"Form is temporary, class is permanent"

Plechazunga said:
Obviously not fecking true

Bobby Charlton would no longer look classy in a top-level football match

Anyone thinking of using that rubbish quote again should just not do
Click to expand...
I think the phrase itself is actually supposed to be used, well, temporarily.

Reckon you're taking it too literally. You would have loved the age of reason.

Plech = anti-Luddite.

;)
 
The Hairdryer said:
\

I apologise for my outburst, I was in a bad mood this morning, and while I admit the term World-Class causes some confusion (it really shouldn't though) I don't know how on the earth the term Technical Ability does. Player’s Technical Ability is basically how he recieves and keeps possession of the ball. How he positions his body to receive a ball, his first touch, how he moves with it, and how he keeps the ball in an area close to his body where he's always in a position to pass or evade a player. The players with great Technical Ability are the ones that appear to have a lot of time on the ball, especially in tight areas of the pitch. Someone like Scholes barely breaks into a trot, yet he's always got space, it with Zizou. Anyone who's ever played in Central Midfield at any level can understand how congested it gets in there and how little time you have to do anything. Most mere mortals couldn't even trap the ball and get their head up before being creamed by a player at Premiership Level.

As for the term Class is permanent, Form is temporary. It's true to an extent. You see it every weekend against us. There's always some clown who plays Shite every other week and then pulls out a blinder against us. They're not a classy player; they've just found some form.

Some goes the other way. If someone like Rooney has a shite game or a run of games, then he's out of form; he's still a classy player though. Of course players are eventually going to get old and not be the same player they were an X amount of years ago, that's a fact of life, as I said the term was never meant to describe a player 40 years into retirement. :smirk:
Click to expand...


You played the game before?? :rolleyes:
 
The Hairdryer said:
:nono: I'm not asking you what it is. I'm telling you. What I stated is the criteria that the specific UEFA and FIFA Study Groups, and everyone I've ever been involved with, in Youth Development, base "Technical Ability" on.

It's not open for debate, that's how it is.

Some players are Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime of players, can't control a ball yet they can still whack the shit out of ball from 40 yards. Passing and shooting is part of players Technique but not exclusively defined by "Techical Ability" although some players like Paul Scholes and Wayne Rooney have very good shooting skills which is aided by their Technical Ability, they make space for themselves in games to have the shot and after controlling it or having a touch the ball is exactly where it needs to be when they strike it.
Click to expand...

Whether FIFA and UEFA subscribe to your rather narrow definition, which I doubt anyway, is of little relevance. As it happens, I have little respect for the clueless mandarins at FIFA and UEFA "Study Groups". But the point is not what you arrogantly think you know, or whether it differs from what I think, but the fact that in threads on here, everyone seems to mean something different.

You could have a wonderful watertight definition of "money", but if you were arguing about economic policy on a forum with a load of cnuts who thought it meant anything from "banknotes" to "soused herring", your discussion would still be a bit pointless.

Incidentally, I wasn't claiming that "tachnical ability" was "exclusively defined" by shooting and passing. Only that they clearly (to me) do require good technical ability, whereas your previous definition mainly concerned close control.

Do try to read posts before you misinterpret them and get all menstrual
 
VanNistelrater said:
I think the phrase itself is actually supposed to be used, well, temporarily.
Click to expand...

What, you mean until someone comes up with one that isn't false, and stupid?

Reckon you're taking it too literally.
Click to expand...

Obviously my comments re Bobby Charlton etc are hyperbole, reductio ad absurdum or whatever

The point is valid though. Eventually, and often early and unexpectedly, players lose their "class". You never know whether a dip in form is temporary or permanent, until the player does/doesn't come out of it.
 
If Scholes is playing well for months on end, and then goes shit for a few games and the press are on his back. Then plays a blinder.

Thats when 'Form is temporary class is permanent' thing is used. I think it's just an off the cuff thing.

Using Scholes again, has he lost his class? Has Keane lost his class? Id say class is technical ability, I think few lose that, merely the physical side of your game deteroriates, agility, stamina, fitness and so on, which means the technical side cant be as prominent, as consistently, as before.

I cant think too many players lose their technical ability in old age.

Does this make sense? Meh...
 
VanNistelrater said:
If Scholes is playing well for months on end, and then goes shit for a few games and the press are on his back. Then plays a blinder.

Thats when 'Form is temporary class is permanent' thing is used. I think it's just an off the cuff thing.

Using Scholes again, has he lost his class? Has Keane lost his class? Id say class is technical ability, I think few lose that, merely the physical side of your game deteroriates, agility, stamina, fitness and so on, which means the technical side cant be as prominent, as consistently, as before.

I cant think too many players lose their technical ability in old age.

Does this make sense? Meh...
Click to expand...

It's a good try, but no

Players do lose their "class" - by which I mean their generally recognised status as a superb, top-level footballer, but it also carries the connotation of doing difficult things seemingly with ease. There are loads of 1st division players with superb technical abilty* etc, who can't cut it at the top level.

A player with obvious class is Rio Ferdinand. He may not be the best defender in the league, but he has an air of high quality, command, ease, grace about his play. We all saw a few weeks back he had a mini loss of confidence, and didn't look half the player. Often, that can continue, and ultimately a player never recaptures the qualities that gave him that "class". Bodzilla rightly mentioned Mendietta as being one.

Regarding Scholes, no, he definitely does not have the "class" he had at his peak. He's still got some of it, he's still a "classy" player, but not to the extent he was when he was one of the best players in the world for club and country. He splits defences less; he doesn't ghost as insidiously into the box; his long-range shots are good, but not as unerring as they once were; he scores much less. Basically, he's not quite as good, even though he's still a brilliant player.

He hasn't been for 3 years, barring a spell of great form at the end of the 02/3 season. Maybe it's a temporary (though prolonged) dip in form. Maybe (more likely) age, injuries, asthma and a waning of hunger mean he'll never recapture that top-class status.

The point is, that whichever it is in Scholes' case, it's no use trotting out the "class is permanent" line. It isn't.







*whatever that is
 
He doesnt have the impact on the game he once had because physically he cant get about as much, he cant last for as long as he did.

He doesnt make the gut busting runs into the area for the same reason, and the more knackered you are the more wayward your passing can tend to be, for example. And from then on it's a downward spiral perpetuated by lack of confidence. With Ferdinand it was a lack of confidence I would say, rather than he just lost his technical ability for a while.

But I would say technical ability, i.e ability on the ball, first touch, passing; technique essentially, isnt really lost by players. Maldini is an example of a player whose kept the physical side of his game as well as the technical side, still making him a very good top level defender.

The argument is basically what you think class is, I suppose. Either way it's an off the cuff cliché used by commentaters to say "He's had a dip in form and now he's back" used within the span of a few weeks. If Scholes hits top form again and is as good as he was 3-5 years ago, I doubt anyone will use the phrase.
 
You're confusing what I'm saying about "class" with the other conversation* with Hairdryer. I'm not saying Scholes has lost his "technical ability"**. I'm saying he's not a player of the class he was before.

There are no doubt lots of reasons, some to do with fitness, others psychological. They're irrelevant.

The jury's out on Scholes. Let's hope I'm wrong. Even if I am, it won't make class permanent (nothing will). There are plenty of players who exude class, and then just seem to lose it, and quickly end up playing for poorer clubs or in the lower divisions. Gradually or suddenly, they seem to lose the assuredness, the grace, the ease in doing difficult things, the comfort on the ball, however you define "class".

The other way it's used, no-one is now mentioning cos it's so patently ridiculous: as a way of describing the destiny of whole football clubs.






*In the sense of me using arguments, him failing to read my posts and then calling me a cnut
**whatever that is
 
We could have a thread where everyone gives their own definition of these terms, ideally reaching a set of tentative compromise definitions to aid future discussion among you Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime

I can't be arsed to start it though
 
Plechazunga said:
We could have a thread where everyone gives their own definition of these terms, ideally reaching a set of tentative compromise definitions to aid future discussion among you Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime

I can't be arsed to start it though
Click to expand...


I started one of those a year ago. You posted some clever comment and derailed the whole thing.
 
it is true to a certain extent
pele is still class, isn't he?
maradona still is
the term class encompasses a wide area of meaning
 
Mind you, gimps spoil the largely accurate statement, by saying it for no good reason.....and smiling knowingly

Despite knowing feck all
 
Class, to me, means that you are generally one of the best players on the pitch.

This fades, as everyhting does. It happens a hell of a lot faster for some, others it is very gradual.
 
Plechazunga said:
Whether FIFA and UEFA subscribe to your rather narrow definition, which I doubt anyway, is of little relevance. As it happens, I have little respect for the clueless mandarins at FIFA and UEFA "Study Groups". But the point is not what you arrogantly think you know, or whether it differs from what I think, but the fact that in threads on here, everyone seems to mean something different.

You could have a wonderful watertight definition of "money", but if you were arguing about economic policy on a forum with a load of cnuts who thought it meant anything from "banknotes" to "soused herring", your discussion would still be a bit pointless.

Incidentally, I wasn't claiming that "tachnical ability" was "exclusively defined" by shooting and passing. Only that they clearly (to me) do require good technical ability, whereas your previous definition mainly concerned close control.

Do try to read posts before you misinterpret them and get all menstrual
Click to expand...



Nevermind Plech, Nevermind. If you think people like Guus Hiddink, Fabio
Capello, Sir Alex Ferguson who have all sat on Techincal Development Study Groups before, are "Clueless Mandarins" then then feck it, I'm wasting my time.

I think it's becoming increasingly obvious you have little clue on what you're talking about and enjoy the simple pleasure of argueing a point just for the sake of it. I'm wasting my time.
 
Likewise, since my point seems so obviously correct to me, I can only assume you're playing devil's advocate. For the record, I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I believe my argument is clearly right.

Just in case you actually haven't grasped it, to sum up:

Re terms that aren't agreed upon: people on here do have different notions of what "world class", "technical ability" etc mean. Whether your claim of privileged knowledge of some authorised version of them is correct or not, is strictly irrelevant. The point is, there is little agreement, and this makes discussions pointless and circular.

Re "Class is permanent": it just obviously isn't. Loads of classy players stop being classy (in fact all of them do eventually, but we'll leave that point for now as it makes me sound like I'm being facetious.) Likewise, some clubs that used to exude class, don't anymore, and eventually probably vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.