Jump to content

Women's world cup 2015


StefanAVFC

Recommended Posts

Last night's game between France and Korea was disappointingly one-sided.

 

France are a top side and were well worth their 3-0 win but Korea's Kim was disappointing, along with Kim and Kim.

 

It wasn't Kim's day and it was no surprise that they didn't add a couple of Kims off the bench, and decided to increase the number of Lees and swapped one Park for another instead.

 

Their lack of fire-power up front looked like a problem and as always Yoo got the blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in football for instance, statistical analysis shows that most players who become professionals were born in the early part of the year, which meant that they were the oldest in their year at school. This gave them an advantage over their class-mates and because they stood out as better they were picked out and given more coaching and they became even better.

Not true at all . School years start from September to August.

Check out Wiki - Relative age effect

The link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

The quote:

The term relative age effect (RAE) is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport[1] and academia,[2][3] where participation is higher amongst those born early in the relevant selection period (and correspondingly lower amongst those born late in the selection period) than would be expected from the normalised distribution of live births. The selection period is usually the calendar year, the academic year or the sporting season.

I agree . I was born September the 4th so I benefitted from it myself .

I just think you worded it poorly the first time around . If you had said born earlier in a selection period rather than THE year I doubt I would have even replied .

People born at the start of THE year are actually at a disadvantage to people born in September to December of the previous year .

It is better to be born in the last 4 months of THE year rather than the first 8.

You said the opposite . I can only go on what you wrote .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So in football for instance, statistical analysis shows that most players who become professionals were born in the early part of the year, which meant that they were the oldest in their year at school. This gave them an advantage over their class-mates and because they stood out as better they were picked out and given more coaching and they became even better.

Not true at all . School years start from September to August.

Check out Wiki - Relative age effect

The link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

The quote:

The term relative age effect (RAE) is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport[1] and academia,[2][3] where participation is higher amongst those born early in the relevant selection period (and correspondingly lower amongst those born late in the selection period) than would be expected from the normalised distribution of live births. The selection period is usually the calendar year, the academic year or the sporting season.

I agree . I was born September the 4th so I benefitted from it myself .

I just think you worded it poorly the first time around . If you had said born earlier in a selection period rather than THE year I doubt I would have even replied .

People born at the start of THE year are actually at a disadvantage to people born in September to December of the previous year .

It is better to be born in the last 4 months of THE year rather than the first 8.

You said the opposite . I can only go on what you wrote .

 

 

I was originally quoting what I understood to be the case from reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics.

 

Both added an extra interpretation to the data, which included the claim that being the oldest in a particular year at school had its advantages because 11 months is quite significant when you are ten years old.

 

I was mainly trying to illustrate what I called the multiplying effect of small advantage.

 

As ever, it looks like my post was not dumb enough to be ignored and not exact enough to be agreed with.  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My confusion lays solely on the fact that you chose to use the term THE year rather than SCHOOL year.

THE year = January to December.

SCHOOL year = September to August .

A. People born at the start of the year have an advantage over their classmates.

B. People born at the start of a School year have an advantage over their classmates.

Which one of these is true ?

Which one did you use ?

It's really not worth all these replies though and I get that older kids have an advantage .(Did anyone not know that ?)

Edited by Brumerican
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My confusion lays solely on the fact that you chose to use the term THE year rather than SCHOOL year.

THE year = January to December.

SCHOOL year = September to August .

A. People born at the start of the year have an advantage over their classmates.

B. People born at the start of a School year have an advantage over their classmates.

Which one of these is true ?

Which one did you use ?

It's really not worth all these replies though and I get that older kids have an advantage .(Did anyone not know that ?)

 

If that is all you want, then I, MMV, declare unequivocally that I expressed myself badly, apologise for the misunderstanding and declare you the winner.  :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard is shit. Horridly shit. If you were to switch on the BBC and see them showing a pre-season friendly between Billericay vs Enfield then you'd wonder what the **** was going on, but as it is women's football, and you're supposed to like it because Auntie says so, you don't question the brazen waste of licence fee spent on such shite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it was a great result for England but it won't be long before they're bitching about each other, cos that's girls innit?!

 

Great 2nd goal BTW, worthy of winning any game, whatever the gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MORTEN HARKET!

EDVARD MUNCH!

OLE GUNNAR SOLSKJAER! 

(I can't think of any more famous Norwegian people)

 

Your girls took a HELL OF A BEATING! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard is shit. Horridly shit. If you were to switch on the BBC and see them showing a pre-season friendly between Billericay vs Enfield then you'd wonder what the **** was going on, but as it is women's football, and you're supposed to like it because Auntie says so, you don't question the brazen waste of licence fee spent on such shite.

Did you consider the possibility that perhaps you are not the target demographic for this particular event and that perhaps the demographic most interested in the women's world cup might be ... I don't know ... Women?

I am sure that whatever proportion of that 50% of the population that is interested in football, especially those who actually play the sport, would appreciate being able to watch other women competing at the top level of their chosen sport. But that's just me.

Our maybe they should be just told to watch men's sport and forget about any crazy 21st century notion that women can actually play and want to excel at sport.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â