If Martins is again dropped for the next match...

[Dave]

I don't think theres any chance that Martins won't start next game, tbh

 

I thought that lately too.

[Rich]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

What about making timed runs? Thinking up imaginative free-kick routines on the spot? Picking the right pass? Leading/controlling a backline as a centre-half? Commanding your defence as a goalkeeper? Instructing your team-mates to make them a better unit? Being positionally sound (no matter where you play on the pitch)? Or adjusting to immediate changes made by the opposition on a set-play, or something of that nature, and effectively nullifying the threat?

 

None of this can be called "intelligence", then?

[DJ_NUFC]

I think people should be looking at the blossoming of Adebayour this season as an example of what can be done with a 'rough diamond.'

 

Of course, why have patience, just slap a 'not the answer' tag and buy a superstar, right?

[Unbelievable]

I don't think theres any chance that Martins won't start next game, tbh

 

I thought that lately too.

 

Agreed. We seem to be going around in circles with this argument about Smith vs Martins.

[Rich]

I don't think theres any chance that Martins won't start next game, tbh

 

I thought that lately too.

 

Agreed. We seem to be going around in circles with this argument about Smith vs Martins.

 

Or Duff vs Martins, as it was yesterday.

[Keefaz]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

Rubbish, tbh.

[mrmojorisin75]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

What about making timed runs? Thinking up imaginative free-kick routines on the spot? Picking the right pass? Leading/controlling a backline as a centre-half? Commanding your defence as a goalkeeper? Instructing your team-mates to make them a better unit? Being positionally sound (no matter where you play on the pitch)? Or adjusting to immediate changes made by the opposition on a set-play, or something of that nature, and effectively nullifying the threat?

 

None of this can be called "intelligence", then?

 

you can teach a monkey to....blah blah blah

 

all instinct/reaction, some have better reactions than others, that's why we have different levels of ability

 

some players will be more receptive to training than others, those are the ones who improve - we tend to sign the other ones

 

lets not kid ourselves, we're talking here about considering say beardsley intelligent vs martins who many consider not..."intelligent" in that sense simply means that player has a different natural ability to the other, namely he's confortable on the ball and has the knack to see/make a defence splitting pass etc...doesn't mean he's more or less intelligent to me

 

arguably the only real intelligent footballers are the makeleles/hargraves of this world who make up for their lack of natutal ability through application and training

[mrmojorisin75]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

Rubbish, tbh.

 

aye?  rush and lineker, two of the best goalscorers in the 1980's were considered poachers, instinctive goalscorers, not intelligent players...were they or were they not?

 

zindane was considered an intelligent player, when i watched him i always thought of how much he improvised in situations rather than planned, so to speak...that's instinct not intelligence

[madras]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

Rubbish, tbh.

 

aye?  rush and lineker, two of the best goalscorers in the 1980's were considered poachers, instinctive goalscorers, not intelligent players...were they or were they not?

 

zindane was considered an intelligent player, when i watched him i always thought of how much he improvised in situations rather than planned, so to speak...that's instinct not intelligence

lets call it "nouse" then eh ?

[Keefaz]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight. Similarly, a player likes Paul Scholes, though he has good technique, is almost all intelligence on the pitch in terms of finding space and linking up.

[Rich]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around - just to name a few. The fact that those types of players are considered so special when they are around blows your argument out of the water, you simply cannot teach the sort of brilliance those men had. It's mostly innate and it obviously can be tuned and improved, but I think they are born with it.

 

Obafemi Martins is special physically. He is one of the fastest players in the game, he will also be up there in terms of agility and jumping and all of that. That is where his strength is, this is again something that you cannot coach into players. You cannot coach players to be quick, or to have an exceptional leap, there is a lot of football that is pure genetics. I'm not sure how you can take such a simplistic approach to it all. Football goes far deeper than coaching.

 

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

As for the Makelele/Hargreaves bit... again, how many of those sorts of players are there? Those two you mention play at two of the biggest clubs on the planet and at their peak will be/have been at the pinnacle of their position. Again, if everyone could have their abilities, they wouldn't cost so much.

 

You must see that?

[mrmojorisin75]

"football intelligence", another term bandiend about at will by all and sundry like it means something and can be applied to footballers across the board

 

hilarious

 

 

 

You don't think it means anything?

 

fundamentally yeah, football moves too fast for intelligence to be a factor if you ask me - there's simply a level of natural reaction to a situation, an ability to see what's around you faster than the opposition or your peers

 

that is not intelligence, it's instinct

 

Rubbish, tbh.

 

aye?  rush and lineker, two of the best goalscorers in the 1980's were considered poachers, instinctive goalscorers, not intelligent players...were they or were they not?

 

zindane was considered an intelligent player, when i watched him i always thought of how much he improvised in situations rather than planned, so to speak...that's instinct not intelligence

lets call it "nouse" then eh ?

 

aye, go on then

[madras]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight.

i thought it was all the same thing...ie players who are very effective without having ball skill in abundance.

 

those that have both often are the best.

[Keefaz]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight.

i thought it was all the same thing...ie players who are very effective without having ball skill in abundance.

 

those that have both often are the best.

 

An intelligent player, imo, does most of his work off the ball. That's nothing to do with skill, any player can run or walk.

[KaKa]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight. Similarly, a player likes Paul Scholes, though he has good technique, is almost all intelligence on the pitch in terms of finding space and linking up.

 

have you played football?

 

you're actually agreeing with what i'm saying just disagreeing over semantics...explain to me how "reading" the game is intelligence not instinct, if someone can't read a game you can't teach it...there are countless people who have great technical football skills but go nowhere 'cause they can't play the game...if it could be taught then everyone would be at it, therefore intelligence is not the correct term

 

scholes etc... just have an awareness of what's around them, the better the awareness the better the player in all positions

 

my original post, if you read it, was about use of the term football intelligence...too easily used for me, means fuck all

[mrmojorisin75]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around - just to name a few. The fact that those types of players are considered so special when they are around blows your argument out of the water, you simply cannot teach the sort of brilliance those men had. It's mostly innate and it obviously can be tuned and improved, but I think they are born with it.

 

Obafemi Martins is special physically. He is one of the fastest players in the game, he will also be up there in terms of agility and jumping and all of that. That is where his strength is, this is again something that you cannot coach into players. You cannot coach players to be quick, or to have an exceptional leap, there is a lot of football that is pure genetics. I'm not sure how you can take such a simplistic approach to it all. Football goes far deeper than coaching.

 

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

As for the Makelele/Hargreaves bit... again, how many of those sorts of players are there? Those two you mention play at two of the biggest clubs on the planet and at their peak will be/have been at the pinnacle of their position. Again, if everyone could have their abilities, they wouldn't cost so much.

 

You must see that?

 

what the fuck are you talking about?  if intelligence was a factor we'd have more of the players you mention, the fact it's down to instinct is explained by the fact there are so few great players

 

same in any sport, natural ability is what counts...some players can improve with training more than other some don't improve at all

[Wullie]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight. Similarly, a player likes Paul Scholes, though he has good technique, is almost all intelligence on the pitch in terms of finding space and linking up.

 

have you played football?

 

you're actually agreeing with what i'm saying just disagreeing over semantics...explain to me how "reading" the game is intelligence not instinct, if someone can't read a game you can't teach it...there are countless people who have great technical football skills but go nowhere 'cause they can't play the game...if it could be taught then everyone would be at it, therefore intelligence is not the correct term

 

scholes etc... just have an awareness of what's around them, the better the awareness the better the player in all positions

 

my original post, if you read it, was about use of the term football intelligence...too easily used for me, means fuck all

 

Can intelligence be taught like?

[Rich]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

[Keefaz]

Nonsense. Reading of the game is massively important. Reading the pitch as a whole, and also reading opposition players. The very best defenders, for example, tend to be those with the best footballing brains, imo. They aren't 'instinct players' they play with intelligence and foresight. Similarly, a player likes Paul Scholes, though he has good technique, is almost all intelligence on the pitch in terms of finding space and linking up.

 

have you played football?

 

you're actually agreeing with what i'm saying just disagreeing over semantics...explain to me how "reading" the game is intelligence not instinct, if someone can't read a game you can't teach it...there are countless people who have great technical football skills but go nowhere 'cause they can't play the game...if it could be taught then everyone would be at it, therefore intelligence is not the correct term

 

scholes etc... just have an awareness of what's around them, the better the awareness the better the player in all positions

 

my original post, if you read it, was about use of the term football intelligence...too easily used for me, means fuck all

 

Do you even know what intelligence is?

 

Intelligence: a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

 

You've answered your own question. Some players can read the game brilliantly, and it's almost impossible to teach. That's natural intelligence.

[Guest Phil K]

what the f*** are you talking about?  if intelligence was a factor we'd have more of the players you mention, the fact it's down to instinct is explained by the fact there are so few great players

 

same in any sport, natural ability is what counts...some players can improve with training more than other some don't improve at all

Yes, he does lecture a lot, doesn't he ?

 

[Dave]

Do you even know what intelligence is?

 

Pwnd.

[Rich]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around - just to name a few. The fact that those types of players are considered so special when they are around blows your argument out of the water, you simply cannot teach the sort of brilliance those men had. It's mostly innate and it obviously can be tuned and improved, but I think they are born with it.

 

Obafemi Martins is special physically. He is one of the fastest players in the game, he will also be up there in terms of agility and jumping and all of that. That is where his strength is, this is again something that you cannot coach into players. You cannot coach players to be quick, or to have an exceptional leap, there is a lot of football that is pure genetics. I'm not sure how you can take such a simplistic approach to it all. Football goes far deeper than coaching.

 

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

As for the Makelele/Hargreaves bit... again, how many of those sorts of players are there? Those two you mention play at two of the biggest clubs on the planet and at their peak will be/have been at the pinnacle of their position. Again, if everyone could have their abilities, they wouldn't cost so much.

 

You must see that?

 

what the fuck are you talking about?  if intelligence was a factor we'd have more of the players you mention, the fact it's down to instinct is explained by the fact there are so few great players

 

same in any sport, natural ability is what counts...some players can improve with training more than other some don't improve at all

 

Great reply mate, the one of a beaten man.

[Wullie]

Keefaz, get your own point and stop stealing mine.

[Tooj]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

 

As a physical specimen, there's no doubt about it, Martins in that respects is one of the finest athletes I've seen on a football pitch, I do actually mean that. But as everyone else has said there's far more to it than that and he does lack at times basic capabilities, which are glossed over by his physically abilities.