Who Is The Greatest Dribbler Ever

I would rep this post but the system won't let me.

Good observation.

Always a pleasure to read your views.

 

Again it's a pleasure reading your posts mate.

Good insights.

 

Just a question but have you seen different polls as that FIFA internet poll? (where Romario ended fifth)

See that famous FIFA internet poll where six Brazilians ended in the top 12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Player_of_the_Century#FIFA_internet_vote

N.B. the subject is not here whether such thing is deserved or undeserved, but obviously the fanbase is the foundation behind almost everything. Nike hadn't boosted Ronaldo his career and invested massively in him if the chances on return are small (understandably, for Nike the success as such doesn't matter much, but the marketing appeal and fanbase matters - the fans make sure that sponsors are attracted and shoes/shirts will be sold...). It's also well-known that Brazilian players are sold for a premium cost on the transfer market (in comparison with an equally gifted/performing peer); that premium cost is not only because Brazilians are proven success-stories, but also because of the commercial value he has for a club... (fan-appeal is part of the price tag, sure - Brazil has not only followers in their own country but a stronghold throughout South America and the USA too obviously) That in turn makes it interesting for third parties/foreign clubs to set up academies in Brazil..

 

Not only did i seen it but I have even post it in Ro-Ro thread when debating with James, remember? And that was a year ago. So yes I am familiar with the FIFA list. But that list is one of the few list ever to put Romario in a top 5. And this shows how biased those lists are in the of the day. Their methods are based on popular vote and not objective observations like the ones we have here on bigsoccer.

Yesterday i saw an new and fresh article on Romario endorsing Messi on goal.com. Can you believe that the author of the article claim Romario to have scored 300 goals in his professional career? Every body criticised the OP in the commentary section. I mean if goal.com can't even do their homework right to research Romario's goal stats properly what hope will that give to read any lists with confidence? That's why I do not give too much attention to lists. They are all biased!

Corruption in Brazilian football is institutionalised to the extend that it is even excepted by the mainstream. But to have an multinational marketing house like Nike exploiting and taking advantage of cheap buying market in Brazil and make big returns is dreadful. Nike was always known to be on the dark side of business. Nike in Asia made the headlines for many years due to human rights concerns:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.#Human_rights_concerns

I agree, Ronaldo was a very marketable player from the outset. He had the skills and the presence and the time (early 90's) was ripe to expand the game from being provincial to global. Romario was the best in 93/94/95 but he turned his back on Europe, leaving a vacancy for any potential prodigy. Ronaldo was the young promising player to be the first Nike really exploited to the max. He had the talent to back his investment and was quite successful. After Ronaldo, there were many others. But none were as successful as Ronaldo. His image and name will always echo the football community for long time to come.

But I do not know how much being Brazilian will catapult your career since we know of less successful to even embarrassing stories like Denilson and Robinho. So being Brazilian makes you stand out but it's not a free ticket to success.

Now, Maradona is a good example of good and bad publicity. I remember my elders telling me that Maradona knew how to stay relevant by making publicity stunts, be that good or bad news. It didn't matter to him, he wanted to be in the headlines. One time it'll be making news by doing charity for the poor and other times he'd make news for dope and mafia connections. He seemed to be happy as long as the media kept making headlines of him. He didn't care whether they were good or scandalous. I guess what really ended his footballing career as a player was bad news (USA94 doping test)

In Dutch we say "Hoge bomen vangen veel wind"

You know what i meant with this.

 

Of course not, and I try not to suggest that young Brazilian kids have it easy (hope so). But if you talk about the "majority vs minority factor" then this is a good example, I guess. Probably you recognise the things I said above? Like how third party investors find Brazil interesting in many ways. If it is unclear for you I'll try better.

That said, I think Denilson and Robinho are fine examples of players whose careers became catapulted. They weren't successes, but their career has been catapulted (for Real Madrid it was commercially interesting to tie up Robinho - that's actually a very good example). Beckham was very interesting too for Madrid, but his commercial appeal worked in a different way though.

 

I did receive your message very well and i agree. I just wanted to remind us of the difficulties a young Brazilian favela boy will have to go through in order to stand out in a pool of thousands and thousands of good promising talents. What I mean is that even though the big marketing houses and European Clubs may target Brazilians, it is no easy ride for a poor kid in the favelas to learn and master basic skills of the game with broken shoes if bare footed and then to stand out in a pool of competitors who want to be spotted and get a ticket out of poverty. In The Netherlands a kid has it a lot more comfortable trying out playing for a youth Club with a belly fool and well fed. If he shows no promise or future in football that would be no time wasted since he's in one of the best schools and he has no pressure because he lives in one of the most developed countries on Earth. Dutch kid vs Brazilian kid? The Dutch has a better shot at professional football then any kid in Brazil. Do not confuse with the fact that Brazil is a football powerhouse. It is deceiving and I am sure that any Brazilian player from Romario to Ronaldo will tell you that they were lucky to be at the right place at the right time to be spotted and that they had rough times climbing up the rungs. Ask Kluivert or De Boers brother how they got to be professionals and they will tell you that they've been scouted in youth Club and taken good care off. If Kluivert failed in youth Club that would have been no disaster for his future since he could go to University and become a doctor later. The same cannot be said of Romario who's parents scrapped the bottom of the barrel to keep his family alive. And do not forget the fact that a young kid in Brazil has stiff competition to be spotted. While in the Netherlands, how many good talents are there to compete against in youth Club?

 

A young Brazilian kid doesn't compete with all of Brazil, initially. He 'competes' against a select group of other kids to be spotted. That's important to keep in mind isn't it? But it is a minor detail and not relevant for what I wanted to say regarding "majority vs minority factor."

I guess you know about all the programmes by firms and actors to hand out free balls? (or cheaply available) Grass fields, grassroots trainers etc. (in terms of keeping/maintaining qualified trainers it also helps there's not a lot of incentives to move to Europe). Those 'solidarity programmes' (like dropping plenty of balls to play with) are also done because they are perfectly aware of the commercial potential; it can pay out later. To exaggerate it a bit: there might be a shortage of food, and lots of hungry kids, but not a shortage of football opportunities - albeit that a certain barrier has to be passed by the kid (like you said, he has to be 'spotted'). I remember once seeing an UNHCR employee on the telly who said something like: 'A lot of footballs here, but no nutrition.'

Have you also seen the video where Ronaldo once talked about his youth? He says there that there never was a shortage of food in his case. Which is ofc the paradox of poverty: poverty might be good for creating a lot of determined kids, but it is hard to perform physical exercises with an empty stomach!

I hope that you understand the nuance of what I mean (notwithstanding the appalling poverty, the culture and number of fans create fine incentives to invest in countries like those) . Most of all: think about what you apply to Ronaldo, whether that can be applied to many other players and countries too (as Robinho, Denilson...). https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-dribbler-ever.1429954/page-118#post-29947430

That's in itself also a challenge of course. How is it possible to become really good without competition? Without resistance? That is nearly impossible, to be frank. TBH that's a main component of developing proficiency and dexterity.

 

Can you tell us which Swiss/Belgian/Danish players of the past fifteen years are equally gifted to Romario, Bebeto, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka and Neymar?

I always thought a team was willing to pay more for a player because, you know, they play better.

 

I talked about players with about equal talent/performance level (greatstriker11 did too, I guess).

The core of the matter is that they don't put something magical in the water supply system. This can be said about Ronaldo, how his career has been helped by a number of things. I say now in return to greatstriker11 (RE: "majority vs minority factor") that this applies to a host of players and countries. That is what we talk about now (it is not really a 'debate' because for at least 80% I agree with him here).

On that note, this fits within that theme (notice which parties are involved; a private investment firm is the owner):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24449399

To put it in a different way; Nike would never have made the same efforts if they aren't sure about a heartland supporting and idolizing Ronaldo. This big market, spread in the homeland and the diaspora (fanbase) helps to create a 'system' where there is always a willingness to make big efforts, by insiders and outside parties. The boss of Nike said as well: "There is no point in supporting football without sponsoring the biggest country."

 

Whatever, it has nothing to do with the drinking water. Brazil produced Pele and Garrincha in the 50s, and Ronaldo and Rivaldo in the 90s. In between, there were many other greats. It's not a coincidence.

 

it's no wonder because "There is ONLY one Ronaldo" at time ...

Most updated list 2013:

1- Mike Jordan (60mils per year)
..
3- Tiger Woods (20mils per year)
...
6- Lebron James (10mils per year)
...
8- Maria Shaparova (8.75mils per year)
...
11- Cristiano Ronaldo CR7 (8mils per year)

Ronaldo in 1998 might be #4 or 5 (with 15mils)

 

Indeed, some presidents and the military helped big time; and when it was transformed to a democracy mid-80s the globalization kicked in and the 'numbers' (inside and outside the country) started to count.
The 'Ronaldo career & marketing model' is no coincidence either, and that's with I talk about with greatstriker11 (that is: to what extent is the Ronaldo case unique?).

 

Don't have a clue what you are talking about, you really seem borderline insane with conspiracy thoughts. Brazil produces great players whether right, left, center or whoever is governing.

 

Indeed, I don't say something else.

Just that since globalization kicked in the 'number of fans' started to count, more. That guides to a large degree the (foreign) direct investments (in football).

 

mmm I think you guys talked of two different things???

 

@PuckVanHeel @Pipiolo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24449399

That is a good example of the message you've been trying to get across. I too agree 80% with your point. Having said that the selection and talent pool in Brazil exceeds that of the Netherlands or even Spain for that matter. I still think that a averaged Brazilian kid will have to push harder to stand out and be spotted then the average Dutch or Spanish kid. All things equal the Brazilian aspirant has factors outside of football to deal with no first world Dutch or Spanish kid won't ever have to worry about. Proper nutrition on the table and safety concern having to haul ass to and from the training camps in Brazil. While a Dutch kid gets dropped by his soccer mother by car right in front the training camp gate. I hope you understand this latter.

And Ronaldo is not the only player out of Brazil to have had proper food on the table every day. Romario's father had his own business (corner shop) and he never went through hunger. So both Ronaldo and Romario are exceptions to the rule in Brazil. I do think that a great number of kids are going through a lot more than Ronaldo and Romario did to be spotted.

But again, I do agree with the majority of the points you made above.

perhaps if Brazil becomes first world and eradicates poverty for once and for all, could that be the end of Brazilian football talent supply?

 

Great point there mate. This is what I have been repeating over and over again. At last someone who sees what i see.

 

@Pipiolo @JamesBH11 @PuckVanHeel @leadleader @Guigs @Jaweirdo @celito @Edhardy

https://www.bigsoccer.com/soccer/dan...english-premier-league-was-a-disastrous-idea/

What you say?

 

Read the first few paragraphs and completely agree. How interesting can a league be where only four teams have any chance of winning it? Also, the fate of once proud small teams such as Nottingham Forest, Leeds and Sheffield United is a loss to football. Will comment more after I've read the whole piece.

 

this is a long story and a lot of things (data, facts, situation) to discuss = like the idea of "weak league" or "weak era" .. can not resume in this thread

 

Like I said, many things affected the situation... politics of football organization in direction, power money of the clubs, economy of the nation and the league, quality of players per era, coaching selection ...

Liga was quite ok in competitiveness from 90-early 2000's but the last decade they became a two horses race (due to manythings above) and this season, Simione and Aletico might start a new era ...for liga !

EPL is not as bad ... at least they got now 4,5 big teams to fight for the title ... (thanks to millions or billions pouring into the club sold)

Bundesliga used to be a very competitive league, but Bayern had won 7/10 of last decade !

in Serie A, due to the coruption and match fixing, Inter took the advantage and emerged to win 5/10 of last decade .... so ...

What an era? weak? or not that weak?

 

Is that not what has happened with pretty much anything that has anything to do with television? How many TV channels did Rupert Murdoch bought about 15 or 20 years ago to eliminate competition and to pretty much destroy TV journalism altogether? As the writer mentioned: fixing the problem is not rocket science since the problem itself is pretty simple and basic, but, we all know nobody will change anything any time soon.

The only possible fix to the problem would be a global boycott by the viewers. In fact, a global boycott by users of many product would fix a lot of problems in this day and age, but the ugly truth is that the average person is as big a hypocrite as the next filthy rich politician -- so a boycott is not something that can actually happen: people, average people, will continue watching the program no matter what.

 

That seems about right (despite that Brazil has more professional clubs/academies than Spain which in turn has more clubs and academies than Netherlands). But maybe we are now conflating the micro-level (the individual kid his chances to make it) with the macro level (continous investments in Brazil because of the fanbase they represent, within Brazil itself and the 'diaspora' - with Ronaldo Nazario, like you said, being a fine example).

The other side of the coin is though, as mentioned, that it is damn hard to become really good at something without resistance and competition (and this starts from the first time you kick a ball and take on someone else). Thus, this is a challenge for the Dutch kids, even more so for a lithe and supple prodigy from Luxembourg.

In highly developed countries it doesn't work that simple. Often parents have a job, or the household to sustain. They cannot drop their kid every day. So something has to be arranged (for example kids living at the club itself). Either by the club or the parents. Sometimes it is also paid by the government in some countries (I know that Italy and Germany do it in that way, at least partially paid for by the government).

The problem here is that funds might be abundant in the 'powerhouses' like England, Spain etc. but not in countries as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and other developed countries without a 'cashcow' league and cashcow national team (cf. the 'Nations League'). That really is scraping for money.

Thus, although the needs are clearly not as basic as in developing countries (no doubt about this), combining the pursuit of a football career with education and, indeed, commuting between house and academy might be a big challange and (financial) bottleneck too. It often is.

Had Zico ever hunger? I doubt it, he was a lower middle-class kid I think. Pelé, Garrincha? Do you know? Garrincha came from the rural inland areas but I don't think he suffered from malnutrition, but maybe I'm wrong. It's anyway the paradox of poverty.

Likewise.

Difficult to say but in principal I don't think it will end the supply.

 

Good points there. Spot on!

 

A boycott against the media is still possible. Even though we know it'll never happen it still theoretically possible. However not the same can be said of the current football situation. Do not expect any organized critic from the fans against the football corporate world. Why? Because it's the older generation that seems to have noticed the effects of a changing sport but not the current younger generation. And the current younger generation is accustomed and quite happy with how things are run in football today, for they have not experienced the older days where there was a better balance between Clubs rivalry. Ask any random 20 year old chap on the street if they got something the complain about, if the monopoly and corruption annoys him. he will most likely answer "Why, Is there a problem?".

Perhaps the possible fix to this is to be found in an analogy in the situation with "academia". For many years >80% of Universities in the UK have suffered from lack of endowment. Oxbridge and London Universities tended to get the most funding and hence they dominated the world rankings (top 10-20) every year for the last decade or so. This dominance had nothing to do with quality of student nor teaching nor research production. Simply a matter of funding. Funding to acquire the best facilities and best investments into research and teaching.
The less well funded Universities saw the need to take action in order the survive the uncertain future. They formed coalitions! In the UK the Ivy league counterpart of the US is called the Russel Group (25 top funded Universities). These are the elite. In there's much competition among these Universities for the best brains and these Universities have raised the bar of entry requirements for students. The other remaining Universities have formed many coalition and collaboration bodies to attract more funding to invest in facilities and research production and became appealing to many students and in this act keeping competition between Russel Group Uni's and the rest of the Uni's in the country.

Perhaps if the poorer Clubs in Spain start to collaborate with each other and form Unions in the form of the University examples above they might lure in the money and become relevant?