Yeah the link did an interesting work/ within its condition : limit with certain events and exclude some others, Zidane looked great. However tehre are always two sides of the story: 1- Strictly number of goaLS" For Pele, Eusebio, Ronaldo, Maradona ... (and few others) if we include more "lower events" not part of the condition i.e. confederation cup, Taca Brazil, Paulista, Portuguese cup, Copa Del Rey. Italy cup ... I am sure they will be higher than Zidane ... but it's more like natural, since they were more of scorer type than a Zidane ever was. 2- Percentage scoring ion big games *number of scoring/number of total big games: Here Pele/Ronaldo/Eusebio would be even higher ... (if not much higher than Zidane) but again, they were more of into scoring in their nature than Zidane. The point is not about how accurate the link is, nor how we should evaluate them, but just to see those names POPPING up in big games to confirm their greatness there. WINNING attitude and ABILITY to win games for the team!
I think I also posted this link before, here under different scenarios, Zidane was not there in the TOP. (but again, it's NOT the point, since he did score and participate in many big games and won big trophies for his teams) http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/3482?cc=5901
Had seen this one, but the criteria was rather subjective and they had not provided the details in case of each player, unlike in that other link, so there was no way to validate or verify their findings.
Agree ... the number of "big games" is questionable in this case .. (too much difference between certain players) Like I said these links just gave us a quick hint of who were there in big games ... but not quite clear on who were "best in big games" per se ...
Your link is also subjective and arbitrary. I saw that Maradona isn't listed. Either an error or quite strange (for sure he scored a dozen in what I would consider a big game). Agree with the general point though that Zidane was a big game player.
It is not 'my' link. I searched for it, found it and posted it here, after James had posted information from it earlier which seemed interesting to me. As for it being subjective and arbitrary, I am not sure if we are talking about the same link anymore, since its criteria seemed pretty clear to me. From a cursory look what I understood was, 1) Only Finals and Semi Finals of Major International Tournaments were considered 2) Order of importance was World Cups > Euros = Copa Americas > EC1 > Copa Libertadores > EC2 = EC3 2) Points per goal per game were given as per order of importance e.g. WC Final = 5 points, EC1 Final = 3 points, so on and so forth. Lastly, regarding Maradona, the author has I believe devoted two full paragraphs explaining why Maradona does not make the list of top 50, on that same page for which I posted the link. He is featured in the full list however at no. 80.(the list has the same no. of points from no. 65 to no. 80 I believe, so he can also be called joint no. 65), a list which can be found at the bottom of that page and can be downloaded in spreadsheet format i.e. if you want to verify the numbers yourself.
Please do not take it as personal critique but such efforts are very sensitive to weighing issues, which games count and the relative importance of competitions (and it can be argued that the standing/level of competitions can vary throughout the years - has a 1990 UEFA Cup the same standing as one of 2007? Or a 1965 Libertadores the same as one of 2009?). The draw matters obviously as well. Taking the stage and not level of opponent as indicator for 'big game' makes it dependent on the draw and set-up of competition. Not surprising that various efforts can differ a bit. Sorry, I didn't see Maradona. I selected Argentina in the dropbox but he didn't appear somehow. I'd say that he scored a couple of times in 'big games' against AC Milan.
No offence taken, since as explained above, it was not me who came up with this data initially. Agreed on the UEFA Cups, Copa Libertadores and probably other competitions also not being of the same level across the years, however, as the author has explained in that link as well, these factors cannot be taken into consideration precisely because they are so subjective (an aspect which you are not ok with, from what I gather of your earlier comment). For instance, while you might say winning back-to-back Copa Libertadores is easier in the modern era due to the migration of talent, others might point out that as per the older format and rules the defending champion entered only at the SF stage in the Copa Libertadores and thus had it easier. Also agreed that the draw matters so does the level of opponent and not just the stage, but aren't these extremely subjective aspects as well? After all, the (what might be termed as) "lower" quality opponents who make it to the latter stages are only there after progressing through the other stages like every other big team as well, right? For instance, is the Belgium WC 86' team who progressed to the SFs after finishing third in a group containing Mexico, Paraguay and Iraq and then beating the USSR and Spain in the knockouts any worse than the West German team in that same tournament who finished second in a group containing Denmark, Uruguay and Scotland and then beat Morocco and Mexico to reach the SFs? IMHO it is difficult to say, which again makes it an extremely subjective aspect and hence not very feasible to consider. Ok, but the author of that analysis has clear rules (on the basis of which he has not included such games in his analysis) and he has put up all the data (meeting his criteria) on the basis of which he has created those lists as well. Since the same could not be said about the other link that James had provided, I had commented accordingly.
I do not disagree with this. In fact, that's why I think it will be inconclusive. Still, at some periods a UEFA Cup semi-final (not counted by the website) was as competitive as a European Cup semi final (which they assign points to). Well, one can take the ranking of a team to measure that. The two goals against Belgium also show the sensitivity of this. Take those two goals away and he has 2 points for a penalty goal in the 1989 UEFA Cup final (the website gives equal weight to penalties and field goals btw), which would drop him outside of the top 200. Which is after all a realistic scenario because historically some tougher opponents have reached a semi-final of the world cup, and if the game against England had been refereed in a different way, then he hadn't played at all. So two goals less and he is outside of the top 200 (instead of at #65). Without the 1989 UEFA Cup goal he is at place 107. With an extra UEFA Cup penalty goal he would raise to 44; with a (penalty) goal in a World Cup final he would move from 65 to 28. Agree. Also agree with the main point that Zidane did well in big games. Btw, as sidenote: I noticed that the big game scorers often played with other great scorers (e.g. Pelé played with Coutinho; Di Stefano with Rial; Puskas with Kocsic - all are in the top 50 or top 30 even). For the current era with super teams not surprising but that this also holds for other eras is not self-evident.
Never said it was conclusive, just one of many ways to paint the picture. It is useful however to find out who contributed most (in terms of direct goal scoring) to their teams in major international competitions in the Final and Semi stages, wouldn't you agree? That is an interesting point you make regarding the EC3 semis not having been included. I personally think the EC3 semis should definitely have been part of scope of the analysis. The only reason that I can think of why this restriction might have been put is that the auhor might have faced difficulty in finding information about goalscorers in the earlier years in the semis of this competition. Agreed, that is one way to go about it, although not always the right way IMO, since often it is more difficult to score against lower ranked teams who have progressed far in the tournament due to them playing defensively and not venturing into attack as often as they would against similarly ranked opponents (e.g. Greece 2004) Regarding the sensitivity, it would necessarily be high in an analysis of so few matches and so few goals per player. Same is the case when simply comparing trophy cabinets, as nobody takes into account how small a difference there is between winning a trophy and losing in the final and a few such instances mean a huge difference in terms of percentage of trophy counts (which is also not a large number). However, trophy count is still considered to be an acceptable criteria by most. Also, is a PK always easier? Was Zidane's PK against Portugal in 2000 easier than Platini's goal from open play against the same team at the same stage in 1984? I think it is quite debatable.
Remember that a penalty, even with a mediocre taker, has a 85% chance of going in. Also 'bad' takers have way more chance in scoring the penalty as missing it. A penalty is a special skill. Both penalties and free kicks are something for specialists. Hence, some so-so shooters were quite good penalty takers while other skilled shooters took rarely a penalty. As such the question whether Platini his open play goal was easier is a bit like comparing two different sports. One can say it was (an open goal, short distance), one can also say that a penalty is a controlled and standardized situation, with many of the intervening factors being cancelled out of the equation. It is really astonishing how often such extra time chances at the big stage are missed.
All goalscorers of European Cup games as well as all lineups of every game have been researched and published a few years ago in the various books by Romeo Ionescu. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Li...s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1379153758&sr=1-2 http://www.amazon.de/Complete-Line-...s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1379153758&sr=1-4 http://www.amazon.de/Complete-Resul...s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1379153758&sr=1-5 http://www.amazon.de/Complete-Resul...s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1379153758&sr=1-6
Not everyone likes to or has the wherewithal to put money into a hobby. In any case, it was only my speculation that the non-availability of information might be a reason. As I stated, IMO that author should definitely have added those games to his analysis.
Then there is the psychological aspect of a high pressure penalty, wherein the situation and the fact that the pk-taker has had the time to ruminate what a miss might cost his side (or his reputation personally) increases the degree of difficulty when comparing against a spur-of-the-moment open play shot on goal.
Playing a World Cup (semi-)final against an exhausted team who played some overtime games is also not the same as playing against a fresh team. Both taking the stage (what the website does) or the ranking of teams for knowing the 'big games' have these issues. Especially because the number of 'big games' isn't that big anyway. So one or two games against tired opponents can have serious consequences. Personally, I would still prefer to look at level of opponents rather than the stage of a competition. And like I said: I noticed too that big game scorers tended to play with other big game scorers. Regardless of era (though I noticed that 80s players struggle to make the top 15 so maybe in some eras it was 'easier' to score goals as an elite player for a big team as in other eras). There is at least a consensus about what counts as a trophy. That is not the case with the concept of 'big game'. Those two issues combine: the issue of knowing what a big game is (and the relative importance of the games) and the issue of small numbers, so that one simple PK shot in the final can raise a player from 60 to 25. And trophy count has only a distant relation to what people see as a ranking of great players. I've said this before but I personally think that consistency of results over a number of years, and see against which teams they bowed out (when accounting for the importance a player has in the team) says as much as the actual # of trophies because - like you say - that is often very dependent on luck. E.g. (everything else equal) is a player with six semi-final appearances for three different teams worse as a player who played at one team and has two trophies but also bowed four times in the first round? This is pure speculation in my opinion. Like I said, we have often seen players missing chances in overtime, often because of tiredness (which has effect on physique, technique and mind). "A spur of the moment open play shot" also provides less opportunity to concentrate, bundle together the energy. A penalty is in many ways a standardized event whereas an shot at the euro semi-finals, with opponents diving in and everything else at the move, while moving a tired leg to a bouncing ball rolling on grass polls, is something that happens once in a lifetime. And note the decisions he took Look at 8:50 He decided to trap the ball instead of shooting it at once. He decided to give two Portuguese players the opportunity to block the shot, but with more certainty on his part as well. Also look at the movement of him. He had many, many options to chose from and in my opinion he didn't take the most obvious one. It wasn't just a matter of running to the first post, staying on-side, and tap-in the ball. Here another one showing it with fancied UEFA bling bling graphics I bet 9 out of 10 players would take the shot in one time, without trapping. But principally, it has always been my opinion that penalty kicks are almost a different type of sport. It turns football in a turn-based event, like baseball and fundamentally alters the dynamics of a game.
There are a number of various conclusions that can be drawn from that analysis, if one wants to. As I said, it is interesting, though not at all set in stone. As for team levels, I would suggest that if you have the time, you look at that aspect yourself and present an analysis with weightage for team levels. Personally, I think the author has done a good job considering the amount of data he had to check/recheck. On trophy count, in terms of CL wins for instance, I think a similar big jump for a player's rank would occur from 0 CL to 1 CL, or 1 CL to 2 CLs. It depends on what level of analysis you are at i.e. the lower you are the greater are the movements even with small improvements, while the higher you are the greater are the improvements required even for small movements. Also, though trophy count has a distant relation with player ability and performances, it is still used as an acceptable measure in most discussions that I have seen. Maybe you have different experiences. The Platini goal was just one example, I feel there might be easier goals which have been scored from open play in major international tournament finals and semis. In the end though, both open play goals and PKs awarded by the refree have the same affect on the goal sheet and both have as you rightly pointed out, dynamics exclusive to themselves, which IMO make it difficult to judge them against each other.
The two links had categorized the "big games" in different standard. 1- Link of Average-position: clearly define their point system: - WC, UCL, UEFA cup, Cups winner, Copa, Euro , libertadore - Final > semi (only 2) Here, Maradona was not there since he only got goals in Semi WC86, and that's about it (he barely made 2,3goals according to the criteria) 2- Link of ESPN: they somehow failed to mention the category (!) but more like randomly put up to their data base - Note that they had more data for modern players like Ronaldo, Romario, Rooney Drogba ... than Pele, Eusebio ... of old days.... They ONLY listed out players with at least 20goals in (their system) big games. Here, once again Maradona was not there since he did not have 20goals = same applied to Zidane (as against other system in 1) =========================================== In either case, we do not take them literally as bible, but more like a hint... they both have "pro" and cons" .... to their system that could bias toward certain players, and unfairly rated the others. However, a common factor that we saw in both system even differ in method, the names in Pele, Muller di stefano Puskas Eusebio Ronaldo .... were always there - naturally so since they did score a lot in big games ...
Yes, that is my experience. Look at top 10 or top 20 all-time lists and how players are ranked. I think PKs should be counted separately and you complicate it too much in order to defend Zidane (because, of course, some of those big game goals were penalties...). It should be counted separately because it is a different skill and dynamic, a different type of game. Secondly, for all your objections, penalty kicks are easier as field goals. Otherwise the makers of the 'laws of the game' made a serious mistake. That is why it is a called a 'penalty' (punishment) in the first place. Undoubtedly some open play goals are maybe easier, like in every sport involving something like a free throw or penalty shot. But generally they are designed to be easier, with a high chance of going in and actually fairly little variation between 'bad' takers and 'good' takers (out of the top of my head: I think studies found that bad ones had a 75% conversion rate, good ones had a rate in the low 90s). Finally, the ones who force a penalty are not always the ones who take them. In other words: it would be fair to credit the one who was stopped illegally in his attempt as much as the actual converter of a big game goal.
I have seen those lists as well as arguments made against placing so and so great at so and so rank or vice versa and observations in both cases tell me otherwise i.e. the trophies won are indeed an important aspect in how a player is rated by most observers. If you feel that way, you can remove his and every other players' pks in that analysis and calculate the points earned by each player. Either way, Zidane still has, from a midfield playmaking position mind you, 7 goals/23 games (which includes UEFA Cup Semi games btw) at a gpg of ~0.3 which is 40% higher than his career gpg of ~0.18. I can't see many other players (especially among those playing in similar positions) who can lay claim to such a feat. In fact, some like Maradona as you pointed out would suffer more than Zidane in terms of their ranking in this analysis, if we go by this rule. So I would suggest you give me a bit more credit for my argument rather than just saying that I am complicating it too much in order to defend Zidane. It makes me feel that by using this route you are simply trying to find a way to circumvent my argument rather than debating against it directly. After all, I hadn't (till this point in time) stooped down to a level where I mention your bias against Germans (an example being this post here - https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-south-american.1992889/page-13#post-28669414), which might be causing you to necesarily debunk an analysis which places a German player at the top of the pile. Regarding your first point, pks might be a different type of game if looked at by themselves, however, since goals scored for pks awarded by the refree are considered equal to regular goals and also since in knockout tournaments even a single goal has a huge impact, I would tend to favour looking at such pks, especially if they are converted in the Semis and Finals of major international tournaments. Regarding your second point, I have a different take on it. IMO the makers of the laws of the game called a penalty goal a 'penalty' due to the opportunity it presented i.e. for the attacking team to be able to shoot at the goal from 12 yards out with only the goalkeeper being in the way, an opportunity which otherwise requires a lot of effort to set up in a football game. If they really had only wanted to penalise (punish) the defending team in such a scenario, then they would have simply crafted the rule to award a goal directly to the attacking team without leaving any room for the defending team to escape from said punishment and in fact endup in a better position than they were earlier, moralwise. As for your last point, can't the same be applied to an assist that sets up a tap-in for a goalscorer, that the goals in which an assist maker did most of the work should not be awarded to the eventual goal scorer? Also, if we go by your method, how would we factor in soft pks like those earned due to handballs which stop crosses? Since even if they are earned due to a particular player's action, they are not really a product of his exceptional play, but rather a product of the defender's stupidity/bad luck. In any case, let me clarify one thing. IMO pks in regular matches e.g. league games etc. can be disregarded as those PKs are not really high pressure, and generally can be considered as padded goals (although there would be exceptions to these as well). PKs in international tournament finals and semis though are a whole different ball game, as they need a lot more mental strength to convert. It is not by chance that so many great players have refused to take penalties in shoot-outs or missed the goal on their penalty kicks or had them saved, when asked to take pks in high pressure situations. I do think that there is merit to your argument in case of those pks which are scored when a player's team is winning comfortably, since they are not really high pressure even if they are in a final or a semi of a major international tournament, but then, the same can be said about goals scored in open play on the break in similar circumstances i.e. when the player's team is comfortably winning and the opposition is throwing bodies into attack leaving gaps at the back. So in the end, I would say it is debatable either way. I have no problem if you disagree with that, however, would suggest you leave your insinuations regarding me or my bias outside of the discussion.
For the record you've frequently said in this or another thread that your comments aren't about downplaying Riquelme, Valderrama or anyone else but about praising Zidane and giving him the fame he, in your eyes, deserves. That is your recurring objective. And I think it has a merit because how flops like Valderrama are suddenly placed alongside him is a joke. It is very obvious that you are a Zidane fan and the vast majority of your recent posts mention his name. In the past you started a PM conversation asking whether I had any statistical info about Zidane. So don't ignore the stakes you got here. If you felt offended I'm sorry for that. And it is not like that I tried to disqualify you because of that ("you are a biased Zidane fan, end of debate"). That would be foolish and illegitimate, I provided a whole argument. It was/is my feeling that you complicate it too much with all possible theoretical exceptions where a penalty kick is harder as a open play goal. About this I've nothing more to add. A penalty kick is generally easier and it is a entirely different skill. And why is this a problem in my eyes? Because the number of big games and big goals are naturally small numbers and it is uncertain what a big game actually is, as well as the relative weight it deserves versus other big games. One simple PK (or one simple tap-in if you want) has enormous effects as shown above in the case of Maradona. Denying that 100 penalties are easier than a random set of 100 open play chances is saying that the lawmakers made a mistake. And yes, the amount of goals scored in big games are very small but that is exactly the problem here. Many reluctant penalty kick takers (like Pelé for example) were still excellently gifted in it. Cruijff is another example: he didn't like penalties but still scored 12 of 14 attempts in official matches (shoot-outs and friendlies included), which is a decent rate. It is especially disadvantageous when someone is good in drawing penalties but doesn't take them at the big games. Also, the tension in 'ordinary' league games is still high. That's why an otherwise excellent shooter as Batistuta missed 10 of his 24 attempts in Serie A games. Two goals from the penalty spot in a World Cup final means 10 extra points in this analysis and that results in a enormous bonus. I can accept that you see it otherwise but I didn't try to disqualify you because you are a Zidane supporter. How many penalty kicks took Gerd Müller in those big games? I tell you that he would still rank on top when the penalty kick goals are left out. A moot point, in this case.
Here some stats: Any type of player has in high stage shoot-outs (Copa America, European Championship, World Cup - high pressure) at least a 70% chance of shooting in. That is when the taker meets the worst demographic (120+ minutes playing, a defender and aged between 23 and 28). http://www.penaltyshootouts.co.uk/research.html Meanwhile, clear-cut chances, which means an open shooting chance in front of goal, are wasted more often by a big margin. http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/k7ba__kgzkaz1psgftip5w/Show " To clarify, a 'big chance’ is anything that one would deem to be a clear cut scoring opportunity, be it a one-on-one, free header or open goal etc. " The average conversion rate for these type of chances are around ~40%. It doesn't exceed the 50%. For sure much lower as the 86.6% rate for the first taker in a big tournament penalty shoot-out. A designated PK-taker should've something like 80% at least.
Another fact: in the first 11 seasons of the English Premier League 79% of the penalties were converted into a goal that stood. I think it is safe to say that the conversion rate of a penalty in a league game is about two times as high as the conversion rate of a "big chance" (free header, one-on-one vs goalkeeper, shot on open goal). Although of course not always the best finishers receive such attempts.
I agree with you here. PK goals should be weighted a bit less than an open goal, filed goal - unless that player earned himself. For example Cruijff dribbled run in WC74 and got a pk, and he scored that one himself = full cerdit. But Rensenbrink should not get full credits for that PK, and same went to Zidane at WC06 (Malouda diving). One shoudl know the field goal conversion (of top strikers top leagues ) < 20% conversion per shot While a PK in big events > 80% conversion per shot Penalty shoot out should NOT be countes since it was like a LOTTERY for the team in stats Let's say if we are to make a list of "big games players" ourselves ... with criteria defined by weights: 1- WC (FN 10, SF 8) Euro (FN 9 SF 8) Copa (FN 9, SF 7) UCL (FN 9, SF 7) 2- Libertadore (FN 8) UEFA cup (FN 8) Intercontinental FN (8), Confed cup (FN 8) Cups winner 7, Copa national (itlaian, Liga, FA ...) 6 3- Goals vs big teams (TOP 5 clubs or NT friendly at that time) 5 4- Goals at elimination group + QF (WC 6, Euro = copa 5, others 4) 5- Assists to goals and PK = 75% of goals (in 1 to 34) - unless the PK earned that himself = 100% of 1 to 4
My point was regarding the whole analysis, not simply the pk part. You have also mentioned in earlier posts (as well as in this same post), the enormous changes a couple of pks/tap-ins in the latter stages of a world cup can make to a player's standing in this analysis or how the circumstances and opposition are not taken into account to weigh the goals by each player to make this analysis more accurate. This suggested to me that you were not ok with other aspects of this method of analysis either. I never said I am not a Zidane fan, but you have got it the wrong way around in this case. To clarify, my stakes regarding Zidane are irrelevant in this case precisely because I give a lot of credit to any player who is capable of showing the courage to convert a high pressure pk, and the more often they do it with success the more their value rises in my eyes, since I have always felt that it is one of the most difficult aspects to master in football due to its enormous psychological strain. In fact, a big reason that Zidane is my favourite player is actually due to his ability to make such pk conversions on a consistent basis. I never disagreed on the fact that in the majority of cases, it would be easier to score from pks than from open play (as you have shown by the stats provided in the links given above). I just wanted to show that in some cases it could also be the other way round, which was the reason why I felt that retaining pks in that analysis was also not entirely incorrect. You can draw a comparison in this case to your arguing that not all opponents playing in international Finals and Semis are of the highest class and thus the goals against them not always the most difficult. In both cases i.e my argument as well as yours, the point being to show that there are a minority of cases which go against the typical rule. Lastly, you are of course always welcome to remove the pks from that analysis and present the new findings, which will lower the rank of some players while increasing the rank of some others, and which would also be equally interesting to see.
Don't have it for other clubs or NT but for Juventus he took 4 and missed 2 in all competitive games. For Real Madrid he took 4 as well and missed 1 (against Valencia). EDIT: for France he took 7 and missed 1. Scored 6.