jammy2211

Members
  • Content count

    1,442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About jammy2211

  • Rank
    Festival Freak

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. Don't post often - and will probably regret getting involved in this luck debate, but couldn't resist the temptation to get involved, as it something I've thought about quite a few times recently, specifically with regard to Kane and Alli! To me, there are two ways to view youth recruitment in the context of 'luck': 1) A select few youth players are ultra talented super-stars to be who are destined to 'make it' (with Kane and Alli being a great example of a club scoring two in a short space of time). In this instance, Tottenham (or whatever club signs / acquires said player) were extremely lucky to gamble on the signing and nature of this player, as with the many thousands of youth players that all the mega-clubs are fighting to sign, its clear no one has any real hope nor the scouting prowess to pick out 'the stars' intentionally. 2) Alternatively, you could take the view that every youth academy has many players who have the potential to be 'stars' (at the level of Kane, Alli or better), and that the coaching, facilities and opportunities given to those players determines how many of them, on average, actually 'make it'. In this scenario, I would argue there is actually very little luck associated to the club - its their infrastructure which determines how many good players come through their youth setup. Luck and circumstances can be attached to the individual players, sure, but with a large enough sample of potential youth super-stars its statistically inevitable great players come through if the infrastructure is in place. The two scenarios above are two extremes and I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. However, to me, when you look at Poch's record of bringinig youth through its hard to argue against the second view point. In less than 3 years at Spurs, he's brought (off the top of my head) 8 players through the first team (Kane, Alli, Bentaleb, Winks, Carroll, Davies, Dier, Mason). Sure, not all of them were good enough in the end (and were sold on for a handsome profit), but I don't believe we can rigidly argue that things are this completely stochastic luck-driven thing given Poch's record thus far. Of course, I'm also basing this on his shorter spell at Southampton, where he built the entire Liverpool starting 11 in a year ! So, I guess I would ask Neil, if Spurs have another Kane or Alli come through next year, and another the year after, would you continue to regard it as 'luck'? When does one have to turn your head and ask 'why arn't these players coming through at City / Chelsea / United / Arsenal?', and begin to question if its their methods and policies that are the problem?
  2. Can anyone offer much info on what this will be like? Bored of Download, but fancy a festival abroad, and while it feels really lame going to a Download literally as close as possible to the UK, it seems cheaper and has a decent looking line up. Do we know if there are 3 stages like UK Download? I can only see 3 day camping tickets - is the site only open from Friday onwards? The website seems to literally be a line up poster, so I'm guessing the answer is to wait and see...
  3. And now I remember why I got bored of Download and didn't go last year. How many years am I gonna have to take off before we get a line up that feels anywhere near 'fresh'? It still blows my mind that the Prodigy / C&S day went down what felt like an apparent success, for Download to then revert back to the same old crap every year after. Bored.
  4. I'm not totally sure that statistics is the primary incentive for the likes of LIveNation implementing a scheme like this. I assumed this was more to do with simply helping with the movement / management of physical money. Having millions of pounds of cash on site is a huge security risk, alongside great expense required in moving it, counting it etc. Stat tracking is possible, but I'm not totally convinced it tells them a huge amount of information they probably don't already know for the most part. Stat tracking on the scale of the major supermarkets isn't simply something where they note down a load of numbers and rejig their stores to sell double the product. It requires an extensive experimentation based approach, which is grudually rolled out over a small sample of stores and very often yields statistically insignificant results (which may not correspond to a positive increase in sales). Generally I've formed the impression that large corporations are the most mindnumbingly boring, risk-adverse entities in the world. While the stats they could in-theory collect on every festival goer is compelling, I don't think any of these companies have a willingness or culture to experiment and change things based on 'the stats'.