What's your unpopular football opinion?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Zinedine Zidane as unbelievably great as he was underachived a little .He really should have been scoring 20 plus goals a season given his position as an attacking midfield player and the incredible physique and skill he had.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Zinedine Zidane as unbelievably great as he was underachived a little .He really should have been scoring 20 plus goals a season given his position as an attacking midfield player and the incredible physique and skill he had.

That's because he was more a central/attacking midfielder as opposed to a traditional no. 10. IF he underachieved at his time in Madrid, it wasn't because of the lack of goals, it was his inability to stamp a coherent direction of play for any great length of time in the Madrid midfield. Madrid was a joke at the time, I wouldn't put all the blame on him, hard to thrive under such circumstances

eh i dunno

Idrissa gueye would have done the same job for Chelsea as Kante did this season.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's because he was more a central/attacking midfielder as opposed to a traditional no. 10

Thats true alright but he always played fairly far forward and he was so talented I just always felt he could have scored more.He didn't seem to me like he was all that bothered about scoring goals in general and picked his moments to score them.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Thats true alright but he always played fairly far forward and he was so talented I just always felt he could have scored more.He didn't seem to me like he was all that bothered about scoring goals in general and picked his moments to score them.

By the standards of the day, greatness wasn't measured by goals, not should it be. It's one aspect, and goal or assist stats don't tell you how a player performed over 90 minutes, nor their influence on the team. Infact, it's only in recent years assists are even recorded, according to ESPN Aimar got 0 assits at Valencia. It's a lazy and flawed metric. Riquelme worked miracles at Villareal, looking back the stats with no context will tell you he was a bog standard player. Zidane tried to control the passages of play and would rarely rush into the box to get on the end of an attack, preferred to wait outside as a backwards outlet and keep the attack ticking over or cut the defence open with a through ball etc. On his day he was a magician. His time at Madrid lets him down slightly in my eyes though

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Golden Miller wrote: »

By the standards of the day, greatness wasn't measured by goals, not should it be. It's one aspect, and goal or assist stats don't tell you how a player performed over 90 minutes, nor their influence on the team. Infact, it's only in recent years assists are even recorded, according to ESPN Aimar got 0 assits at Valencia. It's a lazy and flawed metric. Riquelme worked miracles at Villareal, looking back the stats with no context will tell you he was a bog standard player. Zidane tried to control the passages of play and would rarely rush into the box to get on the end of an attack, preferred to wait outside as a backwards outlet and keep the attack ticking over or cut the defence open with a through ball etc. On his day he was a magician. His time at Madrid lets him down slightly in my eyes though

No goals aren't the only thing that matter obviously and it doesn't take away from how great player he was it's just I often wonder if he could have been even better than he was.

Riquelme was a complete genius.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No goals aren't the only thing that matter obviously and it doesn't take away from how great player he was it's just I often wonder if he could have been even better than he was.

Riquelme was a complete genius.

Not according to the "stats" though. On his day, Riquelme was the best orchestrator I've ever seen.

As for Zindane, I dunno. He could have scored more goals, but would be have become the presence and influence he was in midfield if he continually rushed into the box? What made him so good was every time nothing became of an attack the ball would be recycled to Zidane and he was able to exert sustained pressure on a defense due to his range of passing and keep them pinned in. If he kept going missing too far forward, he couldn't dictate and control the tempo of a game in the same way

ERG89

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:

No goals aren't the only thing that matter obviously and it doesn't take away from how great player he was it's just I often wonder if he could have been even better than he was.

3 world player of the year awards, a champions league, world cup & Euros and a few leagues. Runner up at a World cup, twice in the CL With Juve.
France haven't been near the team they were since he retired imo. He was massive in 1998 & 2006 to them making the final. Could lead a team better than almost anyone in his day.
Not sure how scoring 20 goals a year would have made him prove himself more. He was a better player than anyone scoring more than him.

Dirty Dingus McGee

ERG89 wrote: »

3 world player of the year awards, a champions league, world cup & Euros and a few leagues. Runner up at a World cup, twice in the CL With Juve.
France haven't been near the team they were since he retired imo. He was massive in 1998 & 2006 to them making the final. Could lead a team better than almost anyone in his day.
Not sure how scoring 20 goals a year would have made him prove himself more. He was a better player than anyone scoring more than him.

Because scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals.Just because someone is great doesn't mean they can't have been even better.

If Lionel Messi scored only 20 goals a season instead of the 40 or more he scores each season he wouldn't be as great a player as he is.He's still be a great great player but the amount of goals he scores on top of all the other great things he does elevates him to another level altogether.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals.Just because someone is great doesn't mean they can't have been even better.

If Lionel Messi scored only 20 goals a season instead of the 40 or more he scores each season he wouldn't be as great a player as he is.He's still be a great great player but the amount of goals he scores on top of all the other great things he does elevates him to another level altogether.

Is it? Even if that means less influence over the team as a whole, which results in less goals for the team?

ERG89

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:

If Lionel Messi scored only 20 goals a season instead of the 40 or more he scores each season he wouldn't be as great a player as he is.He's still be a great great player but the amount of goals he scores on top of all the other great things he does elevates him to another level altogether.

Messi is a striker tho that's what they do, Zidane was only ever a midfielder his job was to control the game if he could.
He'd often drop way back to pick up the ball far deeper than most. He's one player too I rarely remember would rarely be taking pot shots if there was a chance he could play in a Trezeguet or Ronaldo.
His temper was my only issue with him tbh.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Is it? Even if that means less influence over the team as a whole, which results in less goals for the team?

Why would he have to sacrifice his influence on the team though,, you can do both particularly when he played with other midfielders behind him and had little defensive responsibilities.

He was always able to come up with big goals when it mattered so him scoring clearly never had a negative effect on his team.

doc_17

When the commentators say "what a great reaction save from the goalkeeper". Aren't they all reaction saves?

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Why would he have to sacrifice his influence on the team though,, you can do both particularly when he played with other midfielders behind him and had little defensive responsibilities.

He was always able to come up with big goals when it mattered so him scoring clearly never had a negative effect on his team.

Most of his goals were from outside the box or just inside the edge of the box when they had teams pushed back. Hard to replicate those sort of goals 20 times per season, every season, in the league. He wasn't sacrificing his midfield responsibilities getting the goals he did. If he was going to turn in more goals, he'd have to play further forward constantly, obviously decreasing his midfield influence. It was the measure of the man that he could always turn up on the big occassions

Dirty Dingus McGee

ERG89 wrote: »

Messi is a striker tho that's what they do, Zidane was only ever a midfielder his job was to control the game if he could.
He'd often drop way back to pick up the ball far deeper than most. He's one player too I rarely remember would rarely be taking pot shots if there was a chance he could play in a Trezeguet or Ronaldo.
His temper was my only issue with him tbh.

Messi's more than a striker though he drops deep and runs the game for Barca he played mainly as a playmaker last season and deferred to Suarez more but still he scored a **** load of goals.

Why not expect a player who starts from deep to do it the other way around.

I wonder if Zidane played in this era in competition with Messi and Ronaldo for the worlds best player and seeing the amount of goals they scored whether it would have drove him on to score more than he did and be an even more productive player.He always seemed to me to be so good he floated through games and never fully pushed himself to the absolute limit of his abilities.

The Golden Miller

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Messi's more than a striker though he drops deep and runs the game for Barca he played mainly as a playmaker last season and deferred to Suarez more but still he scored a **** load of goals.

Why not expect a player who starts from deep to do it the other way around.

I wonder if Zidane played in this era in competition with Messi and Ronaldo for the worlds best player and seeing the amount of goals they scored whether it would have drove him on to score more than he did and be an even more productive player.He always seemed to me to be so good he floated through games and never fully pushed himself to the absolute limit of his abilities.

Zidane couldn't dribble like Messi, nor had the same pace to do what Messi does. But then again, Messi doesn't dictate the game to the same level Zidane did at his best imo, although still a great playmaker. Completely different players despite both being primarily playmakers. Zidane would have got more goals in this era by default, as the goal returns are a bit inflated these days if we're being honest. It would be fairly sad if Zidane played in this era and didn't win world player of the year due to his weaker goal returns. How do you think he would done or won in this era?

JamboMac

Zidane had to put up with great defensive mids like Keane and viera and so on plus they where allowed tackle and hard. If we compare what ifs, what could George best have done in today's environment. Would he compare to Messi or would he eclipse Ronaldo and Messi. Many great players would be getting 60 plus for Madrid and Barca because the gap in Spain is casm and they need to do something.

764dak

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because scoring more goals is better than scoring less goals.Just because someone is great doesn't mean they can't have been even better.

If Lionel Messi scored only 20 goals a season instead of the 40 or more he scores each season he wouldn't be as great a player as he is.He's still be a great great player but the amount of goals he scores on top of all the other great things he does elevates him to another level altogether.

Is it? Even if that means less influence over the team as a whole, which results in less goals for the team?

Zidane's Real Madrid didn't even score that much.

The Golden Miller

764dak wrote: »

Zidane's Real Madrid didn't even score that much.

Maybe so. But that comment was made in general

Liam O

Nani being among the best players in the PL for about a year and a half from 2010-12 is one I have that gets derided a lot. People forget how good he was during that time or just didn't want to believe it in the first place but he basically won United the league in 2010/11.

castletownman

Remember when Ryan Giggs was voted the greatest ever player in PL history to mark it's 20 year anniversary? Well that was the most ludicrous award of all time and was a prime example of recency bias. He was nowhere near United's best ever player in the same time-frame, and the fact there has been no hype over someone "inheriting" his 11 jersey shows how over-rated he was.

FWIW Cantona, Keane, Scholes, Ronaldo, centre back partnerships of Bruce-Pallister, Stam-Johnson, Rio-Vidic, the consistency of Beckham, even Van Persie were more influential for United in title winning seasons, IMO

Another one: there's no way that any Liverpool fan can justifiably claim that Gerrard was the best midfielder in the PL era.

Arghus

Jurgen Klopp is a pain in the arse.

blinding

doc_17 wrote: »

When the commentators say "what a great reaction save from the goalkeeper". Aren't they all reaction saves?

The "No Reaction (just hitting the goalkeeper) " saves are the real quality stuff .

Why react when you can save them by just being in the way.......:P

Fr Tod Umptious

Wimbledon were right to move to MK when they did.

Kids in MK have grown up supporting a local 3rd/4th tier team instead of a more remote top tier team.

AFC Wimbledon have no right to Wimbledon FCs legacy, they are a different club.

Clareman

Rangers, Arsenal and Barcelona with their dodgy tax/loans/bungs should all have the titles they won when they were cheating removed and given to the runners up, it's not an issue in any other sport.

Omackeral

Throw-ins make no sense in the grand scheme of football. It's a strange concept when you isolate it.

Brian?

Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville are extremely poor football pundits.

I don't care about players asking for opposition players to be booked. If the referee is actually influenced by it he should lose his job.

Steven "Stevie G" Gerrard was the most overrated player I've ever seen. Even more overrated than Glen Hoddle. He showed a complete lack of ambition by staying at Liverpool as long as he did, he should have moved somewhere to win a league championship.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Brian? wrote: »

Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville are extremely poor football pundits.

I don't care about players asking for opposition players to be booked. If the referee is actually influenced by it he should lose his job.

Steven "Stevie G" Gerrard was the most overrated player I've ever seen. Even more overrated than Glen Hoddle. He showed a complete lack of ambition by staying at Liverpool as long as he did, he should have moved somewhere to win a league championship.

Or you could argue players that do that take the easy option and what Gerrard did was actually far more ambitious.

Anyone can win by joining an already successful team.To turn a less successful team into a success is a much greater thing to try and achieve.

Brian?

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville are extremely poor football pundits.

I don't care about players asking for opposition players to be booked. If the referee is actually influenced by it he should lose his job.

Steven "Stevie G" Gerrard was the most overrated player I've ever seen. Even more overrated than Glen Hoddle. He showed a complete lack of ambition by staying at Liverpool as long as he did, he should have moved somewhere to win a league championship.

Or you could argue players that do that take the easy option and what Gerrard did was actually far more ambitious.

Anyone can win by joining an already successful team.To turn a less successful team into a success is a much greater thing to try and achieve.

You could argue that. But I'd disagree, especially since he didn't drive Liverpool on to become champions. He wasn't good enough to do it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Brian? wrote: »

You could argue that. But I'd disagree, especially since he didn't drive Liverpool on to become champions. He wasn't good enough to do it.

Very few players would be able to do that though.I wouldn't hold it against him.He's the last person that should be blamed for Liverpool not winning the league.

NIMAN

Jurgen Klopp is overrated as a manager.

Fr Tod Umptious

Some of these opinions are not unpopular, they are actually populist.

Like Sky has ruined football, you hear that here every day of the year.

Gerarrad overrated, you hear that all the time too.

super_furry

Gaizka Mendieta is one of the best midfielders of the last 30 years and probably the most under-rated player of his generation.

NIMAN

super_furry wrote: »

Gaizka Mendieta is one of the best midfielders of the last 30 years and probably the most under-rated player of his generation.

Legend

For this goal alone!

blinding

NIMAN wrote: »

Legend

For this goal alone!

Not a bad Tap in Alright...:p

Brian?

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

You could argue that. But I'd disagree, especially since he didn't drive Liverpool on to become champions. He wasn't good enough to do it.

Very few players would be able to do that though.I wouldn't hold it against him.He's the last person that should be blamed for Liverpool not winning the league.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

You could argue that. But I'd disagree, especially since he didn't drive Liverpool on to become champions. He wasn't good enough to do it.

Very few players would be able to do that though.I wouldn't hold it against him.He's the last person that should be blamed for Liverpool not winning the league.

I didn't say he should have won it alone. My problem with Gerrard is that he didn't make the players around him better the way a great midfield would. He didn't drive the team to be better than they were, he wasn't a great player.

ERG89

The Premier League puts far too much emphasis on buying talent to improve a team/issue & far less on coaching.
Most of the leagues academies must be there cause they have to be as so few players are brought through.

Shanotheslayer

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Or you could argue players that do that take the easy option and what Gerrard did was actually far more ambitious.

Anyone can win by joining an already successful team.To turn a less successful team into a success is a much greater thing to try and achieve.

He didn't do that in fairness tho.

blinding

Omackeral wrote: »

Throw-ins make no sense in the grand scheme of football. It's a strange concept when you isolate it.

It would be nice to have another option alright.....How about a Drop-kick style from a line ball or the traditional throw in . A Dropkick style restart would be a good skill and would give the option of picking out a player further away keeping the other team on its toes further from the point of the the line ball .

Both options Throw in or a Dropkick.........

padd b1975

There was a genuine reason why people started calling passes 'assists'.

Unfortunately I can't remember what it was.

elefant

super_furry wrote: »

Gaizka Mendieta is one of the best midfielders of the last 30 years and probably the most under-rated player of his generation.

One my favourite players ever.

Loved his penalties too. How he could consistently just roll the ball down the middle of the goals and manage to dupe the keepers every time amazed me.

I knew what was coming as soon as he stepped up against Ireland in 2002.

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

There was a genuine reason why people started calling passes 'assists'.

Unfortunately I can't remember what it was.

Final pass before a goalscorer puts the ball in the net I thought?

NIMAN

Football went downhill when the 3 foreigner rule was abolished.

derfderf

Rio was better than Vidic.

The Golden Miller

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Wimbledon were right to move to MK when they did.

Kids in MK have grown up supporting a local 3rd/4th tier team instead of a more remote top tier team.

AFC Wimbledon have no right to Wimbledon FCs legacy, they are a different club.

The kids could of just watched the local non-league MK club there at the time and got them promoted, just like the Wimbledon kids had to after their club was stolen

ArmaniJeanss

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Final pass before a goalscorer puts the ball in the net I thought?

When I were a lad an assist was the player who created the goal, maybe the winger who beat 4 players on a mazy run and then crossed the ball.
The assist concept seems bizarre nowadays with players getting them for unknowing deflections or miscued shots which happen to somehow fall into a colleagues path, or a really minor contribution which just happens to be the second last touch.

Its understandable if the fantasy game has to calculate the figures like that, but I don't like that it has become an accepted stat for a players contributions.

Milkers

As a Liverpool fan I think Emre Can is an absolute bluffer of a player but lots of Liverpool fans seem to only see the 5 good things he does every game and not the 25 things he does badly.

NIMAN

Every footballer playing professional football is a very good player.

You might say "that Fellaini is sh1t" but he's not. Its relative.

To actually make it to a career in football, to be paid to play, and then to make it to one of the worlds big clubs, you can't be rubbish.

The Golden Miller

Although often a figure of ridicule from my experience, Jordi Cruyff was actually a very good footballer

jacool

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

He didn't do that in fairness tho.

They wouldn't have won the Champions League without him.
scored against Olympiakos to keep them in it, and scored in the final, as well as winning a penalty (that was scored).