congratulations that you do know how to use Whoscored well ... but since you went that far lets spend more time and watch some games ... instead ... and do you know where those name in #1 ... whatever category (in whoscored for Aletico) are now? Do you happen to know their name just one? pftttt do you happen to know Zidane never wsas the most assists for real, nor most goals scored from MF, nor most dribble for Real? YET he was widely regarded as the best player there for Real 2000;s and many considered him as best ever last decade? oufff ... your excuse= Whoscored did NOT exist back then? LOL
That is hard to believe even 13 f/g for Maradona. I just use my common sense though. Maradona had about 7 fouls per game on average in the worldcup. The game against Korea is when he suffered more than 10 fouls which can be seen that he was fouled almost every time he had the ball. Platini, on the other hand, usually played deeper compared to Maradona and he used his excellent passing to attack. This type of player rarely gets tackled. Sounds interesting... I will find some Juve games on youtube to see what happened.
I agree with you that 13,14 fould per game was alot. May be ONE partiular game, but not "average" per season. NO way.... otherwise Platini got 14x30 = 400+ fouls a season? never I did recall that. Maradona did suffered hundreds of fouls a season ... as reasonable number. but many 300+ at max
The 13 fouls a game is from the various newspaper archives (copied from Italian papers). http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010566041:mpeg21:a0258 I agree that it as an improbable number. However, I see that you cut away what I said about the earlier posted article: it is of 1986/87 and not at the end of the season but during the run of the season.
In ENGLISH they say : JAMES, or or Jim or Jimmy ... OK? You call me Jome one more time, some GOSH will answer you next time For your INFO: 1- You have to learn how to read STATS and interpret CORRECTLY before posting of IRRELEVANT INFO of Diego COSTA ! (same thing with his dribble run number) For example: it's so SILLY and IGNORANT to claim Diego had 1,3 keypasses as #4 in Aletico with 2 other players (WITH ONLY 2,3 GAMES played) in front of him STATS = MEANINGFUL when the samples are BIG = BASIC ... 2- Watch games and STATS are the things to SUMMARIZE the after-math OK?
Jome, why are you lying? Look at what you said earlier: 3 years ago, Diego Costa was 10th in dribbling, 18th in key passes at Atletico. 4 years ago, Diego Costa was at another club.
FACT said Diego Costa was the MOST FOULED player in LIGA this season with 3,5/game vs some top names : Neymar 3, CR7 2,1, Iniesta 1.8, Messi 1.6, ........ Xavi 0,7 and Bale 0.6 why? becuase stop him = stop Aletico win
@Pipiolo Some time ago you talked about the unlucky Belgians in 1973 (failing to qualify because of a cancelled offside goal), but what about this? It's the euro72 semi-final, with a goal incorrectly called offside (end result 1:2). Al segments here happened within 10 minutes btw (apparently the staff pre-programmed/brainwashed the outside left to make dives in the penalty area, just like two years later ). The place of the free kick is almost a carbon copy of the free kick position a year later (left side of the penalty area, Van Himst in both cases the free kick taker). Nobody is ever mentioning that, no lamenting/bashing 'The Guardian' articles on this occasion. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/feb/10/rob-smyth-forgotten-story-holland-belgium N.B. Probably the Belgians didn't deserve to win anyway (although they played practically an away match, thanks UEFA), but everyone who's claiming that Germany played in 1972 football tactically similar to the Dutch two years later (e.g. trying to play on the opponents half), that's just plain nonsense and propaganda.
I read many articles caliming Germany NT did play a "total football" but in their own right ... well thanks to Beckenbauer running back and forth from DF to Attacking zone, and plus players like Vogts, Overath/netzer were very mobile ... However, those are not similar (to the least) to a "total Football" of Michels and Cruijff ... I remember Ressenbrink making a comment after WC78 final (?) - something like, "We missed Cruijff and so the total football is no longer effective. It's not so difficult to play total football, but it does take the good quality of players and their DISCIPLINE and commitment to realize that "
It is better to check sources and videos for yourself (the primary sources), rather than going by untransparant rankings of others.
No fun, I liked Once's write ups and writing style. Puck - Just don't read the thread then and let people who want to read it.
Me no likey your rankings and no matter how much you take importance away from them I will moan about untransparency and inconsistency the whole way
I checked AD78 his post history and he also liked PeruFC his rankings, who has no write ups (in English) or justification at all. I'd like to know what is the 'fun' part of that effort, or other efforts that spray with stars and numbers. At hindsight, I don't see reason to take anything back I said. I was just saying that primary sources should be preferred; it's great when people actually unearth that or cite from it (without it the same suppositions, 'myths' and thought-patterns become recycled over and over again). If you don't like this general observation - good for you, your problem.
I was not expecting you to. Personally, I prefer with writeups and not just the names. Not really as justification, or only to a certain extent. More to know what had happen, even if not in the depth you would like yourself. There is no arguing with that, but it is a bit too grand a task to tackle. How great would it be if somebody would provide the potential 3 or 5 best players of each season since the 50s with contemporary sources supporting the candidates and such unearthings... I would love that, but I cannot provide it. I can provide this much only. I doubt anybody is going to take my word for it straight up though and refrain from investigating further if interested in the subject, or that they would need the advise of Puck to do so. I dont have a problem with that general observation, I agree with it. If the same guy accusing inconsistency (like I ever claimed I consistently and methodologically reached undiputable conclusions...) / untransparency also takes the trouble to point it out regularly, so be that too.
I am not necessarily a fan of rankings of 1-3, or 1-5 as these are obviously very subjective and how much difference was 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3 etc, 3 vs 5... but I like seeing who are the 3 players or 5 players in these lists and especially when I find out something I was not aware of. What I do like is the summary of each year and especially reading information on certain players or eras I know less of. A prime example being 60s/70s/80s South America so its great to hear views of people who watched those players, leagues competitions etc.... I can waffle on for ages about the leagues I followed, and the Champions league for the last 25-30 years etc.... and I have a lot to say on them but its great to hear others views on eras and regions they focused on. In short the reason I thought this thread was so good was it covered so many top players, leagues, competitions, moments spread over the years and sparked many an interesting debate........surely that's not a bad thing ?
Of course it's not a bad thing, it was great reminiscing on the great players of the past and their accomplishments at a particular year. And also finding out something new or just forgotten about a player. Overall, I saw the rankings not so much as a list set in stone but more as a guide to the front runners for the season.
You think anyone here has watched the 1960s players live? I see you've repped his 1953 year and 1974 year - just like what I thought. So it is a "guide"? I prefer the original.
I am not sure if people watched these players live, I tend not to interrogate other forum members on what they have seen. I was just stating I enjoyed thier comments, and if not live, maybe they have seen footage that I have not so they can still have a valid comment. I also prefer the original but might struggle going back in time and watching live games and only get snippets of decent footage from some eras. Plus there have een comments by one member saying they were at the Wolves vs Honved game in the 1950s so conciveable others may have seen games in the 1960s/1970s or watched them on TV. What was wrong with me repping 1953 and 1974 ? I liked the posts, I struggle to see your issue with this. General question, do you try and criticise every post you read, even when like my last one they completely relaxed and non confrontational?