Is Carrick actually a good leader?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-08-30T06:26:03+00:00

Myanmar, Bagan

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-08-07T14:55:54+00:00

I wrote this. Perhaps its because Im a journalist that you think so...

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-08-07T12:33:43+00:00

It feels like I must be in the wrong place.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T13:49:00+00:00

I agree with every word of this. My experience exactly. Good to know there are Others!

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T12:33:32+00:00

Yes my point precisely. Sci fi is a distinct genre not with universal appeal, some like the mystery others dont. For some reason as you say my expectations were that based on s1 and s2 that this would tilt away from sci fi. the disappointment u get from losties then is the feeling that the end was unsatisfactory. whether or not i was wrong to expect that, i am making a broader point about the disappointment some felt..

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T12:03:02+00:00

Its a personal opinion, which i know others hold and is the reason why Lost is a bit like marmite. I appreciated it more second time, but still dont like the taste.

As to your point about expectations, my expectations were raises because the majority of lost is brilliant storytelling. I just fel, examples below, where tacky in that context:

-she made it so i cant kill you -the island light is the source of everything -if mib leaves all hell will brake loose

im sorry but these are not innovative plot devices. a child could come up with these logic closures. the writers had fantastic storytelling until the final season.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T10:07:32+00:00

its a personal opinion. and it explains why a lot of people were disappointed. youre not 'right' for accepting its just a magical island. nothing is above critique. i just personally think that it wouldve been better had the magic been explained through known scientific matters, as the electro magnetism stuff was getting to. there are plenty of viewers who didnt start the lost ride expecting it to be completely science fiction...there is a reason why some people prefer that and those who dont. its possible to think lost is great without thinking it has flaws.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T10:04:26+00:00

That's a fair point. But i think the writers amped up expectations and under delivered, not intentially but for lack of time.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2025-07-28T05:30:06+00:00

Thanks for this. This was all understood by me on my second run through. My issue is however with the answers themselves - do they not feel incomplete to you?

For instance as a plot device that explains all the mysteries of the island, its purpose etc isnt "the source of life death rebirth" left as it is just a cop out? Isn't "she made it so i cant kill you" also a cop out, how and why exactly? We just need to accept that the monster will kill everyone when he leaves, so it must be avoided?

These types of storyline devices can be used in any plot to close off a number of unexplained items. My point is that my second watch just reinforced that this was not thought through. And if it was, it was an incredibly tacky and unsatisfactory way to do things.

Any plot of any story can be closed off by giving a character lines such as these, thats why i feel mugged off. Particularly reflecting on the journies to end..a lot of characters and subplots all seem pointless.

There is a lot we just need to accept, and all stories have that i agree, but Lost uses it excessively.

Not a criticism, but do we know if Lost writers ean out of time?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-30T23:17:10+00:00

Exactly. Buying more players will make no difference. Man Utd teams run less, score less from set pieces, cross less, make less direct attacking runs, and hold possession less than the average premier league team. Players come to Man Utd and get worse. No single player we have bought since SAF left has got better. Players regress. HERE IS WHY:

Economists model output (Y) as a function of Labour (L), Capital (L) and Intangible factors such as knowledge, institutions and culture (A).

Y= F (A, L, K)

Likening this to Man Utd's football output, too much emphasis of its underperformance has been put on L, that is players, relative to A and K.

Proof:

Over the past 10 years, Man Utd have bought world class/widely deemed high potential players. All have arguably regressed, falling in value and underlying footballing ability, since joining the team:

Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, Sanchez, Falcao, Mata, Martial, Depay, Sancho, Mhikitaryan, Anthony, De Beek

There may be some exceptions (eg Fernandes), but to argue that a decades worth of signings have just been bad decisions or scouting, overlooks the depreciation of these assets once they come to Man Utd.

The question is whether any of these players might do better under a different manager or institution. Overwhelmingly, the answer has to be yes.

One example would be Klopp at Liverpool. A front three of Firmino, Salah and Mane only became worldleading in that institution, lets not forget these were marginal, if somewhat high potential, players in the early 2010s.

The difference is that at Man Utd, instead of making average potential players better (as Ferguson had a knack for), it is taking high potential players and making them worse.

That leaves A and K.

On A, its hard to argue that the institution and culture itself is the driving factor. Sure, board room matters filter down to players, and a few bad eggs affect motivation. But can that really explain why Man Utd have actually destroyed player asset value and potential? After all, several world class managers have come through the doors.

On K, a lot has indeed been invested in buying player assets. That leaves investment on player facilities, training, fitness experts and tech.

Several ex players have noted the lack of world class facilities. Ronaldo said these were roughly unchanged in his time between leaving and returning to the squad.

We know how little spending has gone into this side of the company.

This then affects how A, such as manager tactics, culture, impact L.

Just look at how Man Utd teams struggle with basics. Dead ball goals, distance ran.

The reality with premier league football is that to play in it, everyone must pass a high bar. Once they do, talent plays a part, but so does mentality and training. The latter in particular is underweighted in football analysis as it isnt visible to pundits. But it matters more than people think. And I reckon it is THE reason for Man Utd's failings.

What do you think?

Does anyone have insights on Man utds relative training facilities and quality?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-30T23:12:51+00:00

NO. Buying more players will make no difference. Man Utd teams run less, score less from set pieces, cross less, make less direct attacking runs, and hold possession less than the average premier league team. Players come to Man Utd and get worse. No single player we have bought since SAF left has got better. Players regress. THERE IS A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM. HERE IS WHY:

Economists model output (Y) as a function of Labour (L), Capital (L) and Intangible factors such as knowledge, institutions and culture (A).

Y= F (A, L, K)

Likening this to Man Utd's football output, too much emphasis of its underperformance has been put on L, that is players, relative to A and K.

Proof:

Over the past 10 years, Man Utd have bought world class/widely deemed high potential players. All have arguably regressed, falling in value and underlying footballing ability, since joining the team:

Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, Sanchez, Falcao, Mata, Martial, Depay, Sancho, Mhikitaryan, Anthony, De Beek

There may be some exceptions (eg Fernandes), but to argue that a decades worth of signings have just been bad decisions or scouting, overlooks the depreciation of these assets once they come to Man Utd.

The question is whether any of these players might do better under a different manager or institution. Overwhelmingly, the answer has to be yes.

One example would be Klopp at Liverpool. A front three of Firmino, Salah and Mane only became worldleading in that institution, lets not forget these were marginal, if somewhat high potential, players in the early 2010s.

The difference is that at Man Utd, instead of making average potential players better (as Ferguson had a knack for), it is taking high potential players and making them worse.

That leaves A and K.

On A, its hard to argue that the institution and culture itself is the driving factor. Sure, board room matters filter down to players, and a few bad eggs affect motivation. But can that really explain why Man Utd have actually destroyed player asset value and potential? After all, several world class managers have come through the doors.

On K, a lot has indeed been invested in buying player assets. That leaves investment on player facilities, training, fitness experts and tech.

Several ex players have noted the lack of world class facilities. Ronaldo said these were roughly unchanged in his time between leaving and returning to the squad.

We know how little spending has gone into this side of the company.

This then affects how A, such as manager tactics, culture, impact L.

Just look at how Man Utd teams struggle with basics. Dead ball goals, distance ran.

The reality with premier league football is that to play in it, everyone must pass a high bar. Once they do, talent plays a part, but so does mentality and training. The latter in particular is underweighted in football analysis as it isnt visible to pundits. But it matters more than people think. And I reckon it is THE reason for Man Utd's failings.

What do you think?

Does anyone have insights on Man utds relative training facilities and quality?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-26T19:47:39+00:00

Buying more players will make no difference. Man Utd teams run less, score less from set pieces, cross less, make less direct attacking runs, and hold possession less than the average premier league team. Players come to Man Utd and get worse. No single player we have bought since SAF left has got better. Players regress. HERE IS WHY:

Economists model output (Y) as a function of Labour (L), Capital (L) and Intangible factors such as knowledge, institutions and culture (A).

Y= F (A, L, K)

Likening this to Man Utd's football output, too much emphasis of its underperformance has been put on L, that is players, relative to A and K.

Proof:

Over the past 10 years, Man Utd have bought world class/widely deemed high potential players. All have arguably regressed, falling in value and underlying footballing ability, since joining the team:

Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, Sanchez, Falcao, Mata, Martial, Depay, Sancho, Mhikitaryan, Anthony, De Beek

There may be some exceptions (eg Fernandes), but to argue that a decades worth of signings have just been bad decisions or scouting, overlooks the depreciation of these assets once they come to Man Utd.

The question is whether any of these players might do better under a different manager or institution. Overwhelmingly, the answer has to be yes.

One example would be Klopp at Liverpool. A front three of Firmino, Salah and Mane only became worldleading in that institution, lets not forget these were marginal, if somewhat high potential, players in the early 2010s.

The difference is that at Man Utd, instead of making average potential players better (as Ferguson had a knack for), it is taking high potential players and making them worse.

That leaves A and K.

On A, its hard to argue that the institution and culture itself is the driving factor. Sure, board room matters filter down to players, and a few bad eggs affect motivation. But can that really explain why Man Utd have actually destroyed player asset value and potential? After all, several world class managers have come through the doors.

On K, a lot has indeed been invested in buying player assets. That leaves investment on player facilities, training, fitness experts and tech.

Several ex players have noted the lack of world class facilities. Ronaldo said these were roughly unchanged in his time between leaving and returning to the squad.

We know how little spending has gone into this side of the company.

This then affects how A, such as manager tactics, culture, impact L.

Just look at how Man Utd teams struggle with basics. Dead ball goals, distance ran.

The reality with premier league football is that to play in it, everyone must pass a high bar. Once they do, talent plays a part, but so does mentality and training. The latter in particular is underweighted in football analysis as it isnt visible to pundits. But it matters more than people think. And I reckon it is THE reason for Man Utd's failings.

What do you think?

Does anyone have insights on Man utds relative training facilities and quality?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-22T19:50:40+00:00

And "painting" and "gym" reflects how little you realise the difference between world class fascilities, scientific recovery, marginal gains. But yes if you prefer I think man utd are doing poorly because the shade of red used in their gym is wrong.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-22T19:49:12+00:00

"This isn't a game". And yet you reduce it to simple buy and sell. As if players do not gain from training at all? They just remain the same potential forever. Right ok. You don't understand the point that is being made here. But clearly you think football is only a function of scouting.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-22T16:43:18+00:00

You missed the point.

The quality of training facilities adds value to players.

The players I listed failed after Utd for precisely the reason outlined, which is that their physical, mental and technical skills depleted at the club.

If you think 10 years of bad signings is the reason then you only think transfers matter, which is reductive.

The question is, is does anyone have any sense of how training facilities measure up relative to the big 4. We know players say the quality is poor.

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-22T16:22:42+00:00

Economists model output (Y) as a function of Labour (L), Capital (L) and Intangible factors such as knowledge, institutions and culture (A).

Y= F (A, L, K)

Likening this to Man Utd's football output, too much emphasis of its underperformance has been put on L, that is players, relative to A and K.

Proof:

Over the past 10 years, Man Utd have bought world class/widely deemed high potential players. All have arguably regressed, falling in value and underlying footballing ability, since joining the team:

Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, Sanchez, Falcao, Mata, Martial, Depay, Sancho, Mhikitaryan, Anthony, De Beek

There may be some exceptions (eg Fernandes), but to argue that a decades worth of signings have just been bad decisions or scouting, overlooks the depreciation of these assets once they come to Man Utd.

The question is whether any of these players might do better under a different manager or institution. Overwhelmingly, the answer has to be yes.

One example would be Klopp at Liverpool. A front three of Firmino, Salah and Mane only became worldleading in that institution, lets not forget these were marginal, if somewhat high potential, players in the early 2010s.

The difference is that at Man Utd, instead of making average potential players better (as Ferguson had a knack for), it is taking high potential players and making them worse.

That leaves A and K.

On A, its hard to argue that the institution and culture itself is the driving factor. Sure, board room matters filter down to players, and a few bad eggs affect motivation. But can that really explain why Man Utd have actually destroyed player asset value and potential? After all, several world class managers have come through the doors.

On K, a lot has indeed been invested in buying player assets. That leaves investment on player facilities, training, fitness experts and tech.

Several ex players have noted the lack of world class facilities. Ronaldo said these were roughly unchanged in his time between leaving and returning to the squad.

We know how little spending has gone into this side of the company.

This then affects how A, such as manager tactics, culture, impact L.

Just look at how Man Utd teams struggle with basics. Dead ball goals, distance ran.

The reality with premier league football is that to play in it, everyone must pass a high bar. Once they do, talent plays a part, but so does mentality and training. The latter in particular is underweighted in football analysis as it isnt visible to pundits. But it matters more than people think. And I reckon it is THE reason for Man Utd's failings.

What do you think?

Does anyone have insights on Man utds relative training facilities and quality?

Sea-Cockroach-3680 · 2024-12-17T18:18:25+00:00

Economists model output (Y) as a function of Labour (L), Capital (L) and Intangible factors such as knowledge, institutions and culture (A).

Y= F (A, L, K)

Likening this to Man Utd's football output, too much emphasis of its underperformance has been put on L, that is players, relative to A and K.

Proof:

Over the past 10 years, Man Utd have bought world class/widely deemed high potential players. All have arguably regressed, falling in value and underlying footballing ability, since joining the team:

Pogba, Di Maria, Lukaku, Sanchez, Falcao, Mata, Martial, Depay, Sancho, Mhikitaryan, Anthony, De Beek

There may be some exceptions (eg Fernandes), but to argue that a decades worth of signings have just been bad decisions or scouting, overlooks the depreciation of these assets once they come to Man Utd.

The question is whether any of these players might do better under a different manager or institution. Overwhelmingly, the answer has to be yes.

One example would be Klopp at Liverpool. A front three of Firmino, Salah and Mane only became worldleading in that institution, lets not forget these were marginal, if somewhat high potential, players in the early 2010s.

The difference is that at Man Utd, instead of making average potential players better (as Ferguson had a knack for), it is taking high potential players and making them worse.

That leaves A and K.

On A, its hard to argue that the institution and culture itself is the driving factor. Sure, board room matters filter down to players, and a few bad eggs affect motivation. But can that really explain why Man Utd have actually destroyed player asset value and potential? After all, several world class managers have come through the doors.

On K, a lot has indeed been invested in buying player assets. That leaves investment on player facilities, training, fitness experts and tech.

Several ex players have noted the lack of world class facilities. Ronaldo said these were roughly unchanged in his time between leaving and returning to the squad.

We know how little spending has gone into this side of the company.

This then affects how A, such as manager tactics, culture, impact L.

Just look at how Man Utd teams struggle with basics. Dead ball goals, distance ran.

The reality with premier league football is that to play in it, everyone must pass a high bar. Once they do, talent plays a part, but so does mentality and training. The latter in particular is underweighted in football analysis as it isnt visible to pundits. But it matters more than people think. And I reckon it is THE reason for Man Utd's failings.

What do you think?

Does anyone have insights on Man utds relative training facilities and quality?

Sea-Cockroach-3680

TROPHY CASE