jpick
09 Jun 2007, 10:23 PM
well he was pretty influential at brescia and reggina, but that was when he was young. i guess there is no way to prove it, as you say it is a gut feel thing. in fact, in his case you might be right to an extent. he plays pretty, elegant football and isn't very physical, if you put him in wigan, he might look pretty average, whereas xabi alonso would shine still maybe. of course, i could flip that around, though, and say that no other player in the world could fill his role at milan and for italy as well as he does. since milan and italy win and compete for titles and wigan and cambodia don't, then imo, who cares what he "might" look like in those situations, if he helps elite teams perform at their best. so, yes there is something to be said for that, but with most technical players that don't rely on physical skills (not that kaka or other very good players solely rely on their physical skills, or even all the guys with wigan and maybe cambodia for that matter [disclaimer: i know not a damn thing about cambodian football]), but you will see that with skillful guys.
so to get back to the lampard comparison, I like to compare things like this, not is lampard great in a crappy or average team, but would an average or above-average player play as well or better than lampard given the tactics and talent around him, then do the comparison. if you feel that many above average box-to-box mids could do lampard's job as well or better than he does with the surrounding talent, then you can say well, lampard is just an average midfielder in a great situation, if you come to the conclusion, that no, chelsea would be worse off (granted they would still probably be good if I played lampard's role, but certainly they would be worse off), then he isn't average cause chelsea competes for all the important titles, so in that case he would be above average or great or whatever level of player could usurp him, if any. does that make sense?
so, using that criteria, do you think many midfielders could do the role of pirlo and milan/italy would be the same or better? that is the question, and i say no, or maybe only a few of the best in the world could do so, hence he is among the best.
again, though, if you reach a different conclusion, which i suspect you might, then feel free to list them and we will debate who you think could do better.
as for work rate on this thread, yeah I am turning in the message board equivalent of keane in his prime :p.
edit: you know, I should have said earlier, the reason i like the "compare up" rather than "compare down" arguments is because that is more fair to players that rely less on physical attributes rather than athletic attibutes like stamina, speed, strength, etc. in league 2, gattuso would be very valuable still, but pirlo would be "casting his pearls before swine," so to speak. I mean another recent example of this was the rossi loan to newcastle. if he doesn't have guys to interplay and do his technical style of play, then his effectiveness to the team is lessened, but does that mean that i would rather have the average newcastle player than rossi? so when comparing down, henry, kaka, gattuso, gallas, etc. are still very valuable, but totti, riquelme, pirlo, nesta, etc. become considerably less so, so i think this is more fair to those type of players.
so to get back to the lampard comparison, I like to compare things like this, not is lampard great in a crappy or average team, but would an average or above-average player play as well or better than lampard given the tactics and talent around him, then do the comparison. if you feel that many above average box-to-box mids could do lampard's job as well or better than he does with the surrounding talent, then you can say well, lampard is just an average midfielder in a great situation, if you come to the conclusion, that no, chelsea would be worse off (granted they would still probably be good if I played lampard's role, but certainly they would be worse off), then he isn't average cause chelsea competes for all the important titles, so in that case he would be above average or great or whatever level of player could usurp him, if any. does that make sense?
so, using that criteria, do you think many midfielders could do the role of pirlo and milan/italy would be the same or better? that is the question, and i say no, or maybe only a few of the best in the world could do so, hence he is among the best.
again, though, if you reach a different conclusion, which i suspect you might, then feel free to list them and we will debate who you think could do better.
as for work rate on this thread, yeah I am turning in the message board equivalent of keane in his prime :p.
edit: you know, I should have said earlier, the reason i like the "compare up" rather than "compare down" arguments is because that is more fair to players that rely less on physical attributes rather than athletic attibutes like stamina, speed, strength, etc. in league 2, gattuso would be very valuable still, but pirlo would be "casting his pearls before swine," so to speak. I mean another recent example of this was the rossi loan to newcastle. if he doesn't have guys to interplay and do his technical style of play, then his effectiveness to the team is lessened, but does that mean that i would rather have the average newcastle player than rossi? so when comparing down, henry, kaka, gattuso, gallas, etc. are still very valuable, but totti, riquelme, pirlo, nesta, etc. become considerably less so, so i think this is more fair to those type of players.