Where would you say each major national team is in cyclical terms.
View Single Post
12-14-2012, 03:04 PM
J17 Vs Proclamation
Join Date: Oct 2004
Originally Posted by
Obviously there are differences in philosophy in how to teach hockey (or any other sport) as you move from place to place but I think it is too easily overstated how effective one can be vs another. The primary driver behind how many top level pro's a place produces is the overall number of people they have participating in the sport. Sure some developmental systems will be better than others. A good system may produce 15% more pro's per enrolled players than a bad one. A great system may produce 20% more. But if anyone tries to tell me that their system is so much better that they produce +300% more elite players per capita then I would say they are 100% full of crap.
Then why in football does England not produce tecnnically gifted players relative to the rest of the world? A game that dominates the sports market, incredibly high participation rate and a domestic league perceived to be the best in the world.
50 Million people. Popularity akin to hockey in Canada, yet much higher participation. Huge domestic league. Wealthy nation. Infact, money isn't even a huge issue for the sport, given it's a cheap sport and the majority of our best players are comprised of people from the lower class/less capital rich families.
Yet, there is a clear technical divide between our youth footballers and those in other leading European nations/South America. Are you telling me it's simple cyclical? That for 40 years, in a powerful economic nation that loves the sport, it is simply he nature of the cycle?
No. It's because at the youth level too much is concentrated on winning, deriving in strategies and simple skills over developing higher end skills. This is probably very comparable with where the US currently resides in hockey. A clear systematic issue exists here.
The US has very large numbers of players. Sure, many good athletes choose other sports, yet this is the case for every other nation. You think Russia has every best athlete choosing hockey? Even if you align with that irrational theory, the sheer population disparity between the US and Sweden and the player pool disparity means that problem would be overcome anyway.
People need to understand cyclical development doesn't mean years of developing little high end followed by a "golden generation". Cyclical pertains to fluctuations year on year. Over a 5 year period, the depth in each class should be relatively close. Elite players globally are produced randomy, but not 5-10 years apart if your system is big enough ; unless there is a systematic problem.
Sweden and Finland have had large gaps between their golden generations and what perceive today as a revival. Were these gaps random chance ; the function of the cycle of talent distrubtion and development? You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that it is. Economics and popularity can play a part, but based on the two case studies of Finland and Sweden, the concensus is that talent development struggled due to systematic issues at the youth level. It would be logical to assume the US lacks elite players at Forward because of systematic issues, rather than random chance implementing itself over a sustained amount of time.
J17 Vs Proclamation
View Public Profile
J17 Vs Proclamation's albums
Find More Posts by J17 Vs Proclamation