This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A quick nitpick:
Every European country values youth football. Nations like Norway and Croatia are not exemplifying a distinction by having a good run this WC. Smaller nations periodically field strong teams, usually due to a coincidence of a talented generation synergizing at the right time to fit the right tactic. What historically separates the "big" football nations is their sheer depth.
A larger talent pool allows managers to select players who fit a specific structure, rather than being forced to field every decent player they have out of necessity and then organize around it. They are also more tactically flexible, whilst the current Norway squad, for instance, would find itself lost without Haaland at the top, there would be no lack for creative midfielders for Spain. Ultimately, no country in Europe treats football as meaningless. Every major club and most minor ones run professional and serious youth academies.
A more general thought on youth academies and the representation of foreigners:
What the mainstream often ignores about youth development is the role of HBD.
Many Sub-Saharan African players mature physically at an earlier age, making them dominant in youth cohorts. Whilst undeniably talented, their early physical advantages can skew academy recruitment. As clubs increasingly fill limited academy slots with these early-maturing players, local European prospects find themselves competing for fewer opportunities.
This can manifest in predictable ways. Where, to take an American example, dynasty establishing talent like Tom Brady can only shine through via high resistance to adversity. Or where team defining players like Travis Kelce are far from first picks. This early peak contrast becomes clearer in adulthood. Players who relied on early physical dominance at the youth level and are described as having a lot of 'potential' often plateau after 20. Meaning there was no 'potential'. They were at their peak at 17 to 20.
The most extreme examples being Freddy Adu, Macauley Chrisantus and Dominic Adiyiah. All extremely accomplished on the youth level with golden boots and the whole charade, but falling off a cliff when the physical advantage wasn't there for them to rely on. Compared with European players with 'potential' like CR7, Messi or Rooney that had 'potential' as teens and then hit their stride in their mid 20's. There is an obvious skew there despite the many variables and complexities of football.
I think these are all bad examples; they were all teenage wunderkinds who made their pro debuts at 15
Why would that make them bad examples?
Because they weren't slow to develop, and had already established themselves as superstars by the time they exited their teens.
The point is not that they were 'slow' to develop. Rooney, for instance, was very mature physically as a teen. The point is that they demonstrate a development curve that doesn't peak at
18 but rather25. Unlike many of the African prospects that go through academies as stars and then seemingly plateau or completely fall off after ~18.So if we take that concept and apply it to a more average European academy player, how are they supposed to demonstrate their 'potential' if they are competing against players who've already peaked? If both are similarly skilled at 18 but one is done developing and the other has years of improvement left then we're reaching closer to the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember Steve Sailer (note: he's smart but obviously biased) used to do a lot of speculation about this on his old blog. Basically his argument was that a big part of the reason the NBA was so black was that talented young white players got bodied and fouled out of the game before they had a chance to really develop, and the couaches were too clueless or biased to stop it. We've recently had an increase in white NBA players, but most of them have come from heavily white European countries, where they get a chance to grow and develop at their own pace until they're ready for the pro leagues. The few white players in the NBA tended be guys like Larry Bird or Rick Barry, who were not only physically huge but also had "special" personalities (read: stubborn/mean enough to thrive in the dirtiest of games).
More options
Context Copy link
I played Elite Rugby for a year or so and there was a similar factor with Polynesian players. They generally dominated youth-level off a combination of getting bigger earlier and having a playing culture built around being ball-dominant and big highlight plays. They thus got a good chunk of the academy slots, but a lot failed to convert into actual professional players due to a combination of the physical gap closing as they aged and a lot of their style not really converting into structured professional play. In the meantime they ate up a ton of development resources and discouraged slower-maturing players along the pipeline.
The effects on minority culture of Sports being seen as a principal pathway to success are also highly deleterious. The amount of young Polynesians I knew who made no efforts towards having a plan B, and who are now going nowhere, is very high. Both as their individual priorities, and how their subculture was pretty anti-intellectual.
More options
Context Copy link
You know ball. However, I would say that in football, there's a constant pattern of youth players who are physically dominant on U-16/18/21 teams (black, white, and hispanic) failing to kick on after that peak. It's kind of priced into football youth development in a way it isn't in American football. Also, breaking through early and playing a ton of minutes is a recipe for being an injury disaster in your late 20s, as the example of Rooney (or Jack Wilshere, or Gareth Bale - btw I disagree with your assessment of Rooney, he went to United at 18 and was their top league scorer in his first season) shows; late-blooming players often have much longer peaks because by the time they reach that peak of game intelligence their body is still able to handle it. Helps if you're in Spain/France and thus doped to the gills, of course.
Yeah, Rooney is not the clearest example as he probably matured faster than most in his age group, and he was physically capable enough at 16 to play with adults. But as you say, he kept on developing mentally. He wasn't just his physicality and I'd argue that many of his best performances didn't even revolve around his goal scoring ability which is what defined his earlier years.
And whilst it is of course true that youth stars of all stripes don't always live up to the hype, there's a difference between talent like, for example, Januzaj and the examples I gave. Whilst Januzaj had a lot of hype, he ended up being a middling player at the top level. That's a far cry from never even making it to the top level after being sandwiched in accolades between Toni Kroos and Bojan at 17 like Macauley Chrisantus. Not that a professional career in 2nd division football is a failure by any means. But it's certainly not living up to the imagined potential.
Sure, I agree with the points you're making. I'm just trying to say that these prospects come and go every year, every top club's fans are hyped up about their academy players, or some other academy prospect they want to sign, and the majority of them go the Januzaj route. Some are cut early, some make it into their early twenties and then go to Bremen or Getafe or Tottenham, and a few make it to be stars, but always far fewer than fans expect in a given season.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In every sport there's just always going to be certain styles that are better suited to being the dominant athlete on the pitch and absolutely shellacking people you are better than, but that are less viable against other professional-tier players. You can argue about why so many resources are devoted to players/why they aren't being taught how to function better as part of the professional metagame, but there's always going to be an issue where coaches are more concerned with winning the current age-level game instead of developing players to best function at the top level.
There's plenty of American Football players who are super dominant at the CFB level but don't have the right attributes or game style to thrive in the parity-driven NFL. Tim Tebow's the classic example of that where his physical running style was viable against COllegiate defenders but was never going to last against pro competition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link