What's your unpopular football opinion?

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

I will let xavi express my sentiments.

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1956/europe/2012/12/09/3590377/scholes-is-the-best-midfielder-of-the-last-20-years-xavi

"In the last 15 to 20 years the best central midfielder that I have seen - the most complete - is Scholes," Xavi said. "I have spoken with Xabi Alonso about this many times. Scholes is a spectacular player who has everything.
"He can play the final pass, he can score, he is strong, he never gets knocked off the ball and he doesn't give possession away. If he had been Spanish, then maybe he would have been valued more."

This is what I mean about his status being overstated in recent years. In his heyday scholes wasn't really spoken of in terms of being a great player. He certainly never got within a sniff of the likes of the ballon d'or despite playing for a team realistically challenging for the CL every year for his whole career.

Hodors Appletart

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

people who malign professional players for seemingly "only being in it for the money" yeah no chit they are professionals this is their job

expecting players to behave like fans of the club you support is romantic nonsensery and buying into players who pull the badge in celebration is childish

expecting loyalty from players when clubs and fans will drop players in a heartbeat is again bullchit

sure some players who grew up as fans of a club probably do feel it more but there is a lot of absolute balderdash written both on social and media about players with zero connection to a club city or area

everyone grows up supporting a club and we all know that lads who hop around clubs they support are usually fraud supporters the same goes for players they have their team and there's no way they start to love another one half as much

players are there to do a job for as long as the club wants them to or another club offers them more money or better career development just like you and me and having a go at players for chasing the dollar or backing themselves to improve at another club is absolutely stupid

Lately i've found myself looking at goal celebrations and wondering how much of the satisfaction some players get is from the financial aspect, goal bonuses, win bonuses etc

bucketybuck

Brian? wrote: »

Man City conceded 23 goals in the league in the 18/19 season. 2nd best defensive record in the league.

Barca defensive record:
10/11 La Liga: 21 goals conceded (best in the league)
09/10 La Liga: 24, best
08/09 La Liga: 35, best

Bayern record is the same. Every year, best defensive record in the league.

As I said, it had some flaws, but it was extremely effective.

You are right, every year Barcelona do indeed have one of the best defensive records in the league, and if not for Simeone and his notoriously stingy Athletico side this record would be even more dominant.

14/15 - best in league
13/14 - 2nd best
12/13 - 2nd best
11/12 - Best in the league

07/08 - best in the league
06/07 - Best in the league
05/06 - 2nd best in league
04/05 - best in league

More evidence that Pep is fantastic at giving clubs what they already had.

eh i dunno

I'm not actually missing football all that much and this is from someone who would watch 2/3 games every weekend.

cj maxx

I've never bought into that shyte about players at a particular club kissing the badge etc.
Sure, some might have grown up fans , some might have found success at a particular club. But at the end of the day they are professionals who play for their wages. Players like anyone will chase the money.
It's like someone in telecommunications leaving their job at Vodafone for a better paid one at three or somewhere.

eh i dunno

eh i dunno wrote: »

I'm not actually missing football all that much and this is from someone who would watch 2/3 games every weekend.

Same here. The first weekend felt strange but now I have gotten used to it. I think the spring weather has a part to play. If it was the depths of winter it could be grim

Girly Gal

Brian? wrote: »

So consistently having the best defensive record in the league doesn't mean anything?

What matters to you is subjective analysis over facts.

I'm not disputing Pep's teams consistency and they are generally the best team in the league to watch, I'm just pointing out that Pep's teams aren't great defensively against elite european opposition.

With the odd exception in the last twenty years Barca have generally finished in the top 2 in La Liga regardless who the manager was, as a result they are more often than not going to have the best or one of the best defensive records in the league It's the same for Bayern who are even more dominant in Germany than Barca are in Spain.
The fact is that the defence has always been the weak point in Pep's teams and this gets exposed against stronger opposition in the latter rounds of CL..
His Barca team was so good they managed to get away with this due mainly to the brilliance of their midfield
& attack.
At Bayern the attack wasn't able to overcome the teams defensive lapses in the CL.and it's the same for city so far in CL, although they have a great opportunity if this season gets completed.

CSF

Drumpot wrote: »

It depends on what you consider to be a popular opinion. I would consider the majority of the footballing world to consider Pep “all that”. Some think he’s revolutionised the game but asides from that great Barca side, that’s been great without him.

@CSF, Bayern And Barca win the leagues without Klopp. Mancini and Pelligrini won leagues with city. Peps tactics have been the icing on already tasty cakes, not necessarily an integral component to mould success.

Klopp had the league won, let’s no pretend otherwise. His team also pushed city to ridiculous levels last season, they don’t need over 95 points if Liverpool aren’t as good as they are. Klopp also challenged Bayern’s dominance in Germany and has been very good at getting peripheral teams like pool and Dortmund into serious contention and success in Europe. Klopp hasn’t done any better with city or Bayern in terms of CL football.

Peps ticky tacky entertaining football is great for the sport so he’s not really scrutinised.

Barca and Real still win leagues without Messi and Ronaldo. We can still use our eyes to see that these guys are right there among the greats even though those clubs have had many good/great footballers, winning trophies at clubs before them, and will win trophies after them.

If we use some kind of unnecessarily framed argument we could make comparisons to Heynckes, Mancini or Valverde who have all won trophies at those clubs too, but if we’re actually talking about the football we watched rather than having to put every argument inside or some kind of box, it’s clear that the kind of football Guardiola teams typically play is on a whole different planet to those guys, and there are only a handful of similarly exceptional guys worth a conversation relative to him.

eagle eye

Drumpot wrote:

It depends on what you consider to be a popular opinion. I would consider the majority of the footballing world to consider Pep “all thatâ€. Some think he’s revolutionised the game but asides from that great Barca side, that’s been great without him.

Unpopular to me means uncommon, universally disagreed with. That's not the case with Pep. I read these opinions on him every week.

Rock77

blinding wrote: »

Or Beckham ! !

The difference between Beckham and Pogba is work rate and consistency.

Drumpot

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

people who malign professional players for seemingly "only being in it for the money" yeah no chit they are professionals this is their job

expecting players to behave like fans of the club you support is romantic nonsensery and buying into players who pull the badge in celebration is childish

expecting loyalty from players when clubs and fans will drop players in a heartbeat is again bullchit

sure some players who grew up as fans of a club probably do feel it more but there is a lot of absolute balderdash written both on social and media about players with zero connection to a club city or area

everyone grows up supporting a club and we all know that lads who hop around clubs they support are usually fraud supporters the same goes for players they have their team and there's no way they start to love another one half as much

players are there to do a job for as long as the club wants them to or another club offers them more money or better career development just like you and me and having a go at players for chasing the dollar or backing themselves to improve at another club is absolutely stupid

I don’t expect players to love the club they play for , but I do expect them to give it their all emotionally and physically. It’s not a lot to ask for the Millons they get paid at the top level.

A lot of people don’t factor this in when trying to make out “players are people aswell”. That has nothing to do with it. Supply and demand of quality players is limited so players can effectively afford to demand things and down tools if they do not get these things. Players who “are not happy” still get paid but can strategically come up with ways to let down their employer. What can happen is some fans will defend these players and others will give out. Expecting value for money from a player and expecting them to honor their contract by giving it their all whole contracted at the club has nothing to do with loyalty, more a mentality question of professionalism. Some players have it more then others.

Drumpot

Rock77 wrote: »

The difference between Beckham and Pogba is work rate and consistency.

And teamwork, professionalism, not downing tools, not airing his grievances publicly, not falling out with coach, not being injured longer then one would expect for certain injuries, not dividing fans ...

Drumpot

eagle eye wrote: »

Unpopular to me means uncommon, universally disagreed with. That's not the case with Pep. I read these opinions on him every week.

I wouldn’t agree with your sentiments , I was speaking more in the football community POV, that it has a tendency to romanticise certain elements of the sport.

Lets say my unpopular opinion is that I disagree that you think it’s not an unpopular opinion.... Sorted....

Drumpot

CSF wrote: »

Barca and Real still win leagues without Messi and Ronaldo. We can still use our eyes to see that these guys are right there among the greats even though those clubs have had many good/great footballers, winning trophies at clubs before them, and will win trophies after them.

If we use some kind of unnecessarily framed argument we could make comparisons to Heynckes, Mancini or Valverde who have all won trophies at those clubs too, but if we’re actually talking about the football we watched rather than having to put every argument inside or some kind of box, it’s clear that the kind of football Guardiola teams typically play is on a whole different planet to those guys, and there are only a handful of similarly exceptional guys worth a conversation relative to him.

I won’t argue peps football is not more entertaining but it does not appear to be anymore effective. Winning a league is winning a league whether it’s by 3 points or 20. I’d rather a manager with less pretty football and a capacity to change tactics as required to get a team to win things it might not necessarily be able to win were the Coach not there.

Different horses for courses.

CSF

Drumpot wrote: »

I won’t argue peps football is not more entertaining but it does not appear to be anymore effective. Winning a league is winning a league whether it’s by 3 points or 20. I’d rather a manager with less pretty football and a capacity to change tactics as required to get a team to win things it might not necessarily be able to win were the Coach not there.

Different horses for courses.

But who has a better trophy haul than Pep in his time as a manager? As I see it, Pep has the football, the trophies and the records. Yes, Zidane has won one extra Champions League than him in that spell of time but nobody else has, and Zidane hasn’t had anything like that success domestically, despite, you guessed it, managing exclusively elite football teams

Nobody else has even won 2 in that timeframe. Ferguson only managed that in his entire career and should still be regarded as right up there in the discussion of the greats.

The conversation about Guardiola seems to invariably gravitate towards him being imperfect which is true but also kind of beside the point.

The conversation about whether Guardiola could take a lesser team and make them great is very Football Manageresque and doesn’t really work in the real world because Guardiola’s talents have always given him the elite options. I’ve seen enough from Guardiola’s coaching of the likes of Sterling to think he could go somewhere lesser and use coaching to get the best of some rough gems who don’t always reach their full potential under lesser managers.

But like why would he? I’m sure in the end Guardiola is more concerned with his legacy being judged on his trophy haul (and ultimately adding to a surprisingly low 2 Champions League), than whether lads on the internet think he could do it with a Europa League quality team.

Drumpot

CSF wrote: »

But who has a better trophy haul than Pep in his time as a manager? As I see it, Pep has the football, the trophies and the records. Yes, Zidane has won one extra Champions League than him in that spell of time but nobody else has, and Zidane hasn’t had anything like that success domestically, despite, you guessed it, managing exclusively elite football teams

Nobody else has even won 2 in that timeframe. Ferguson only managed that in his entire career and should still be regarded as right up there in the discussion of the greats.

The conversation about Guardiola seems to invariably gravitate towards him being imperfect which is true but also kind of beside the point.

The conversation about whether Guardiola could take a lesser team and make them great is very Football Manageresque and doesn’t really work in the real world because Guardiola’s talents have always given him the elite options. I’ve seen enough from Guardiola’s coaching of the likes of Sterling to think he could go somewhere lesser and use coaching to get the best of some rough gems who don’t always reach their full potential under lesser managers.

But like why would he? I’m sure in the end Guardiola is more concerned with his legacy being judged on his trophy haul (and ultimately adding to a surprisingly low 2 Champions League), than whether lads on the internet think he could do it with a Europa League quality team.

That’s skirting around the point. If you don’t think it’s relevant that Guardiola has only managed clubs already winning and challanging for top honors , clubs that can spend Equal or way more then their rivals and managed clubs that succeeded with or without him, then there’s not much point in the topic.

Ferguson had success as a Scottish club in Europe and broke up the old Firm dominance. That in itself is nearly more impressive then anything pep has done.

Then Ferguson went on to build and rebuild successful teams at the one club. Much harder then moving around when things get stale and bailing out every 4 years like pep. Ferguson has also had to work within a budget relative to what Pep has enjoyed. And he’s had to manage when the club has lost massive stars like Cantona , Keane and Ronaldo. Look how pep handled Kompanys departure.

Bayern and city would not be much worse off without Pep, look at how united has handled things without Ferguson despite massive spending. Pep hasn’t improved their European chances and has just about met what was expected, especially with the riches he has had to spend. You could argue that the likes of Madrid, Barca, Bayern and PSG similarly dont need great coaches to win leagues or champions leagues. Their squads are generally good enough to win leagues and champions leagues regardless of manager. City haven’t been too far behind that the last 7 years, certainly in terms of backing managers financially.

As I said, when you create the perfect environment for pep he can get teams playing great football and get them to win trophies that they are gonna be at least challanging for with any manager. Pointing to trophy haul is a false argument. Is Ryan Giggs the greatest ever footballer to play in the premier league because of his trophy haul?

doc_17

“You’ll won nothing with kids”. By and large he was right. Cantona, Schmeichal, Keane, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, McClair, Giggs were the spine of the team. Beckham, Scholes, Giggs were in the eay 20s. And Utd were doing shi* until the turn of the year until Cantona and Schmeichal turned it on.

It’s not an opinion that deserved as much vitriol as it got.

Mitch Connor

doc_17 wrote: »

“You’ll won nothing with kids”. By and large he was right. Cantona, Schmeichal, Keane, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, McClair, Giggs were the spine of the team. Beckham, Scholes, Giggs were in the eay 20s. And Utd were doing shi* until the turn of the year until Cantona and Schmeichal turned it on.

It’s not an opinion that deserved as much vitriol as it got.

But it did.

He was commenting that United would win nothing having sold Hughes, Ince and Kanchelskis, and replacing them with no signings - with Kids. Along with Parker coming to the end. And that we would win nothing with them.

Neville played 30+ league games
Butt played 30+ league games
Phil Neville played 20+ league games
Scholes 30+ league games
Becjham 30+ league games.

The kids that came in to replace the vets sold, were key parts of the squad that won the double.

Phil Neville, Gary Neville, Nicky Butt and Beckham played that day (and O'Kane - the ony one not to make a lasting impact at United).

THey are the kids he was commenting on. They are the kids we wouldn't win with.

We won the double.

CSF

Drumpot wrote: »

That’s skirting around the point. If you don’t think it’s relevant that Guardiola has only managed clubs already winning and challanging for top honors , clubs that can spend Equal or way more then their rivals and managed clubs that succeeded with or without him, then there’s not much point in the topic.

Ferguson had success as a Scottish club in Europe and broke up the old Firm dominance. That in itself is nearly more impressive then anything pep has done.

Then Ferguson went on to build and rebuild successful teams at the one club. Much harder then moving around when things get stale and bailing out every 4 years like pep. Ferguson has also had to work within a budget relative to what Pep has enjoyed. And he’s had to manage when the club has lost massive stars like Cantona , Keane and Ronaldo. Look how pep handled Kompanys departure.

Bayern and city would not be much worse off without Pep, look at how united has handled things without Ferguson despite massive spending. Pep hasn’t improved their European chances and has just about met what was expected, especially with the riches he has had to spend. You could argue that the likes of Madrid, Barca, Bayern and PSG similarly dont need great coaches to win leagues or champions leagues. Their squads are generally good enough to win leagues and champions leagues regardless of manager. City haven’t been too far behind that the last 7 years, certainly in terms of backing managers financially.

As I said, when you create the perfect environment for pep he can get teams playing great football and get them to win trophies that they are gonna be at least challanging for with any manager. Pointing to trophy haul is a false argument. Is Ryan Giggs the greatest ever footballer to play in the premier league because of his trophy haul?

I haven’t pointed to trophy haul though. I’ve been really clear in terms of pointing out that with Pep, it’s the full package. Trophies, dominance and entertainment value.

Alex Ferguson did it with lesser teams in Scotland because he wasn’t as highly rated as Pep at the time. If Real Madrid or Man United were to come calling, he wouldn’t have been sticking around to prove himself at Aberdeen.

Whereas Pep has only managed top teams because he has been identified as being at that level a manager from an early stage. The best players and managers gravitate towards the best teams, it’s normal.

Ronaldo and Messi are the best of my lifetime and they’ve been doing it at the best teams for as long as I can remember. It would be weird to expect for them to play at a lesser level when they can play at the top level. It would be equally odd to laud someone like Mahrez or Mane ahead of them who became stars from much more humble football beginnings.

I know people like to treat football management as a much more difficult to identify skillset than that of a footballers, and maybe that is true to some extent, but it’s also bizarre IMO to think Allardyce is better suited to manage Brighton than Pep or Warnock better suited to Charlton.

And some people go on that way which fuels these kinds of narratives. There are some managers who are well suited to particularly short term situations, but that’s a whole different story.

TheCitizen

Drumpot wrote: »

That’s skirting around the point. If you don’t think it’s relevant that Guardiola has only managed clubs already winning and challanging for top honors , clubs that can spend Equal or way more then their rivals and managed clubs that succeeded with or without him, then there’s not much point in the topic.

Ferguson had success as a Scottish club in Europe and broke up the old Firm dominance. That in itself is nearly more impressive then anything pep has done.

Then Ferguson went on to build and rebuild successful teams at the one club. Much harder then moving around when things get stale and bailing out every 4 years like pep. Ferguson has also had to work within a budget relative to what Pep has enjoyed. And he’s had to manage when the club has lost massive stars like Cantona , Keane and Ronaldo. Look how pep handled Kompanys departure.

Bayern and city would not be much worse off without Pep, look at how united has handled things without Ferguson despite massive spending. Pep hasn’t improved their European chances and has just about met what was expected, especially with the riches he has had to spend. You could argue that the likes of Madrid, Barca, Bayern and PSG similarly dont need great coaches to win leagues or champions leagues. Their squads are generally good enough to win leagues and champions leagues regardless of manager. City haven’t been too far behind that the last 7 years, certainly in terms of backing managers financially.

As I said, when you create the perfect environment for pep he can get teams playing great football and get them to win trophies that they are gonna be at least challanging for with any manager. Pointing to trophy haul is a false argument. Is Ryan Giggs the greatest ever footballer to play in the premier league because of his trophy haul?

Ferguson was a top manager obviously and from an earlier generation of great managers but when things were different. He's in a bracket with Shankly, Stein, Busby, Clough, Wenger perhaps as one of his contemporaries.

Managers these days don't stay at one club for decades even if they wanted to. Ferguson took a bit of time to get going at Man United. He was coming in for fierce criticism for spending big money and making big changes but for little return in those first 3 years. They were lining up Steve Coppell to take over from him if his Man United team didn't win the FA Cup 3rd round tie v Nottingham Forest in January 1990. The previous season 88/89 his third season was trophy less and they finished 11th. He would have been sacked or "mutually consented" before that these days. Comparing players from different eras is difficult, same goes with managers.

The stuff on here trying to denigrate Pep Guardiola is laughable nonsense. Every where he's been he's been a success. The stuff above about clubs like Barca, Bayern and Man City and PSG don't need a great coach to win their leagues and CLs is utter garbage. I think you've taken the op thread suggestion the wrong way. The op suggestion was asking for an unpopular football opinion, not a nonsensical one.

doc_17

Mitch Connor wrote: »

But it did.

He was commenting that United would win nothing having sold Hughes, Ince and Kanchelskis, and replacing them with no signings - with Kids. Along with Parker coming to the end. And that we would win nothing with them.

Neville played 30+ league games
Butt played 30+ league games
Phil Neville played 20+ league games
Scholes 30+ league games
Becjham 30+ league games.

The kids that came in to replace the vets sold, were key parts of the squad that won the double.

Phil Neville, Gary Neville, Nicky Butt and Beckham played that day (and O'Kane - the ony one not to make a lasting impact at United).

THey are the kids he was commenting on. They are the kids we wouldn't win with.

We won the double.

Yes. The 3/4 kids that played and the 8/9 established starts who carried the team when it got tough.

But I take your point. I don’t disagree with it. I just think Hansen wasn’t entirely wrong in what he was saying. The kids wouldn’t have done it on their own is probably what he meant.

Mitch Connor

doc_17 wrote: »

Yes. The 3/4 kids that played and the 8/9 established starts who carried the team when it got tough.

But I take your point. I don’t disagree with it. I just think Hansen wasn’t entirely wrong in what he was saying. The kids wouldn’t have done it on their own is probably what he meant.

IIRC his basic point was United had effed up by selling who they did in the summer and expecting the kids to replace them - and be competitive, cause we wouldn't win anything with kids.

The kids did replace the senior guys let go, the kids did play a key roll in winning the league and cup that very year.

doc_17

Mitch Connor wrote: »

IIRC his basic point was United had effed up by selling who they did in the summer and expecting the kids to replace them - and be competitive, cause we wouldn't win anything with kids.

The kids did replace the senior guys let go, the kids did play a key roll in winning the league and cup that very year.

Yes. But “you’ll win nothing with kids” is the unpopular opinion I’m focusing on. If you had just kids, you’d win nothing. Utd didn’t have just kids. The spine of their team had successful, hardened pros at their peak. And it was those experienced players who came to the fore when Utd went 12 behind Newcastle. The men that made the real difference were Cantona and Schmeichal. If they had played their kid striker and keeper they’d have been nowhere.

But anyway, that’s why it was posted in the unpopular opinion thread.

Mushy

doc_17 wrote: »

Yes. But “you’ll win nothing with kids” is the unpopular opinion I’m focusing on. If you had just kids, you’d win nothing. Utd didn’t have just kids. The spine of their team had successful, hardened pros at their peak. And it was those experienced players who came to the fore when Utd went 12 behind Newcastle. The men that made the real difference were Cantona and Schmeichal. If they had played their kid striker and keeper they’d have been nowhere.

But anyway, that’s why it was posted in the unpopular opinion thread.

Sounds like should have more issue with Hansen saying it considering they had that spine rather than people ridiculing him for it

ionadnapokot

That Diego is still the greatest

19th April 1989
"Live is Life"

https://twitter.com/NapoliAndNaples/status/1251649289786470401?s=20

The Golden Miller

ionadnapokot wrote: »

That Diego is still the greatest

19th April 1989
"Live is Life"

https://twitter.com/NapoliAndNaples/status/1251649289786470401?s=20

How would that be an unpopular opinion seeing as he would still generally be considered the greatest?

CSF

The Golden Miller wrote: »

How would that be an unpopular opinion seeing as he would still generally be considered the greatest?

I’d imagine Messi would win any poll but he’d still be close enough, that it’s hardly unpopular

blinding

Can you imagine a Maradona today ? With all the protection players get from vicious tackling !

If he had management that looked after him ( if that could even be possible )

Maradona is the best even if a slightly flawed Genius !

The Golden Miller

CSF wrote: »

I’d imagine Messi would win any poll but he’d still be close enough, that it’s hardly unpopular

I'd say there's an older generation that would consider Pele the best. A younger now middle generation that would generally consider Cruyff or Maradona the best ever. And the young generation today that would view Messi as the best ever. I think if you combined all 3 generations Maradona would be held in very high regard as the best ever by all generations, followed by Cruyff. For me those two stand alone anyway

The Golden Miller

blinding wrote: »

Can you imagine a Maradona today ?

He'd literally be unplayable

blinding

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He'd literally be unplayable

It would be like the English Moving Statues in Mexico Every Game:D:D

Maradona was tough enough fella as well. Tougher than Messi and Portugal's Ronaldo.

There is some video of him playing the Republic in 1980. Even though it was only a friendly the Irish players were putting some not so nice tackles on him.

Here it is; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVYqb871RPg

Its a pity that the footage is not better quality.

Can you imagine a Maradona looking after himself as Much as Ronaldo or Messi :D

The Floyd p

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He'd literally be unplayable

Unplayable alright, that's how his manager would see him. He wouldn't have the discipline needed to be a world beater. The athleticism today far exceeds what he was up against in the 80's, and given his struggles with substance abuse, I doubt he'd be nearly as effective.

The Golden Miller

The Floyd p wrote: »

Unplayable alright, that's how his manager would see him. He wouldn't have the discipline needed to be a world beater. The athleticism today far exceeds what he was up against in the 80's, and given his struggles with substance abuse, I doubt he'd be nearly as effective.

The athleticism is a mute point. If you drag a player into today you surely give the the benefits of today's training, conditioning, conditions etc.

On raw talent there's never been anyone like him. The one facet of the game Messi exceeds him is dribbling.....just. What really separates him to Messi was his onfield leadership, Maradona was a warrior.

People say world cup success shouldn't count for much anymore, as the Champions League is a higher standard these days. I don't fully agree. It's different, the pride representing your country. It's the one tournament the world watches once every 4 years so there's huge pressure to perform. And when the world watched, Maradona stood up to the mark and played his best football. Not only that, he led like a general. Apply the pressure and Maradona only got better. The hallmark of the greats. Maradona was the greatest!

AdamD

Messi is quite clearly a better finisher

0gac3yjefb5sv7

I'd have Ronaldo as the best ever.

The Golden Miller

James Obedient Pedestal wrote: »

I'd have Ronaldo as the best ever.

Cristiano? Give over!

On what basis? Technical ability? Creativity, vision, passing, dictating tempo? Miles behind the likes of Maradona, Messi, Cruyff, Zidane etc. in that regard

His goalscoring? Doesn't even out score Messi, who plays in midfield. Wouldn't be on Gerd Mullers level either as a goal scorer. He is one of the great goal scorers, just not the best ever

0gac3yjefb5sv7

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Cristiano? Give over!

On what basis? Technical ability? Creativity, vision, passing, dictating tempo? Miles behind the likes of Maradona, Messi, Cruyff, Zidane etc. in that regard

His goalscoring? Doesn't even out score Messi, who plays in midfield. Wouldn't be on Gerd Mullers level either as a goal scorer. He is one of the great goal scorers, just not the best ever

Zidane shouldn't even be on your list there. Yes, better than Messi. Done it in 3 leagues and for the national team. My opinion, but I wouldn't regard it as very unpopular.

BonnieSituation

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The athleticism is a mute point. If you drag a player into today you surely give the the benefits of today's training, conditioning, conditions etc.

On raw talent there's never been anyone like him. The one facet of the game Messi exceeds him is dribbling.....just. What really separates him to Messi was his onfield leadership, Maradona was a warrior.

People say world cup success shouldn't count for much anymore, as the Champions League is a higher standard these days. I don't fully agree. It's different, the pride representing your country. It's the one tournament the world watches once every 4 years so there's huge pressure to perform. And when the world watched, Maradona stood up to the mark and played his best football. Not only that, he led like a general. Apply the pressure and Maradona only got better. The hallmark of the greats. Maradona was the greatest!

You're so right.

This always annoys me when people do comparisons of eras.

I just make the assumption that the cream will rise to the top no matter what. That's all we can do.

To say that Roy Keane or Giles or Maradona or Puskas or Beckenbauer couldn't play today at the highest level is a canard and we have no way of truly knowing. Conversely could Messi or Ronaldo play in the 70s? Who cares!

Sheer strength of will personality and the way he drags teams along has always made me see a bit of Diego in Ronaldo as an aside.

Same thing happens in NFL; imagine Montana, Marino and Elway if they got the protection of Brady, Manning and Rodgers? The greats are always great. and they are so obviously great that it's self-evident.

We will still be talking of Messi and Ronaldo in 40 years the same way we will be talking about Diego.

I'm thankfully old enough to get the tail end of Maradona.

He was always my favourite (non-Paddy) player growing up, and if you're gonna go out, this is how you go out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfwFg7n92Ck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfwFg7n92Ck

Arghus

That at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if they finish this season or not. It's only football.

Comparing players from different eras is impossible really. But, fck it -

I think Maradonna could conceivably have been successful today. He was amazing in a rougher and tougher era. He took some punishment. And he didn't look after himself. And pitches and general conditions for football were worse. And he still managed to be amazing. A Maradonna playing in a era where talented players are looked after and protected on the pitch, with pitches like freshly laid carpet and with all the modern trappings of fitness and nutrition and clubs and agents who have a better clue how to manage their assests - Well, personally, I think he'd be even more amazing, not less.

If Messi had played in Maradonna's era, some guy would have ended his career before he was 25.

I think Ronaldo could have played back in the day. He's a physical specimen.

Having said that - I would put Messi above Ronaldo in general. Messi is just a better footballer. But he has been lucky, in a sense, because he's played in a era that is more suited to his strengths

The Golden Miller

James Obedient Pedestal wrote: »

Zidane shouldn't even be on your list there. Yes, better than Messi. Done it in 3 leagues and for the national team. My opinion, but I wouldn't regard it as very unpopular.

Whatever about Messi, what's a logical argument to say he's better than Maradona or Cruyff? Some people say Ronaldo is the best ever, why? Goalscoring? He's not even as prolific as Gerd Muller

Hulk Hands

DeanAustin wrote: »

Here's my unpopular opinion. Beckham had more character than most and I include Roy Keane in that.

Beckham was humiliated by Capello at Madrid and basically made train with the youth team. Did he sulk or play the prima-donna? Did he ****. Put his head down, worked hard and got back into the team and helped them win La Liga.

He was scapegoated by Steve McLaren for England's numerous failures and went from captain of the England team to being out of the squad. Did he "retire" from international football to save face or whinge? No, he put his head down and worked to get back in the England team which he did.

The man, despite the image, had a very, very strong character and is to be admired for it.

All you've said, plus the biggest adversity he came back from was going out to France 98 as England's superstar and coming back it's villian, having vile stuff screamed at him during every away game. Very first game of the season, away to Leicester at the height of the abuse, he curls a last minute free kick in to salvage a draw. Went on to have a belter of a season.

It's funny, him and Ronaldo as a comparison have often been called primadonnas, soft or attention seekers. Ronaldo also went through similar with the reaction to Rooney's sending off in WC 06. Same abuse Beckham got, both dealing with it as very young adults. He went on to get player of the year. Bags of character those two

BonnieSituation

Hulk Hands wrote: »

All you've said, plus the biggest adversity he came back from was going out to France 98 as England's superstar and coming back it's villian, having vile stuff screamed at him during every away game. Very first game of the season, away to Leicester at the height of the abuse, he curls a last minute free kick in to salvage a draw. Went on to have a belter of a season.

It's funny, him and Ronaldo as a comparison have often been called primadonnas, soft or attention seekers. Ronaldo also went through similar with the reaction to Rooney's sending off in WC 06. Same abuse Beckham got, both dealing with it as very young adults. He went on to get player of the year. Bags of character those two

Spot on!
Great post.

Brian?

The Floyd p wrote: »

Unplayable alright, that's how his manager would see him. He wouldn't have the discipline needed to be a world beater. The athleticism today far exceeds what he was up against in the 80's, and given his struggles with substance abuse, I doubt he'd be nearly as effective.

You don't think he'd be treated completely different today? He'd have better trainers and mental health professionals around to help him for a start.

The Golden Miller

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Cristiano? Give over!

On what basis? Technical ability? Creativity, vision, passing, dictating tempo? Miles behind the likes of Maradona, Messi, Cruyff, Zidane etc. in that regard

His goalscoring? Doesn't even out score Messi, who plays in midfield. Wouldn't be on Gerd Mullers level either as a goal scorer. He is one of the great goal scorers, just not the best ever

I agree Maradona is out on his own.

But you have to credit Ronaldo with a couple of aspects that are Maradona-lite. He was successful in different leagues and countries. And it always seemed like international football mattered, he would inspire, cajole, bully and even cheat to win for his country, and drive teammates to achieve more than the sum of their parts.

Rock77

Hulk Hands wrote: »

All you've said, plus the biggest adversity he came back from was going out to France 98 as England's superstar and coming back it's villian, having vile stuff screamed at him during every away game. Very first game of the season, away to Leicester at the height of the abuse, he curls a last minute free kick in to salvage a draw. Went on to have a belter of a season.

It's funny, him and Ronaldo as a comparison have often been called primadonnas, soft or attention seekers. Ronaldo also went through similar with the reaction to Rooney's sending off in WC 06. Same abuse Beckham got, both dealing with it as very young adults. He went on to get player of the year. Bags of character those two

Great post, the Leicester game was at Old Trafford though.. sorry, I couldn’t help it..

As pissed off as I was at the time and despite how it felt inevitable, the free kick Beckham scored against Greece showed all you need to know about him. Even from what, 30 yards out, dead centre, he was always going to score it.

Hulk Hands

Rock77 wrote: »

Great post, the Leicester game was at Old Trafford though.. sorry, I couldn’t help it..

Just checked it, think I fell into the common nostalgia trap! So long ago now

Rock77

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Just checked it, think I fell into the common nostalgia trap! So long ago now

I was such a Beckham fanboy when I was a young lad I even remember the commentary from a lot of his goals.... ah such good memories..

blinding

James Obedient Pedestal wrote: »

I'd have Ronaldo as the best ever.

Certainly if you had the Choice of buying Ronaldo or Messi ; Ronaldo would be the much better bet.

Ronaldo has done it for every club he played for and has done much more for Portugal than Messi has done for Argentina.

Messi has done unbelievable for one Team and middling for Argentina.

Certainly on performances for more than one Team Ronaldo is way up there.

A Maradona that had been looked after both on and off the pitch would be something else any-day.

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

Messi has done unbelievable for one Team and middling for Argentina.
.

Depends on your definition of middling. The guy has 70 international goals.


Youre talking about the difference between a 1.65 games to goal ratio and a 1.97, not some lad that score every 5 or 6 games.