Higuain vs Maradona at Napoli

86/87 was third best as well, behind Internazionale and Como and, joint third alongside Milan and Sampdoria.

Then maybe, goal involvement should indeed be looked at instead of direct assists. Since it feels a bit anomalous that a player with Maradona's tendencies for constantly wanting to be involved, would have so little goal involvement in a season wherein he featured in 29/30 games in the league and his team ended up doing so well.

Napoli has invested quite decently to build the current team as well. Deducting earnings through player sales, they are ahead of Juventus in terms of expenditure 43 vs 40 million pounds, since 2013/14 i.e. when Higuain was bought. Higuain's fee is a substantial part of that, but even then, they have done their bit to shore up the team with spending post earnings of more than 150 million pounds since their rise from relegation in 06/07. Inter as an example during the same time frame have spent 70 million pounds, post earnings, which might be considered to be an important factor in their recent standings in the league. (Source: Transfermarkt)

In any case, regarding the nature of Napoli's win in 86/87, rather than thinking of it as miraculous I have always felt it was pioneering. And indeed, whatever else might be said, at the end of the day the league back then was quite a bit more rough than it is today, which is a point of major importance for attackers wanting to perform, one that is brushed aside a bit too easily these days in favour of other stats.

Lastly, while in 86/87 it is visible that Maradona's statistical impact was more against lower ranked teams, its not like his team was doing so well against the other top teams without his impact i.e. Juventus, Inter and Verona (2 wins, 2 draws, 2 losses). So the statistical impact in vanquishing the smaller teams did indeed come in handy in winning the league at the end (considering that it was against against these same lower ranked teams that the other teams failed to perform equally well, apart from the case of Juventus who are even worse than Napoli against top teams). Most importantly though, in case of Maradona more so than Higuain, the lack of any statistical impact does not necessarily translate into a bad game, considering the difference in roles.

 

This is another poor attempt by Bada Bing to play down Maradona's achievements, he basically says Napoli carried Maradona and his WC 86 was pretty average. I will stick the listening to people like Gullit, Lineker, Hoddle etc... and their views as well as have seen enough of his games myself to make up my mind.

 

Yes, sorry, my bad. You are right. Didn't spot Como.

That is a good point. I agree. However, Maradona was no Zidane in that regard let alone a prime Xavi or Beckenbauer. The 1986 World Cup stats, which was his prime form for an equally 'bad' team it is said (same narrative), prove this. Of course it is possible to cherry pick but this is just a general impression or tendency.

Agree - this isn't miraculous either.

Tend to agree although it is often lacking further nuance, and what the players themselves said.

 

You have made weak case that Maradona86 and Messi14 are equal number 1, that is laughable. I have not seen anyone actually say, yes, I agree with that.

 

This shows statistical impact vs contemporaries (low gpg era) in big games ('decisive goals'). I know, it is just a superficial glance.

http://www.totalfootballforums.com/forums/topic/83025-best-ever-big-game-goalscorers/

 

I think we went over this a couple of years back and my opinion of Miguel Delaney's attempt at a big game scorer's list has not changed since then. I still think it is not worth giving any serious thought to.
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-good-was-zidane-in-wc98.1992390/page-6#post-28610633

At that point, I had preferred this one - http://www.averageopposition.com/2013/02/top-50-big-game-scorers-some-findings.html as I found it relatively more consistent (your words from then: The second link*Delaney's* wasn't clear about criteria an demarcations). And Maradona's positioning in it doesn't help him there either. However, Maradona's case, just like that of most other playmakers, is difficult to look through statistical impact on goalscoring alone, IMHO.

 

Yes I agree with that, but what is a better way to look at it? Notice here that the typical claim is one of "singlehandedly" and "carrying" so to a certain extent goals, assists or opening pre-assists should be expected.

Note that in both lists for ex. a Platini scores quite well. Of course, Platini regularly played as a forward or quasi-striker, but so did Maradona. It is possible to argue that Platini was less involved and less of a team guy... except that many mid-80s articles (for ex. February 1985 by World Soccer) actually typified otherwise.

The Corbett list has of course also three glancing problems: the weighing (irreresolvable problem so I don't count it against him), the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup semi final games are not included, the number of big games played isn't listed anywhere (so, given this method and selection, how many 'big games' did the player end up playing).

In terms of roughness and protection; next to making a necessary distinction, I also think it should be compared to contemporaries. That is rarely done. How big or small was the protection and is that advantage bigger or smaller than a Neymar or Messi have nowadays compared to their peers? With the plausible exception of the 1982-1984 period at Barcelona, that is not a foregone conclusion imho (based on deductive and inductive reasoning - I might expand on that later). Very possibly any advantage that there might have been was magnified by the fact that referees were generally semi-pros or amateurs, still.

 

I think the "singlehandedly carrying" wording is taken a bit too literally. It is a team game after all and unless a player has celestial powers, he would not be able to win without his teammates also performing at a high level. I have always associated that wording with something akin to "couldn't imagine them winning without him". The more at par that the performance is to that of the players' teammates, the more easily is the player likely to be felt as being replaceable. So if your reason to use Delaney is simply to show up claimants which take the "singlehandedly carrying" stuff too literally, then I actually don't have a problem with it. That is because, if someone does feel that way, I doubt anything you use as evidence (whether decent or poor) can dissuade them.

I mentioned playmakers and I consider Platini to be one as well (one of the best in fact). So IMO, what I said above about Maradona applies equally to Platini.

Fair enough. Maybe a mix of both sets of criteria could be better after adding in the EC2 and EC3 games. After all counting the number of games or gpg is not something that I feel is wrong in any way, just the lack of the list of games being considered as "big" is what makes me uncomfortable in case of Delaney's list. So, as a starting point, how about a list like what I had created in this post here (you will need to scroll down a bit) - http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...scussion-thread.1245347/page-74#post-24007368. I do understand that a measure like gpg for a very small sample (Zico with 3 games), can skew the metric though. And since more opportunities to play in latter stages of major international tournaments after all, are also in part, brought about by the same players' performances (alongside their teammates) it might very well be a bit unfair by its lonesome. Thus, this big game gpg can then be compared to the players' own career gpg to provide an idea of whether the player was really performing more in big games as per his own standards of goalscoring (to bring parity amongst players having varying roles like forwards, midfielders, defenders, etc. and to look beyond the 'it was his job to score' kind of performances).

So ultimately, I guess, I wouldn't mind a big game comparison amongst players with say a minimum of 5 big games as per the measure mentioned by Corbett with the addition of EC2 and EC3 to it. I think that would remove the 'too small a sample size' skew while still allowing for a comparison of players. Using a measure like big game gpg as a percentage of the players' own career gpgs would then add parity to their performances. Now that I think about it, a player like Tardelli could come out near the top in such situations, which in a way is quite fair.

I think you are focusing too much on the referee protection aspect here and not looking at the wider picture. The average roughness of tackles from the 80s as compared to today is something that I feel varies considerably in terms of degree of damage inflicted. Referees at that time, even with the intention of protecting star players, might still not call for reds/yellows for tackles which would get a player sent off, banned for multiple matches and lynched by the media today. Having the courage to have a go at defenders whom you are aware will hurt you, is something that requires a different kind of mental strength. I think Gullit provides the best explanation of this sentiment, that he too as an attacking player felt while playing in those days, at 2:21 in this video you had shared earlier -

 

Yes, I agree with all of that above.

Your big game method (in the link) is interesting and I see a correlation with the 'overall' big game scorers lists by Corbett and Delanay. You added the Intercontinental Cup I see?

On the last paragraph: what I meant is that there can be a difference/distinction per playing position (as various players commented who moved between England-Italy, Spain-Italy etc.). Which then in turn can be explained by camera attention, often correlating with referee attention, as Platini himself commented at the time ('attention' for players and certain 'field areas' as Platini himself said - camera was most of the time fixated at the middle/stalemate of the pitch). I also meant that plausibly Maradona was not disadvantaged compared to other star players who might stand out, like for ex. a George Weah slightly later. We know and it is proven that also referees can be 'biased', opponents alike, and that's logically even further enhanced by the semi-pro and amateur status of the officials (as well as more differing playing conditions in general; soft pitches, hard pitches etc.). It's just an (imho) logical thought without disagreeing with your paragraph.

 

The 81' Libertadores final had a replay. That's the third game for Zico.

I should state though that the only reason I didn't add the Intercontinental Cup was because IMHO it would give an advantage to a South American or a European player depending on the era.

Ok, then I think I completely misread your intentions with your comments from that last paragraph from the earlier post.


EDIT: Was trying to find my quote regarding Maradon's WC/Napoli performances. Couldn't find it, but instead, I did find this -

"I don't buy this bit regarding a player needing to be a one man army to be acknowledged to be an all time great. Infact, however one man army like you might feel a great to have been, the point remains that this is a team game and the said great would never have won anything without help from his teammates. Thus you can't simply isolate greatness as a function of how much a player can achieve on his own without help from his teammates since greatness can just as equally be a function of how much a player can extract from his teammates while adding his own contributions at the required times.

In any case, I believe that both the above type of greatnesses have the ability to win matches for the said players' team. Ofcourse if you prefer the first over the second then you would never acknowledge the greatness of a player like Zidane over that of a player like Platini(even assuming all other things to be equal) since you would always be gravitated more towards the goalscorer than the playmaker."

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...scussion-thread.1245347/page-74#post-24012872
Its from the same thread, a few posts down from the post I had shared earlier regarding my old big game scoring analysis. Platini and Zidane can be treated as simply being examples, for the purposes of this particular discussion.

 

Higuain is essentially a striker, and not even the best in the world. Maradona was on a whole different level, and played in a MUCH more creative role. That's already enough really. Not much more to say.

Weren't you the guy who repeatedly said that there's no possible comparison btw Messi and C. Ronaldo becausw Messi is also a playmaker?

Next one: Maradona's Napoli years vs. Cristian Brocchi's Milan years, who's really better?

 

So what is the right way to measure Maradona his impact?

 

Well, no, because not every involvement is equally productive or dangerous. So there has to be something else.

 

Ultimately, watching the games. Especially for creative players (as opposed to strikers) you can't just look at the stats. You have to watch how he plays. Numbers of (say) passes and dribblings don't tell half the story. And in this particular case we're talking about Maradona vs. Higuain, I mean c'mon.

 

Yes, that is right but an important 'observation' here is that even professional scouts and six or seven figure managers struggle with 'watching games'. In particular with just their naked eyes alone. So I'm always standing open for tangible evidence and support for hyperbole/wild claims. Most great creative players or 'attacking midfielders' are often part-time forwards or strikers too (Maradona was for sure a forward in the last three KO matches of 1986; for sure a forward in 1982 and perhaps a forward too in 1990). And with relatively modest duties off-the-ball and controlling matches (occasionally at least) I feel something has to be expected, still. No offence - my beef is just that data is not entirely pointless for hybrid AM/FW.

 

You mention the World Cup. Maradona's stats at the WC, especially Mexico, are unmatched. There he was one of two usually most advanced players along with Valdano, but besides goals and assists also puts up great midfielder stats: such as dribbles, passes, through balls, chances generated, etc. He essentially fulfilled two spots in forward and offensive mid at elite level.

For Napoli in Serie A, Maradona was their playmaker without a doubt. Careca/Giordano and Carnevale played in front of him.

 

I agree with the main tenet that those are tangible statistics, giving a glimpse into prime form. I don't necessarily agree that they are "unmatched" (I do agree that they are not "bettered") or that he played two at once. But I don't want to make too much of that unless you want me to show this (the 2nd can be shown very quickly actually).

 

His stats are both not bettered and unmatched. How can you quickly show that he did not play as midfielder in Mexico, I'd like to see that.

 

They are arguably not bettered, but the "unmatched" thesis is less tenable.

http://www.hrsport.net/sportnetklub/nogomet-1/sp-zanimljivosti-238438/1/
http://www.golyfutbol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Pele-1970-vs-Maradona-1986.png
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/messi-is-better-than-maradona-but-maybe-not-pele/
[not a fan of the last one by paid shill Benjamin Morris who has multiple of those type of articles]

Keep in mind here that Pelé in 1970 played both with but also against better opponents (per average ELO rating/rank); same for Cruijff in 1974. Additionally to above links: Cruijff74 is at 62% dribble success rate, Maradona86 58%, Pelé70 at 52% and Zidane98 at 43%. Per OPTA.

Now you move the goalposts. I can show that this is likely not true: "He essentially fulfilled two spots in forward and offensive mid at elite level.".

Now I got to say that I'm not a fan of the stat-bending and stat-cooking below, working from desired conclusion to data, but it shows the statement is not true. When assessed as midfielder he's below Valdano, Careca, Alloffs, Romero and on par with Alemao. When rated as forward he goes to the top position, with Valdano 7 points behind. He isn't the best at both categories. The same isn't done with Pelé etc. though.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...-advanced-stats.1979881/page-10#post-27002971

Tactically it is also not true that he played two at once in a match.

http://spielverlagerung.de/2012/04/06/retroanalyse-argentinien-deutschland-wm86-in-depth/

 

I only looked at the second link above, I don't know if you realize this but Pele "wins" in some categories that are actually negative - it's better to have a lower percentage in them, such as "shots off target (disparos fuera del arco)" , "losing aerial duels (duels aereos perdidos)", "fouls committed "faltas cometidas", etc. Maradona wins on every good category except assist and chances created.

I don't know what the first link above is supposed to tell me, it just places Maradona as a midfielder through various measures. My argument is that Maradona played both offensive mid and forward roles at once, his goals can be used as a proxy for this: two of them are from midfield (second against England, second against Belgium), the other three are as forward. His most famous assist, against West Germany to seal the win, is from midfield.

On the second link, if it's an accurate depiction of the final match, Maradona's positioning is of an offensive midfielder/playmaker. A forward would be about where Valdano is placed, and a striker should be much closer to the penalty box. I think we need to see what his movement was like for a complete picture.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/11/sports/worldcup/messi-vs-maradona.html?_r=0

Maradona Roamed the Field
A map of Messi's touches during this World Cup clearly shows his preference for working the right side of the field, which puts him in better position to cut inside on his favored left foot. (Each of his four goals in Brazil has come off that foot.) Maradona, meanwhile, roamed far more widely in 1986, pushing into every inch of the opposing half and coming back deep into his own end much more than Messi to collect the ball.

 

Just reviewed your first link in the comparison between Cruyff 74 and Maradona 86, very interesting stuff. Most of the stats show marginal advantage to either one, such as passing accuracy, duels won, tackles won, successful crosses, etc. Cruyff has a significant advantage in recoveries/interceptions and chances created while Maradona has the edge for goals plus assists, and fouls won to fouls conceded ratio.

Can you post these stats for Garrincha 62, Eusebio 66, Pele 70, Kempes 78, Romario 94, Hagi 94, Ronaldo 98 and Rivaldo 02?