So some one with no skills can work till the have mastered the skills. Skills can also be used as a tool to refine the utilization of a talent.

However talent can't be increased. It can only be mastered. It's either there or it isn't. Some one without a required talent can't be taught to have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus agrippa

......
also, Henry is more of a footballer. it is no coincidence that he is often not inside the box when the ball gets there. Ruud, on the other hand, thrives in within those 12 yards. he is therefore more likely to score typical poacher's goals.

You miss the whole point then. Henry even when he gets in Ruud's positions, due to having the work rate and ability to do it often, despite being involved else where on pitch, is more likely to miss those same chances more often than not. Because it doesn't not come naturally to him. Even though he has refined his finishing skill. He will never be able to just score a half chance like people like Inzaghi or Ruud do. That is something you can't teach or train.

And this Paloschi kid you are talking about IMO looks like he has all the hallmarks of a natural poacher. What Inzaghi is doing is helping him improve the skills need to apply his talent. Not teaching him a new talent.

Pat_Mustard · 27th March 2008, 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

But it's all provable. Especially if you play sports. People constantly keep mixing natural talent with skills. Because skills can be constantly improved until they become second nature. So some one with no skills can work till the have mastered the skills. Skills can also be used as a tool refine talent.

However talent can't be increased. It can only be mastered. It's either there or it isn't. Some one without a required talent can't be taught to have it.

Because its impossible to delineate the two in the way that you think you have. As I understand it, your talent is your level of aptitude at a given skill.

No one can precisely state to what degree an individual's talent was natural (genetics) and to what degree it was a response to training, not least because how an individual responds to a training stimulus will be in part determined by their genetics! Its fecking confusing, and its why you've tied yourself in knots with the Ruud/Henry example.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 27th March 2008, 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Some players are dealt a good hand to begin with, when it comes to certain attributes, but the mistake that Chief and Scholesy is making is that they're extrapolating from this that others can't learn and develop these exact same attributes.

Of course, if the player who has a head-start to begin with works on their football as hard as everyone else, they will always be ahead of the pack. But if they don't put the graft in then it's quite possible for player's with less natural talent to catch up or even surpass them.

Ronaldo is a great example of someone who is blessed with an amazing talent to begin with (based mainly around his athleticism) but continues to work his bollox off in training to be the best that he can be. Which means that he is getting better and better at a frightening rate.

Rooney is very similar, as it happens, but he is doomed to be continually compared with someone who is already the best player in the world at the tender age of 22. And that's always gonna be a harsh comparison.

It is not being doomed Mate. Rooney is a player who's skill will soon catch up to the talent he has. It's inevitable. The probelm is most people think all players develope at the same rate. So if Rooney is not at Ronaldo's level now he can't be as good a talent. But even men like Zidane took their time developing. Which I believe is the same case with Rooney.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 27th March 2008, 08:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Mustard

Because its impossible to delineate the two in the way that you think you have. As I understand it, your talent is your level of aptitude at a given skill..

Which is wrong. Anyone can be taught a skill. & Can master it. Whether they have the talent or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Mustard

No one can precisely state to what degree an individual's talent was natural (genetics) and to what degree it was a response to training, not least because how an individual responds to a training stimulus will be in part determined by their genetics! Its fecking confusing, and its why you've tied yourself in knots with the Ruud/Henry example.

I've done no such thing. You have just failed to understand something very simple and clear. Thus, you are the one tied up in knots. And making thing more complicated than they are. Skills and talent are two very separate things. Things like passing, heading, shooting & tackling fro example are skills which anyone can be taught. While things like vision, positioning, dribbling & game reading for example, are talents which can't be taught. So its not hard to tell which is which. Or what falls where

Pogue Mahone · 27th March 2008, 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

It is not being doomed Mate. Rooney is a player who's skill will soon catch up to the talent he has. It's inevitable. The probelm is most people think all players develope at the same rate. So if Rooney is not at Ronaldo's level now he can't be as good a talent. But even men like Zidane took their time developing. Which I believe is the same case with Rooney.

He's only "doomed" to be compared to Ronaldo. Which is no reflection on Rooney, just a consequence Ronaldo being such a phenomenal footballer.

Pat_Mustard · 27th March 2008, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Which is wrong. Anyone can be taught a skill. & Can master it. Whether they have the talent or not.

I've done no such thing. You have just failed to understand something very simple and clear. Thus, you are the one tied up in knots. And making thing more complicated than they are. Skills and talent are two very separate things. Things like passing, heading, shooting & tackling fro example are skills which anyone can be taught. While things like vision, positioning, dribbling & game reading for example, are talents which can't be taught. So its not hard to tell which is which. Or what falls where

Lumping attributes into one of two categories is ridiculously arbitrary.

You really think that anyone can master the skill of passing for example? It takes a certain degree of genetic ability to be able to develop the motor skills to routinely ping 60 yard passes around the pitch to a team mate. To suggest that anyone can master such a skill is absurd.

Yet by claiming that game reading or positioning can't be improved at all you completely discount the possibility that someone can develop their perceptual and spatial awareness through study and practice.

Pogue Mahone · 27th March 2008, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Mustard

Lumping attributes into one of two categories is ridiculously arbitrary.

You really think that anyone can master the skill of passing for example? It takes a certain degree of genetic ability to be able to develop the motor skills to routinely ping 60 yard passes around the pitch to a team mate. To suggest that anyone can master such a skill is absurd.

Yet by claiming that game reading or positioning can't be improved at all you completely discount the possibility that someone can develop their perceptual and spatial awareness through study and practice.

I see you decided not to challenge his claim that dribbling can't be taught. Which was kind of you. Sometimes arguing with the Chief is like shooting fish in the barrel, isn't it?

Pat_Mustard · 27th March 2008, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

I see you decided not to challenge his claim that dribbling can't be taught. Which was kind of you. Sometimes arguing with the Chief is like shooting fish in the barrel, isn't it?

Very true. I also love the way he can divide someone's post into about 10 sections yet fail to actually address a single one of their points.

robthered · 27th March 2008, 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Mustard

26th March 2008, 17:16	#442 (permalink)
fredthered I want Peter Kenyon back Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: UK Posts: 14,382	I dont give a shit what anyone says. Rooney scoring or not is the most influential player in the squad. If Rooney were banging in goals left right and centre I will bet you any money you like Ronaldo wouldnt have half the bag he has got. Rooney isnt there to be the main striker. His job isnt to bang them in like Ruud did. His job is to work the defences so that the likes of Ronaldo can have the space to apply their skills to the max. Anyone who thinks Rooney should be as prolific as Henry or Ruud or even Torres for that matter is living in a complete fantasy world. Torres scores because the others play the ball into positions so he can score. Rooney is the one laying the ball into the positions so that others can. Thats the big difference.