Dougie Freedman - Ten Months On

[Lost Leopard Spot]

A discussion about sports science is a bit of a non-starter if you consider to be psycho babble, though, isn't it?

There are genuine sports sciences, ones where science has been used to come up with answers to particular aspects of physiology. I was referring to the quackery that has just entered into football in the guise of Dr Peters. Where Liverpool go today will the rest of us be going tomorrow? If so, God help us.

(In another way it is the cult of celebrity. Chant Dr Peters name and associate it with Steve Redgrave, and add a list of other sports celebrities. Nothing to do with the fact that Steve Redgrave probably has the largest lungs on the planet, no, no, it's because some quack has released his inner chimp. Of course).

[Bruce Rioja]

Anyone ever heard of this fella?

http://www.shu.ac.uk/mediacentre/mayur-ranchordas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lord Kangana]

What marks his out as quackery anymore than anyone else's? I ask as I have no knowledge of the man.

[thebish]

Anyway, where's the rucksacks full of rocks/Winter Hill equation fit into that list?

Rumour was DF was already that type of guy, seems it don't work because according to BWFCi we still run out of legs!

When the hell did I ever say that Dougie has them running up winter fecking hill? Allardyce didn't have them running up winter hill either.

And lets see how our fitness goes over the season.

well - according to you - half the team and half the bench were already unfit for the second league game in!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

What marks his out as quackery anymore than anyone else's? I ask as I have no knowledge of the man.

Because it is all purely subjective. Each man's inner chimp is different to the next man's inner chimp according to the inventor of the inner chimp model. Not very helpful that if you're putting together a proper scientific system in place. Hence why it is pure quackery.

[Lord Kangana]

Does it garner results?

[thebish]

What marks his out as quackery anymore than anyone else's? I ask as I have no knowledge of the man.

Because it is all purely subjective. Each man's inner chimp is different to the next man's inner chimp according to the inventor of the inner chimp model. Not very helpful that if you're putting together a proper scientific system in place. Hence why it is pure quackery.

if it's about inner chimps - then it's not quackery, surely - it's oo-oo-oo-oo-ookery

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Does it garner results?

Well, his ultimate test is before us. If Liverpool win the League I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps and eat humble pie, and welcome him with open arms to the Reebok the season after.
If, however Liverpool end in top fivish mediocrity or worse, then clearly no it won't have and his flush will be shown to be busted.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

What marks his out as quackery anymore than anyone else's? I ask as I have no knowledge of the man.

Because it is all purely subjective. Each man's inner chimp is different to the next man's inner chimp according to the inventor of the inner chimp model. Not very helpful that if you're putting together a proper scientific system in place. Hence why it is pure quackery.

if it's about inner chimps - then it's not quackery, surely - it's oo-oo-oo-oo-ookery

You have a way with words calls

[BWFC_Insane]

What marks his out as quackery anymore than anyone else's? I ask as I have no knowledge of the man.

Because it is all purely subjective. Each man's inner chimp is different to the next man's inner chimp according to the inventor of the inner chimp model. Not very helpful that if you're putting together a proper scientific system in place. Hence why it is pure quackery.

Thing is he's cited as having helped people become more successful. A lot of sport is about the mind, mental strength etc.

Now, if people say it works, and it seems they do, I don't see what the issue is.

I don't see why someone who understands how the human mind works, is an expert in it, can't help sportspeople. I really don't. It is surely logical that there is an element of sporting success that is down to controlling your thoughts and emotions at key moments and anyone who can provide insight into that, even if it doesn't work for everyone, is worth a go? Surely?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why don't we wait and see if it works then. My money is firmly on a 'fail'.

[BWFC_Insane]

Does it garner results?

Well, his ultimate test is before us. If Liverpool win the League I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps and eat humble pie, and welcome him with open arms to the Reebok the season after.
If, however Liverpool end in top fivish mediocrity or worse, then clearly no it won't have and his flush will be shown to be busted.

But surely the point is that he can't turn water into wine? He can't turn Liverpool from 6th place to champions. But he might be able to improve the performance of one or two players in key games and that could make a small difference. And even a small difference can mean £ and progression.

Same as with the cyclists, they cite him as a key part of the machinery that contributed to their success. So he's already shown how he can contribute.

But I don't think he or anyone else is claiming magic, just that he seems to help some, and why not be open to it and try it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Does it garner results?

Well, his ultimate test is before us. If Liverpool win the League I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps and eat humble pie, and welcome him with open arms to the Reebok the season after.
If, however Liverpool end in top fivish mediocrity or worse, then clearly no it won't have and his flush will be shown to be busted.

But surely the point is that he can't turn water into wine? He can't turn Liverpool from 6th place to champions. But he might be able to improve the performance of one or two players in key games and that could make a small difference. And even a small difference can mean £ and progression.

Same as with the cyclists, they cite him as a key part of the machinery that contributed to their success. So he's already shown how he can contribute.

But I don't think he or anyone else is claiming magic, just that he seems to help some, and why not be open to it and try it?

Quackery, oooo-oooo-oooo-ery, magic, hocus pocus. It ain't science is what it isn't. It hasn't or cannot be shown to work, and yet you embrace it?

[BWFC_Insane]

Does it garner results?

Well, his ultimate test is before us. If Liverpool win the League I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps and eat humble pie, and welcome him with open arms to the Reebok the season after.
If, however Liverpool end in top fivish mediocrity or worse, then clearly no it won't have and his flush will be shown to be busted.

But surely the point is that he can't turn water into wine? He can't turn Liverpool from 6th place to champions. But he might be able to improve the performance of one or two players in key games and that could make a small difference. And even a small difference can mean £ and progression.

Same as with the cyclists, they cite him as a key part of the machinery that contributed to their success. So he's already shown how he can contribute.

But I don't think he or anyone else is claiming magic, just that he seems to help some, and why not be open to it and try it?

Quackery, oooo-oooo-oooo-ery, magic, hocus pocus. It ain't science is what it isn't. It hasn't or cannot be shown to work, and yet you embrace it?

If people think it is working then does it matter? You can't prove many things are actually working.

You can't prove that diet has helped Novak win those grand slams. But he says it has. You can't prove that Murray wouldn't have won those grand slams if he hadn't done so much upper body work to change his build. But he thinks that is the case. You can't PROVE that it was Ferguson who turned Manchester United around and not some other random event. But we all know....

[Lord Kangana]

If it was purely down to sports psychologist to win Liverpool the League, then surely they would just field a team of 11 sports psychologists, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it'll take you from 18th to 1st, but if you're an equally matched side, and it squeezes (and this in an entirely arbitrary figure!) 3% from your team, then it will give better results, no? Admittedly, this doesn't mean that because of the (entirely arbitrary) 3% you'll necessarily win every game, but maybe it will do unseen things, like giving the players better mental strength to recover from defeat more quickly, and not allow it to play on their minds in future games?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Does it garner results?

Well, his ultimate test is before us. If Liverpool win the League I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps and eat humble pie, and welcome him with open arms to the Reebok the season after.
If, however Liverpool end in top fivish mediocrity or worse, then clearly no it won't have and his flush will be shown to be busted.

But surely the point is that he can't turn water into wine? He can't turn Liverpool from 6th place to champions. But he might be able to improve the performance of one or two players in key games and that could make a small difference. And even a small difference can mean £ and progression.

Same as with the cyclists, they cite him as a key part of the machinery that contributed to their success. So he's already shown how he can contribute.

But I don't think he or anyone else is claiming magic, just that he seems to help some, and why not be open to it and try it?

Quackery, oooo-oooo-oooo-ery, magic, hocus pocus. It ain't science is what it isn't. It hasn't or cannot be shown to work, and yet you embrace it?

If people think it is working then does it matter? You can't prove many things are actually working.

You can't prove that diet has helped Novak win those grand slams. But he says it has. You can't prove that Murray wouldn't have won those grand slams if he hadn't done so much upper body work to change his build. But he thinks that is the case. You can't PROVE that it was Ferguson who turned Manchester United around and not some other random event. But we all know....

Of course it matters. Did it matter that Lance Armstrong gave us a bunch of crap about how he melded his mind in order to win (when in actual fact he took a shed load of drugs). Does it matter that this bloke works with Ronnie O'Sullivan and Jessica Ennis and Steve Redgrave and we are supposed to think it's his techniques that are helping them to win - they are winners because they are talented not because he's cleared their minds of some mythical inner chimp (not that poor Ronnie seems to have benefited much in the permanent clearance of inner chimpdom even now). If you believe in honesty, truth and science - then it matters.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If it was purely down to sports psychologist to win Liverpool the League, then surely they would just field a team of 11 sports psychologists, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it'll take you from 18th to 1st, but if you're an equally matched side, and it squeezes (and this in an entirely arbitrary figure!) 3% from your team, then it will give better results, no? Admittedly, this doesn't mean that because of the (entirely arbitrary) 3% you'll necessarily win every game, but maybe it will do unseen things, like giving the players better mental strength to recover from defeat more quickly, and not allow it to play on their minds in future games?

You might not be, but people are.

You asked me if it garnered results.
I pointed out we can wait and see.
Now you're saying that that won't happen, it's just incremental stuff that will occur if anything.
So, I'm asking you to show me this 3% incremental attainment. where's the proof this stuff works, and if there is no proof (which there isn't) why the hell are people so keen to go along with crap like this?

[BWFC_Insane]

Of course it matters. Did it matter that Lance Armstrong gave us a bunch of crap about how he melded his mind in order to win (when in actual fact he took a shed load of drugs). Does it matter that this bloke works with Ronnie O'Sullivan and Jessica Ennis and Steve Redgrave and we are supposed to think it's his techniques that are helping them to win - they are winners because they are talented not because he's cleared their minds of some mythical inner chimp (not that poor Ronnie seems to have benefited much in the permanent clearance of inner chimpdom even now). If you believe in honesty, truth and science - then it matters.

My point is that THOSE people say he "helped". They are not pinning their success onto him.

But they think he helped. So even if it is only a placebo effect that makes people feel calmer or more in control or whatever, does it matter if they feel it is helping?

And psychology plays a big part in sport. Plenty of very talented people haven't coped with situations well and have gone on to lose.

[StaffsTrotter]

thought it was generally recognised that the 'mental' side was a significant aspect of top sport.

can't see what the problems is if people think it helps them (even if its all in the mind)

[Lord Kangana]

If it was purely down to sports psychologist to win Liverpool the League, then surely they would just field a team of 11 sports psychologists, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it'll take you from 18th to 1st, but if you're an equally matched side, and it squeezes (and this in an entirely arbitrary figure!) 3% from your team, then it will give better results, no? Admittedly, this doesn't mean that because of the (entirely arbitrary) 3% you'll necessarily win every game, but maybe it will do unseen things, like giving the players better mental strength to recover from defeat more quickly, and not allow it to play on their minds in future games?

You might not be, but people are.

You asked me if it garnered results.
I pointed out we can wait and see.
Now you're saying that that won't happen, it's just incremental stuff that will occur if anything.
So, I'm asking you to show me this 3% incremental attainment. where's the proof this stuff works, and if there is no proof (which there isn't) why the hell are people so keen to go along with crap like this?

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. Asking you if it garners results isn't an endorsement, its a question.

As it happens, you've inadvertently answered it by giving a list of successful people this guy has worked with, but are gainsaying his input into that. As I say, you're asking me for proof, I'm asking you for proof. The only proof that exists is that he was employed by some very successful people. Thats not concrete evidence for either quackery or miraculous working of pschology. But the best either of us can come up with is we don't know. So I'm uncertain as to why you are so certain, considering successful sports stars in this country have both used and endorsed the man?