Why are Africans such poor footballers?

[smudgedj]

So training at altitude is pseudo scientific bollocks is it? Best you tell all the top long distance athletes they are wasting their time. Training at and living at altitude is scientifically proved. I also understand all about fast and slow twitch fibres.
We are talking all the other factors, heart and lung capacity, being at their peak in fitness levels.

Training at altitude can help, however, you never mentioned that. To remind you, your post was

"Well they are better at boxing due to greater bone and skin density, they can hit harder and get cut less, the same reason they make piss poor swimmers as these advantages mean they weigh more. The speed, in sprinting, is due to the fact the calf muscle attaches lower down and they get the power 'down' quicker. All other factors being the same."

Thats the pseudo scientific bollocks i am laughing at.

Pseudo scientific bollocks eh....Bone Density...http://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/race.html

 

[zoffie]

You think I didn't know Meghni was born in France... He played for the French U21's read what I said.

J.Cole is probably the most skilled player in the English NT, and Meghni is the most skilled for Algeria, Meghni is more skillful than all English players.

Robinho was probably the most skillful player in the Premiership.

I don't see what you find hard to understand, the Premiership itself can act as an example.

Arsenal Vs Chelsea, I am a Chelsea supporter.

I'd agree that Arsenal are a more technical team than Chelsea are, but I know who I'd back to win in a game.

Just because a team has more technical players that doesn't mean that they are not better than that team.

Just because a player has better technique than another, it doesn't make them better players.

Like I intimated before I will be very surprised if Algeria were to get even a draw against England.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Training at altitude can help, however, you never mentioned that. To remind you, your post was

"Well they are better at boxing due to greater bone and skin density, they can hit harder and get cut less, the same reason they make piss poor swimmers as these advantages mean they weigh more. The speed, in sprinting, is due to the fact the calf muscle attaches lower down and they get the power 'down' quicker. All other factors being the same."

Thats the pseudo scientific bollocks i am laughing at.

Pseudo scientific bollocks eh....Bone Density...http://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/race.html

I think you might be right there.
This was revealing "She measured bone density in hundreds of kids who live near San Francisco."
Kids living near San Francisco, who have won hundreds of gold medals.
Still laughing.
Did she measure them when puberty kicked in?
Did the results stay the same or did, either group move up or down.
One group blacks, the other group Caucasian (White), Asian, or Hispanic kids wtf.
A really scientific piece that one.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

You think I didn't know Meghni was born in France... He played for the French U21's read what I said.

J.Cole is probably the most skilled player in the English NT, and Meghni is the most skilled for Algeria, Meghni is more skillful than all English players.

Robinho was probably the most skillful player in the Premiership.

I don't see what you find hard to understand, the Premiership itself can act as an example.

Arsenal Vs Chelsea, I am a Chelsea supporter.

I'd agree that Arsenal are a more technical team than Chelsea are, but I know who I'd back to win in a game.

Just because a team has more technical players that doesn't mean that they are not better than that team.

Just because a player has better technique than another, it doesn't make them better players.

Like I intimated before I will be very surprised if Algeria were to get even a draw against England.

Ok, i will say it clearer. You are writing point of view. Any skill Meghni has, has probably come from his Portugese mother. Prove me wrong. Or more importantly, PROVE Meghni is more skillful. You cannot. You aren't writing anything of any substance.

 

[pee dubyas crayons]

Question for Ken the Landlord:

Do you think that all races are identical in physical make-up and attributes? Do you deny the existence of racial tendencies is what Im basically asking you.

Eg the NHS state on their website that people of African descent are more prone to some kinds of diseases, and people of Asian descent are generally intolerant of alcohol causing facial flushing and other symptoms.


Your posts seem to deny the existence of racial differences. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll apologise.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Question for Ken the Landlord:

Do you think that all races are identical in physical make-up and attributes? Do you deny the existence of racial tendencies is what Im basically asking you.

Eg the NHS state on their website that people of African descent are more prone to some kinds of diseases, and people of Asian descent are generally intolerant of alcohol causing facial flushing and other symptoms.


Your posts seem to deny the existence of racial differences. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll apologise.

If i am understanding you correctly then my answer is,

Answering questions on race is difficult given that most anthropologists regard race as a cultural concept rather than a biological reality. In the biological sciences, the term race has historically been used to describe a distinct population in which all the members share a suite of biological traits. Today, most anthropologists agree that there is no way to divide the world's human population in the cut-and-dry manner that the definition of race traditionally requires.

The make up of individuals that contribute races is so varied, i think it is almost impossible to attach a label to a race. The 0.1% genetic difference that differentiates any two random humans is still the subject of much debate. The discovery that only 8% of this difference separates the major races led some scientists to proclaim that race is biologically meaningless. They argue that since genetic distance increases in a continuous manner any threshold or definitions would be arbitrary. Any two neighboring villages or towns will show some genetic differentiation from each other and thus could be defined as a race. Thus any attempt to classify races would be imposing an artificial discontinuity on what is otherwise a naturally occurring continuous phenomenon. Even Neil Risch a distinguished Professor in Human Genetics and Director of the Institute for Human Genetics and Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF, has stated "Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.”

Yes humans have skins that are various in shade, but where does the black man begin and the cape coloured begin? This was used in south Africa and was correctly derided as a nightmare as how on earth can you compartmentalise someone? As for race, how many pure races are left? You would probably have to go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon basin to find anything resembling a pure race that you could measure to see if differences are applicable.

Using Mourhad Meghni as he was suggested a couple of posts back. He is of Mughrabi descent on his father's side, Portugese on his mother's side. Which is he? I dunno, it aint really relevant as he was born in France and given similar opportunities to anyother French kid. The fact that he worked his bollocks off was probably a bigger influence.

Your examples of broad base diseases amongst general members of the public aren't really relevant in high level sport, i am not ducking the issue, just explaining that in the context of the thread its not a particularly convicing support of evidence. You would expect asthma sufferers to be sparse in sport but David Beckham, Paul Scholes and Paula Ratcliffe, off the top of my head, have done pretty well.

Whilst it is fairly obvious there are some visual differences between races, the attributes required to be an elite sportsman/woman are far less tangible. It becomes very, very difficult to point out precisely what causes a sportsman to dominate a sport or even play at the elite level. If you use scientific methodology to map a person's health who is in the top 100 (irrelevant of race) it is virtually statistically impossible to be able to judge who is who, such is the minimal difference between results.

For example, if you look at the huge Serena Williams and the tiny Justine Henin, you would expect Williams to boom Henin off court. Her record is 8 wins to 6 wins. Henin against the even more imposing Venus Williams is 2 wins to 7 wins. So, maybe size is important. Well no, because the smaller Williams (Serena) is 13 wins to 10 wins against her larger sister.

Using the Williams sisters is a useful point of asking why there are so few black tennis players anyway. There is nothing physically to stop any race from competing on a level playing field. Here subsections of influence would come into play. How many blacks would want to be tennis players? How many have the opportunity, that the middle class Williams sisters and golfer Tiger Woods have had? How many golf courses and tennis courts are in Compton east LA, however, that in itself is lazy racism, as how many blacks as a percent live in those type of housing arrangements.

To a lesser degree the environment you live in plays a role, someone mentioned earlier the lack of world class footballing eskimos. Difficult to practice in -20C.

Coming back to the issue of body size, i used with the tennis. Power is never going to be everything in any sport anyway. Sport is far too complex for that, particularly if you are in a team game. If you are in an individual sport, and subsequently have more influence over your own performance and the result, which are the overiding aspects that govern closed loop skill sports and open loop skill sports anyway?

This is a massive area of research in sport, whilst some research is little more than causal racism a lot of it is trying to carefully tease the relevant processes that could shape a top athlete, for example, that elusive cracking of the genetic code. Can we really isolate one gene that can make an athlete invincible, bearing in mind we only have the Human chromosome 2, which is a fusion between two chromosomes that keeps us separate from other primates.

The most we can hope for is that we could identify potential. That is all a coach can do anyway, as ultimately, if you cant be arsed, you wont win anything anyway.

 

[stonerblue]

Top post Ken

 

[zoffie]

You still haven't cottoned on. Go and read back. Mourhad Meghni's genetic make up wasn't relevant to why he was brought up.

I mentioned that although I'd consider the Algerian NT to be more technically skilled than the English NT, England will no doubt win against Algeria, and I said that I believe Algeria's most skillful player is more skillful than any England player.

That has nothing to do with any African argument, that was something that was exclusively mentioned, when someone was talking about FIFA rankings and disbelief that a team like Algeria who aren't making an impact on world football could have players more technically skilled than English.

When technique alone doesn't win you games.

Is it possible that a side more technically able is more likely to lose to a team with not as much technique? Yes.

Defenders
John Terry
Wayne Bridge
Wes Brown
Matthew Upson
Joleon Lescott
Stephen Warnock
Gary Cahill

Midfielders
Gareth Barry
Shaun Wright-Phillips
Michael Carrick
Jermaine Jenas
Ashley Young
James Milner
Tom Huddlestone
Strikers
Wayne Rooney
Jermain Defoe
Peter Crouch
Darren Bent

This is an England squad, the cream of the cream of English talent, how many players here, have you seen do something audacious or jaw dropping with the ball.

When you take Aaron Lennon and Adel Taraabt who were both competing for a place in the Tottenham squad, Taraabt is the more technically skilled player, where is Taraabt? at QPR.. whether taraabt being at QPR is right or wrong, the more technically skilled do not always triumph.. it's not the be all and end all, otherwise freestyle footballers will all be amongst the best in the world, and David Bentley will be more important for England.

The argument about facilities or coaching, is ridiculous, because, in England players are coached to death but the skill level isn't up there with Brazil, where players usually learn their skills on the street. The same is with Africa, football is the sport of most nations in Africa, you can go to Nigeria or Kenya and talk about what happened in the match between Bolton and Wigan the other night, kids are playing football every where.

 

[ello_jo]

I have got a fact for you:-
This is the strangest topic I have ever read

 

[KenTheLandlord]

You still haven't cottoned on. Go and read back. Mourhad Meghni's genetic make up wasn't relevant to why he was brought up.

I mentioned that although I'd consider the Algerian NT to be more technically skilled than the English NT, England will no doubt win against Algeria, and I said that I believe Algeria's most skillful player is more skillful than any England player.

That has nothing to do with any African argument, that was something that was exclusively mentioned, when someone was talking about FIFA rankings and disbelief that a team like Algeria who aren't making an impact on world football could have players more technically skilled than English.

When technique alone doesn't win you games.

Is it possible that a side more technically able is more likely to lose to a team with not as much technique? Yes.

Defenders
John Terry
Wayne Bridge
Wes Brown
Matthew Upson
Joleon Lescott
Stephen Warnock
Gary Cahill

Midfielders
Gareth Barry
Shaun Wright-Phillips
Michael Carrick
Jermaine Jenas
Ashley Young
James Milner
Tom Huddlestone
Strikers
Wayne Rooney
Jermain Defoe
Peter Crouch
Darren Bent

This is an England squad, the cream of the cream of English talent, how many players here, have you seen do something audacious or jaw dropping with the ball.

When you take Aaron Lennon and Adel Taraabt who were both competing for a place in the Tottenham squad, Taraabt is the more technically skilled player, where is Taraabt? at QPR.. whether taraabt being at QPR is right or wrong, the more technically skilled do not always triumph.. it's not the be all and end all, otherwise freestyle footballers will all be amongst the best in the world, and David Bentley will be more important for England.

The argument about facilities or coaching, is ridiculous, because, in England players are coached to death but the skill level isn't up there with Brazil, where players usually learn their skills on the street. The same is with Africa, football is the sport of most nations in Africa, you can go to Nigeria or Kenya and talk about what happened in the match between Bolton and Wigan the other night, kids are playing football every where.

I have cottoned on, i haven't said his genetics are relevant.
What i am trying to get you answer is, how do you know Taraabt and Meghni are more skilfull?
It is only your opinion. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, but it doesn't make something fact.

As for coaching and more particularly facilities, never underestimate them. Very, very few players in Brazil learn their skills on the street. Its one of the biggest myths in football. The Brazilian football factory is one of the largest and keenest in the world. The sheer weight of numbers and competition ensures the quality is kept high. There are 3 times more Brazilian players than English players. Chance alone will throw up more better Brazilian players than English.

I will have a sportsman bet with you too, that the US will win the world cup before any African country. Why? Their organisation, facilities, training and weight of numbers.