CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › velvetmoose83 › Posts

Posts by velvetmoose83

2 posts shown.

Football: Then vs. Now in Soccer ·
They’ve been crunching the numbers on how soccer has evolved statistically, and if you look at the data from the 70s through today, the trends are pretty staggering:
- Total distance covered per match—both individually and collectively—has jumped by over 50%; an individual player now runs 6.8 miles more than they used to back when 4.4 miles was the standard (Josip Broz Tito 13 😉)
- Pitch coverage has become much more uniform; whereas you used to have "hot" zones and "cold" zones on the field, nowadays there’s basically no green left on the heat maps—if it isn't red, it's yellow.
- Wing attacks have surged by 27% overall; if my memory serves me right, that breaks down to a 16% increase on the left side and an 11% bump on the right.🤔
- The number of shots inside the penalty box per game has actually plummeted by 50%.

The game is accelerating; it's becoming increasingly physical, tactical, and frankly, industrial. Those old-school romantics who lived for the beauty of the game while smoking two packs a day are effectively extinct. Today, we see players who are products of pure grit and hyper-disciplined lifestyles, living under perfect training regimens and nutritional protocols.

Tactical formations have shifted alongside these changes. In the 90s, the 4-4-2 reigned supreme because it was thought to offer the best pitch coverage, and half of Europe and the rest of the world played it. Brazilians had their own spin on it with a 4-2-4 or a 4-2-2-2 that allowed for incredible lateral freedom—it was pure dance, quite literally a samba formation. Then you had Ferguson's 4-4-2 at Manchester United, which was almost the prototype for perfection; they set up so offensively that in any given section, you'd find three or four players clustered together. It’s a classic scene: Beckham sends in a cross, and you wonder who's going to meet it? Both strikers are charging toward the same ball, and even though neither Cole nor York knows exactly where the other is, they are both ready, and it all comes down to a split second.
In our neck of the woods, the 3-5-2 with a sweeper was the go-to, mainly because this region has always been a breeding ground for creative attacking midfielders—those true *trequartistas*—and that formation was tailor-made for them.

During the first decade of the 21st century, the 4-2-3-1 began to dominate because the increased running capacity allowed for better coverage, acting as a direct antidote to the 4-4-2. Meanwhile, formations with three defenders practically vanished because the sweeper role died out. With less central congestion in favor of wide play, more action occurring between the boxes, and everyone on the pitch sprinting constantly, the old ways just became obsolete.

Over the last ten years, the 4-3-3 has taken over. Researchers looking at the statistical evolution of tactics during this recent stretch found that the total number of passes per match is steadily rising, driven entirely by short passing, while long balls have stagnated. However, this doesn't actually lead to more scoring opportunities, since statistically, those chances are more frequent following long balls. It does, however, boost possession. It seems like "Total Football" is making a massive comeback. The philosophy is basically: offense is the best defense. By increasing the running load and pushing the defensive line higher, a 4-3-3 (with a 1-2 midfield split) allows for more players in the box compared to a 4-2-3-1 (which uses a 2-1 split).
In this most recent decade, we've seen a return to formations with three or five defenders, but they've been completely reinvented. There are no sweepers anymore, just three center-backs; there are no traditional wide midfielders, just wingbacks. They call them the "romantic" 3-5-2 or 3-4-3, but in reality, they are 5-3-2 and 5-2-3 systems. They are incredibly physically demanding, making them a perfect fit for teams built on high work rates and sheer stamina.
America's divisions seem to have no end in sight in Close to Politics ·
driftingsurfer6 said:The mainstream media here loves playing this black-and-white game. They try to paint a picture where you’ve either got the progressive, tolerant "city slickers" (my words) on one side, or some bunch of religious zealots trying to pull off a conservative revolution on the other. Honestly, I think more people are finally waking up to the manipulation. That’s why you’re seeing this massive surge in popularity for certain right-wing outlets and shows—like Fox News, even after they tried to shut them down. They might not be high-brow, but they’re pulling huge crowds because people are just fed up with the endless left-wing echo chamber. They'll take just about any garbage if it actually offers a different perspective. It’s actually wild what this administration and their mouthpiece journalists have managed to do—they’ve somehow made being on the right feel "revolutionary," alternative, and rebellious.

And frankly, it isn't just happening here in the States. With the disgraceful collapse of communism, the left has essentially lost its way; social democracy has always, perhaps even subconsciously, viewed communism as its ultimate endgame, and by losing that goal, it severed any meaningful connection to the social and democratic principles in its own name. What remains is merely a political clique whose pursuit of unbridled liberalism is exploited by the financial centers of power—whether those be big banks or massive corporations. In this light, being "liberal" or "free" is nothing more than a mechanism used by those who already possess wealth to grab even more, while those without it end up losing what little they had left. To put it bluntly, modern slave owners are exploiting lost social democrats to carve out free and open arenas for establishing modern systems of servitude within our societies. In this sense, leftist political options are becoming more right-wing than any right-wing movement ever was.
At the same time, right-wing options rooted in traditionalism don't even need to reach deep into the past to find something worth preserving—nowadays, "tradition" is simply the possibility that a small business owner can actually open a shop and survive on their own hard work. Consequently, it turns out that right-wing factions are trying to preserve social rights, making them appear more left-wing than ever before. This trend will likely deepen throughout this century, and we might very well see a Christian renaissance in the latter half of the 21st century, accompanied by necessary church reforms that are already overdue (perhaps we'll even see a female Pope, or a "Mama" 🙂) because the headless "liberalism" touted by today's leftists is going to destroy entire societies. Eventually, the ability to build one's own family and live off one's own labor will be viewed as being just as vital as the freedom to express oneself spiritually and culturally—both of which are currently under heavy fire from the major centers of power.
If the modern corporation is the new Hitler, then the modern leftist is nothing more than a Hitler Jungen, utterly devoid of a conscience regarding what they are participating in.

By splitting society into two warring camps, the goal is to weaken the collective so it can be more easily manipulated. European governments are essentially mercenaries tasked with carrying out this exact job.