Players out drinking

[pete 2,494]

Your whole post is a very simplistic and seems counter intuitive to just about everything I've learned in life.

 

Let's even start with Murray, you seem to like to cherry pick your examples. Let's even assume he passes your impossible description of professionalism, is there not other British tennis players doing similar training and abstinence (if he actually does that) to what he does? How successful are they? I don't seem many in the top 100. Why is someone who applies himself to this mythical 100% not as successful as a guy like Gascoigne and many other top sportsmen?

 

What is your expertise or even references in the field of sports and the effects of alcohol that even suggests having zero alcohol is optimal? I think there are enough successful people in the world who drink to prove it's not exactly an obvious inhibitor to success and it's possible it could help. Just look at Hunt and Lauda. The most succesful Nottingham Forest team of all time were apparently ordered to have a drink before each game.

 

Humans are pretty complex entities and knowledge of this kind of stuff is pretty scarce and theories changing all the time - with alcohol often considered beneficial in moderate doses. And we also have to consider the psychological effects. Denial has always made people crave things more and actually seems to tend to make people binge. Even just having a substance to raise your spirits has been seen as beneficial to mental well being for thousands of years and as such is woven into the fabric of our society.

 

Some diets now have cheat days as the thinking is that not only does this stop you going into famine mode, it also stops you over craving things and abandoning the diet, as well as making it far more tolerable long term, as nothing is denied for more than a week. That's because psychologically, compliance is more important than effectiveness of following something "100%".

 

I think your definition of professionalism is very naive and pretty much suggests it's something that is impossible to achieve, therefore we're all amateurs, rendering the term almost meaningless. It seems to me that no-one can apply themselves 100% all the time, and if they try you are likely to get some kind of burnout. The irony is that you don't even do that with an engine. You might think that because they are "professionals" they should be able to control themselves 100% but there is no-one in the world that does that. How many top businessmen or politicians are there that can't control their diet and are therefore overweight?

 

It seems to me, the answer as always and which applies to the rest of us, is in a person's ability. Maybe you can be a better player/employee by living like a monk, but if you'd rather be less successful and have a life, you can maybe choose your level. In football even if that might mean playing for Rangers in the Scottish second tier rather than a regular CL semi-finalist but then that's your choice, you will end up at your natural level - maybe that's Falkirk or Forfar.

 

The question is not whether a player has a drink now and again, or a pack of Monstermunch, or if he's a couple of inches below average, it's about whether he's good enough for the level of your team despite all his habits and physical attributes,.

 

But in the end, there is not much to suggest that living like a monk helps, and there is much evidence that actually points in the opposite direction. We need to stop thinking we're all top experts in football management and training, and then making snap, harsh judgements on all aspects of our players lives - or go out and manage a team and prove we do know better.

 

Lots of managers have tried to micro manage players and failed - I think DA was one of them. Players are not machines, they are human, and that requires a lot more complex handling.

 

Yes I think cheat days in a diet are extremely important. That is why I have 7 in the week.

[JohnMc 2,451]

Yeah, I'm sure going out on the lash was a key part of Barcelona's preparation last season for the Champions League final .

 

Also:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3540701.stm

 

Here we are again SBS where you dismiss words actually used for ones in your head and continue to argue against something that's self evident to almost everyone else. Lets be clear the photo that started this conversation wasn't taken the night before Rangers played the Champions League Final and it doesn't show anyone "out on the lash", but don't let that stop you throwing strawmen in as usual.

 

If abstinence from alcohol is so important why aren't Saudi Arabia world champions instead of Germany where drinking alcohol is a perfectly normal part of everyday life even for footballers? For every great player who had a drink problem I can throw two back who played at the highest level and knew when and how to have a drink and when not too. Brian Laudrup seemed to manage and the Danish view on alcohol is very similar to the UKs.

 

It's all immaterial anyway as nobody on this thread has suggested drinking to excess is desirable or sensible.

[JohnMc 2,451]

Maradona is one of the greatest players of all time but his career went downhill at quite a young age. I'm not sure how anyone can say it didn't do Gazza harm with a straight face. As rbr just said, Best retired at 27, though came back to play for much poorer teams. Regarding Law, I've no idea what quantities he drank but things were very different then with much less emphasis on fitness. All I can really find on Giggs is articles from a few years ago where he says he doesn't drink much anymore. There are of course going to be some players who still achieve a lot of success regardless of what they do.

 

Would that be the same Maradona who played in a World Cup Final aged 30? Are we using "young age" in the same way you use "very small"? :-) Alcohol wasn't an issue for Maradona until after he retired from playing, a penchant for cocaine and being kicked senseless by the most brutal defenders in world football every week were his main problems.

[der Berliner 3,196]

It's just a team-mates & friends thingy, but anyways ...

 

 

 

Meanwhile, life stream of the Challenge Cup draw at 2.30 pm

 

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9713-petrofac-draw-today

Edited July 27, 2015 by der Berliner

[jhunter 0]

 

It's all immaterial anyway as nobody on this thread has suggested drinking to excess is desirable or sensible.

 

I found it life-saving these past 4 seasons watching Rangers

[Rousseau 9,270]

I think my post was taken too seriously. I merely suggested drinking is not something I agree with in an 'athlete'.

 

I was talking about athleticism, not talent. In my opinion, drinking has a negative impact on a player's athleticism. Their 'wee drink' is perhaps not that dangerous, but I think it's symptomatic of a lax culture when it comes to athleticism. I wouldn't say Gazza was a good athlete, nor Best, but they had sublime talent. For me, Bale is not the most talented, but has great athleticism. Admittedly, I don't know how much of that is down to his natural body type, or his application, but athleticism can carry a player to a new level. Ronaldo is a supreme athlete, Messi not so much, but Messi is more talented than Ronaldo; the mix makes them equal -- or perhaps Messi's talent just shines through. Now, perhaps a wee drink is not that bad in the big scheme of things, but it can't be beneficial, and to me, it implies a lax attitude in general; but, of course, everyone's different.

[calscot 0]

Maradona is one of the greatest players of all time but his career went downhill at quite a young age. I'm not sure how anyone can say it didn't do Gazza harm with a straight face. As rbr just said, Best retired at 27, though came back to play for much poorer teams.

 

For someone who thinks we shouldn't have players over 25 and that 30 is a pensioner, I can't see why that would be the slightest bit relevant to you. However, there are plenty of players who drank and lasted to at least a fairly average 32, 33.

 

However, you seem to be the only one arguing that our players might shorten their careers due to being alcoholics but that's not quite the issue here. It's obvious to the rest of us that alcoholism is not going to give you a long career, and nobody is advocating it. The point is, that surely if just a few drinks now and again is harmful to a players ability, it would be virtually impossible for a very heavy drinker to get to the very top of the game? But that doesn't seem to be the case time and again.

 

The reason that most of the players we mention are in the past, is not because you didn't have to be fit in the past (which is surely not the case), but it's that it usually comes out after the fact. There could be many top players who like a good drink in the present day, but as they aren't in need of a new liver, we don't hear about it. There do seem to be plenty of drink driving cases though.

 

The main point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that moderate drinking affects a player's ability enough for him to require to be teetotal - people are making it up and I would guess they are people who are not teetotal themselves and have no right to command others to be. And at our current level of the game, like I said, it makes little difference - the level of player we have is the level we have whether they drink or not. If they would have been so much better without drinking then they wouldn't be at Ibrox anyway - it seems fine as long as they play at the level we pay them for.

 

I think we're all agreed that as a professional athlete, excessive drinking is a no no, as is drinking the night before a competition or match. As a sacrifice for your career, drinking should probably be pretty moderate.

 

I also think that for many of us, a bit of alcohol makes our lives more fun, and is good for our general sense of well-being and happiness. If that's not the case for you, then you have the right to choose not to drink - but not the right to choose for others.

[calscot 0]

Now, perhaps a wee drink is not that bad in the big scheme of things, but it can't be beneficial, and to me, it implies a lax attitude in general; but, of course, everyone's different.

 

I can't agree with your last sentence - how do you know it's not beneficial? There are plenty of studies that show alcohol is actually good for you in moderation, and there's plenty to show it's beneficial for mental-health.

 

I also can't see how it says you have a "lax attitude". If it's moderate, can't that be a balanced attitude? I've never known draconian attitudes to ever work in life.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I can't agree with your last sentence - how do you know it's not beneficial? There are plenty of studies that show alcohol is actually good for you in moderation, and there's plenty to show it's beneficial for mental-health.

 

I also can't see how it says you have a "lax attitude". If it's moderate, can't that be a balanced attitude? I've never known draconian attitudes to ever work in life.

I'll go with Arsene Wenger's standpoint rather than yours, thanks.

[Calgacus 8]

This is brilliant - arguments about football stuff! We really have turned a corner!