17-09-2016, 01:00 AM
I find it very hard to accept that inactivity, or relative inactivity, doesn't impact on a player's ability to produce their best when asked to play at a high level (or any level).
This is not just a simple selection criteria issue - it directly impacts on the actual results of the teams when they do play. If somebody of 2500 strength performs at 2450 because of their inactivity, is that 'acceptable' compared to a 2300 able to perform at 2350? All other things being equal of course.
Is this what we are looking for? 2450 is still better than 2350 in absolute terms - but I am not convinced this is what we should be aiming for! Convince me - because at the moment all I am reading (Alan excepted) are 'status quo' arguments.
This is not just a simple selection criteria issue - it directly impacts on the actual results of the teams when they do play. If somebody of 2500 strength performs at 2450 because of their inactivity, is that 'acceptable' compared to a 2300 able to perform at 2350? All other things being equal of course.
Is this what we are looking for? 2450 is still better than 2350 in absolute terms - but I am not convinced this is what we should be aiming for! Convince me - because at the moment all I am reading (Alan excepted) are 'status quo' arguments.