Player Ratings: When Science Makes Sense

Posted Saturday, February 06, 2010 by

Think of science and what springs to mind?

Hey, wake up, we’re not done yet. We think that the science-folk out there might just have discovered their inner cool.

*sounds boat horn* Please. Attention. Come back and sit down.

Let us explain: We’ve got a sneaky suspicion that the folks down at New Scientist have been following us on Twitter. Their latest foray into male forensics has Kickette written all over it: rating footballers’ levels of attractiveness. Our ears have pricked up – have yours?

After some meticulous research, which involved showing participants pictures of sportsmen and having them pass judgment on their looks (why were we not invited?), New Scientist proposed the theory that the best athletes tend to be the best-looking ones.

In the end, the researchers decided that the difference in athletic ability is only slight and doesn’t apply in all cases. Meaning the whole thing has left us slightly confused but inspired.

Do the most aesthetically pleasing ‘ballers make the best players or is it in fact vice-versa? Does players’ attractiveness depend on how shiny their hair is, whether they have eyes more beautiful than the turquoise of a Tiffany box or the odds they have of getting their mitts on the Champions League next May?

There’s that age old theory that men go for looks; women for status and power . Does the same apply to our sporting crushes? We knew a chica that thought Ronaldinho was a beaut… but this statement also coincided with him winning World Player of the Year. Imagine Iker Casillas turning out in an old jersey and holey socks for his Sunday five-a-side team’s game held in the local pub carpark. Are you still drooling? (We already know the answer to that question, but stay with us.)

But before Arsenal get ready to employ Tyra Banks as their new Youth Coach, we better warn them it’s not quite as conclusive as the headliner suggests. In fact, throughout the article there’s as much “to-ing” and “fro-ing” as the ‘will Guti wear Gucci or DSquared today’ saga.

And what about they study’s assertion that strikers and goalkeepers tend to be the eye candy of the team? Does this give our Nando fans their most compelling argument yet for why he should replace Torsten in our Finest Five?

Whilst the equation of ‘Striker + Sexy face = Real Madrid Superstar’ has more of a ring to it than good old E= Mc2, we’re not quite convinced. Should science and football mingle in such a way? And more importantly should this topic become a compulsory part of the National Curriculum?

Shall we throw down the gauntlet to scientists to confirm what we already know, that ‘ballers do indeed have superior genetics; or should they concentrate on developing that chocolate with negative calories we’ve been dreaming of for so long and leave the eye candy analysis to us?

The story continues.

Attention: Third parties may advertise their products and/or services on our website.7M does not warrant the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of their contents.
Your dealings with such third parties are solely between you and such third parties and we shall not be liable in any way for any loss or damage of any sort incurred by you.