Fark mate. They use MRI to check not dodgey as fuck birth certificates.

Enough of the prejudices already.

They're black, they're black africans, they cheat, they bribe, they're older then they claim.

Them Nigerians can play 3-0 over Brazil this morning.

Is Brazilian football in trouble.

What would they get out of it though? Maybe they are just better at youth football than us. Accept it.

So are they fined if the player doesn't pass this 99% accurate bone plate fusion test ?

That would imply they have tried to cheat

No, they're forced to watch Britain's Got Talent on repeat for 2 weeks straight in a locked padded room.

In case you haven't worked it out yet the scans are done before not after.

Fucked if I know what happens to them if they fail. What I do know is they're ineligible to compete in the tournament if they've got a grade 6 fusion. From my reading it's a 99% accurate test. Nickk disputes this but I have yet to read where his stats come from or even what they mean.

Happy to reserve judgement when Nickk explains what and why the wiki article is wrong.

Here's some links to some of the papers referenced in the wiki article. Do your own research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465138/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465442/

Of course I could be trolling.

Mali beat Croatia too. Beautiful goal from the physically superior and age cheating black African cheaters.

Did I mention they were cheaters?

60 % possession to Croatia but......

22 shots to the Malis - 6 to the Croatians.

9 shots on target for Mali - 0 to the Croatians.

[size=6]Is possession based football, triangling and KNVB methodology in trouble?[/size]




Edited by munrubenmuz: 2/11/2015 02:54:06 PM

Can we please just give the Nigerian player the credit they deserve?????

This is getting pathetic and slightly racist (on the part of a few people), imo.

The Nigerian team are class. Leaving aside the fact they're good athletes, they've been some of the best footballers at the tournament. Good technical football with tactical nous.

Rather than whinging about the fact that the country has a history of over-age players, just focus on what we've seen. Fantastic football from them. To suggest otherwise is really poor form.

Oh and just because the country may (according to some) not have a history of technically good football, it doesn't mean they can't have turned a corner. Given the way Australia has played in the past, if you were from Chile or wherever, you could be forgiven for thinking Australia isn't a technical side. Oh but wait, there's a NC, therefore it's all technically good. What you couldn't be let off for (if you're not Australian) is writing Australia's play off as physical and lacking technical and tactical quality, without even paying proper attention.

How much bigger than the Australian players the Nigerian players were I'm not sure and frankly I don't care. People seem to be mistaking size for speed. Speed is far more valuable in football. It's unacceptable for Australian players to all get outpaced. That's what happened. Never mind how strong they are, there are problems if we're substantially slower than them.

And we weren't just slower than the Nigerians. Same story with the Germans (very similar genes to most of our players) and the Mexicans (in the first half). I didn't see the match against the Argies.

Either way. Less stop making excuses and give the Nigerians the credit they deserve.

sure credit to the nigerians. I think the point most people are making is that under 17 results aren't necessarily going to translate to success at the senior level.

when are the next batch of joeys playing? the ones that ualified for the afc tournament in india?

What they are saying 1% of people have full fusion at 16.
So exclude all the full fusion people and your 99% sure you have eliminated an age cheater.
However what they haven;t said is 70% of 19 year olds have not got full fusion.
So 70% of 19 years olds will not be detected.

No they aren't. Most posters are saying we got done because they were physically superior and/or age cheats.

From memory only that was highkick, U4, Barca4life, Nickk, Scotty21, Ryan2008, grazorblade and of course Decentric.

They also comment that success at this level may not translate to success at senior level.

Link?

Would like to see an explanation of the stats quoted above and how they differ from FIFA claiming a 99% success rate.

Thanks


Edited by munrubenmuz: 2/11/2015 10:47:34 PM

Put it this way, if I was Nigerian, I would either be laughing my arse off at Australian football after reading some of those comments or I'd be just be very unimpressed (depending on mood). The comments strike me as incredibly ungracious from many and bordering on racist from some.

Edited by quickflick: 2/11/2015 10:59:57 PM

Lmfao , and you are suprised by this ?
OI OI OI :)

99% succes rate means they only wrongly accuse 1% of the population of age cheating.
The actual detection rate is only 10% of 18 year old and 30% of 19 year olds.
They don;t show 20 year olds in the table but I assume by that stage almost everyone is stage 6.
So really they have a test which will weed out the 20+ age group from the u17.
The allegations are that the NIgerians have had people in their mid 20's compete previously.

Actually the more sensible Nigerians would disagree with you.
Age cheating means players who are honest can't make their youth teams.
Clubs don't trust the Nigerian youth teams as well so if a player is good enough he is assumed to be as old as the rest and judged accordingly. So then the honest player is left in NIgeria while his age cheating brethren make it to Europe.

Is there any evidence that this Nigerian team have cheated?
With the initial FIFA study using MRI to determine age they tested 500 players aged 14-19 with verified birth certificates from multiple countries and got a more than 99% accuracy. http://www.fifa.com/development/news/y=2009/m=10/news=caught-the-wrists-1121679.html

There's no evidence to say they're age cheating except they're supposedly "superior physically" to us so they "have to be".

As for the 99% thing Nickk disputes this (see previous page) but won't provide a link so that we can make up our own minds as to why FIFA is saying one thing and Nickk another.

He may well be correct but I wouldn't mind a look myself.

I know the 'age' thing used to be an issue. I'll need more proof that it still is one.

I'm prepared to believe that different races may physically mature at different rates during adolescence, but I'm yet to see any scientific evidence for this either...

The semi's are now set:

Mexico vs Nigeria

Belgium vs Mali

Are you both incredibly thick. Can you not understand the actual article and see its exactly what I was saying.
Those stats are ironically the ones I presented in the table.

It was established that in a normal population, complete fusion is very unlikely to occur prior to 17 years of age. In fact, the probability is less than 1%. In other words, if the MRI shows complete fusion of a player´s wrist, this player is older than 17 years with a certainty of more than 99%.

So they can say 99% certain a player who has complete fusion is older than 17 thats all they are certain of.
There are a lot of people who are older than 17 who do not have complete fusion, up to about 20 years old that can pass the test.

Yep I am thick Nickk which is why I like to read stuff for myself rather than rely on secondhand anonymous posters on a forum inhabited by swathes of 14 and 15 year old morons.

Still I can't be half as thick as someone who, when asked repeatedly, to put up a link or a source as to how those figures were arrived at refuses to do so.

What are you hiding? You haven't selectively quoted from a paper have you?

You got be kidding me, you can't understand what I was explaining and you think you can read a scientific paper and understand it.
Good luck with that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465442/

Yep, so they did a trial control and found in the normative player population there was a 1% exclusion rate. They did trials at competitions based on biomorphic features, big kids with Ned Kelly beards, and found that they sit outside this, they conclude that some kids were using faked documents. Still conclude that MRI is valid. It though doesn't help if you have a 19 year old with unfused bone plates.

No peanut. I want to make sure you're not cherry picking or quoting data out of context so I asked you to provide a link.

Reluctantly you seem to have come to the party.

Cheers.

Changing youth sides now, thoughts of the Olyroos squad?

Like the squad, although my concern is with the defensive end

Hope they would be a stream for both matches.

My lineup:

----------------------Duncan------------------------

Geria---------Irvine--------Gallifucco------Smith/Galloway-----

----------------------Degenek-----------------------

-----------Amini--------------------Edwards-------

Hoole---------------McLaren------------Pain-----



Edited by Barca4life: 3/11/2015 11:30:52 PM

Wouldn't mind Icon in the AM somewhere as I think his passing would better feed MacLaren

Conclusion
MRI investigation of bony fusion of the left distal radius is a viable tool for screening football players in youth competitions to determine age and degree of maturity, particularly in U‐16 and U‐17 groups. On the basis of the results of the MRI examination of the left radius, the officially stated ages of U‐17 players may not be correct in all cases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465442/

I knew there would be something like this disproving it. Medicine always seems to conduct studies proving something concrete, and then later, completely proves the otherwise with some other case study.

It looks like a decent side but in that same regard probably not the best one we can put out on the park for that age group. My tired sick brain can't think about who is missing though.