UnnecessaryUmbault

Imagine how many ex-5-a-sides players will aim to sue Adidas, Puma and Nike.

In reflection, not the worst point to rescue. A waste of the opportunity Joe Hart gifted us though to reduce the gap to 5 (with a game on hand).

Ryan Jack should be barred from international football or handed his P45. Either or.

Defence (and probably the midfield) shat the bed twice early doors and we've been punished for it the second time. Really poor goal to concede.

Rodgers getting re-appointed was worse than Lennon getting his extension in the showers of Hampden park. Had Beale not been trying (& failing) to do five jobs at once, Rodgers would have been on the brink already. Celtic are rotten under him and he doesn't have the excuse of injuries anymore. Also, this speaks to Aberdeen's embarrassing record against Celtic.

Something else the book argues is that opportunities were very important, and you can also think that it was the opportunities given to those who had more physical development at the earliest stage increased their likelihood to make it.

Absolutely, I even reference this.

This is sort of like her getting selected for the special team outside the odds.

Yep. She's the Outlier - geddit!?

Absolutely not disputing your anecdotal experience, nor that it is beneficial to the women in coeds. I thought I'd chip in with some added information cos frankly the point made in Outliers is a fantastic example of the power of compounding growth. Saying I was calling BS was just a banter-y way of opening.

I added this bit to my post to hammer home my point. I'm not saying it's wrong or can't be managed, I'm just highlighting that its likely that it would matter from the perspective of development of ability in the general case. A supremely talented/developed female who has a good coaching network (which she'll surely have at PSV) will be absolutely fine and won't be worse off for it.

I don't think it's far fetched to believe that in typical cases, males will be more physically developed (bigger, stronger, faster) than an equivalent aged female. That's not to say in specific instances this isn't a valid thing to do or that I can't be managed by early years coaching being non-contact/ skill based.

I call BS here; go read the first chapter of the book Outliers. Early years, physical development matters a LOT. Studies showed pro-athelete's birthdays are biased heavily towards the beginning of the year. The idea being that at age 4.75 say you have an extra .75 years of physical development over peers born later in the year. This manifests in you seeing more of the play as you'll be physically dominant. This compounds into more practice, eventually leading to being better (on average), so playing more, so getting better, so getting picked for development teams, so getting better and on & on.

How many Blue Pounds will this advert add to the balance sheet!?