Cristiano Ronaldo-the most overrated player of all time?

So these thump suck assumption is supposed to justify how 4 goals + 1 assist >>>>>>>>>>>> 17 goals + 5 assits, and how this was the best performance by a player at the WC!

You need to give me the name of that stuff you are smoking.

 

Yeah but it would be more like Mayweather fighting Pauli Malignaggi, then Matthyse, then Chris Algieri, then Brandon Rios, and struggling to win against all those fighters, consecutively. Of course you'd conclude that Mayweather is not the same and not that those guys have superb defense all of a sudden, but thats why this analogy of an individual sport vs team sport doesn't work here. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that Argentina wasn't as good offesnively, but like I said wathcing those games it was clear that the other teams were just defensively solid, especially Iran. They got a slow and awkward start against Bosnia.

I don't understand why you and Edgar are trying to throw so much dirt on Messi's name though. what is the goal here

 

We are running in circles now. The example is to show that there is a thing called "Easy draw" which for some reason you and your brigade don't want to acknowledge. Whether it is individual or team sport does not change the concept of "Easy draw", and analysing the game after watching it doesn't remove the fact that it was easy draw.

Where exactly did I throw dirt at Messi? Perhaps you are expecting me like the rest of you to say his performance at the WC was >>> CR7 performance in the CL campaign, or to say bullsh** like he dragged Argentina to the finals, this was the best world cup performance by a player. Or you basically just want me to get on the bandwagon and ignore simple facts such as Argentina had the easiest path up to the semis of the WC, and for some reason Messi's performance was far from great in the knockout stages of the tournament. But perhaps I am saying this because I didn't watch the games and I missed those special statistics such as successful dribbles, passes completed, walking, almost scoring, etc that made his performance special and beyond criticisms from CR7 fanboys.

 

Yes we are going in circles in now. Having an "easy draw" doesn't mean the games will actually be easier, and in fact, they weren't. You're jumping to conclusions before the games have even been played, remember the "easy on paper" argument?

 

So there is no such a thing as easy draw? All people who have been using this term are crazy because you can't jump to conclusions before the game gets played.

I can bet this change in thinking is all because of Argentina's struggles with Iran, BiH, and Nigeria. Now we can't say things like ManU got an easy FA draw with Yeovile Town.

 

Am I arguing with a wall? I never said there is no such thing as an easy draw. I just said that because its billed an easy draw doesnt actually mean the games will be easy. Lets go back to your Mayweather reference, who were his toughest fights? Jose Luis Castillo, and more recently the first fight against Maidana. They were both billed as "easy draws" and ended up being his toughest fights. Most people say Jose Luis Castillo won the first fight.

 

Contradiction Alert;

I said the draw was easy. This statement is irrespective of eventual outcomes of the games. In other words I don't need wait for the games to be played to say this.

You said; "Having an "easy draw" doesn't mean the games will actually be easier, and in fact, they weren't. You're jumping to conclusions before the games have even been played, remember the "easy on paper" argument?"

The way I interpret the above statement is one should never ever say a draw is easy before the game has been played as we don't know the outcome or don't have crystal ball to see whether the games might turn out to be tough/easy.

This means you are implying one needs to watch the games first before saying a draw is easy or tough, and I am the wall in this whole thing.

 

And what you still evidently fail to understand is that rating how good a writer any random person is, on the basis of boring football talk that shows nothing profound about your life experience nor about life in general, is stupid.

You also fail to understand that when you yourself do not read like a good writer let alone like a "great" writer, you come off as a pretentious douche when you actually decide to become the universal measure that decides who is and who isn't a good writer, and on what basis? Oh, on some random and circular discussions about CR7 vs Messi, you already know how good a writer any random person could be. Now that's just sad.

A genius is a genius regardless of the country. I only mentioned him because it's tiresome that you have to continually resort to talking about how intelligent you supposedly are instead of actually proving that you are as intelligent as you preach.

I've been surrounded by very intelligent people all my life, and you certainly don't sound like an intelligent person. Maybe you are intelligent in your actual work, but in this forum, you sound like a pampered manchild who lacking the ability to let his argument stand for itself needs to constantly resort to childish "my dick is bigger than yours" street corner ramblings. You love talking about yourself almost as much as you love talking about Cristiano. Your writing sounds as practiced as every one of Cristiano's trademark skills. I can see why you get your panties in a twist for such a player.

For the record, I don't need a certified genius showing you up, I've already shown you up numerous times without even trying.

 

I give up.

 

Was all this putting down and disdain called for?

 

My analysis is predicated on your consistent use of irrelevant references. Horrendous irony, lack of research leading you to providing fictitious numbers on a repeated basis. Analogies that make no sense, shockingly long posts with little content and your hysterical contradictions. A "great writer" who is "praised" by other "great writers" would not have such a resume. I fail to see where any of your words resonate other than praising Messi on what is in essence, a Messi forum.

You have the sense of humor of an antelope. Why do you always dignify obvious sarcasm? Seems a "great writer" would realize this .

Let me remind your ignorant self yet again. Jaweirdo said I was intimidated because I am out numbered 5 to 1 on this forum. I politely informed him debating is part of my livelihood, this is fun for me. Then you come along with your dramatic female emotional rage and take great offense. Probably you are a conservative who gets owned by social liberals on the daily as you have been on a conquest to discredit my existence as you are threatened by someone obviously superior to yourself.

I don't need to qualify my intelligence to you. You are highly aware of it as I have deconstructed every one of your arguments which I have decided to expose. You have even had to concede on multiple occasions that you made glaring mistakes and unsubstantiated claims. If I so chose, I could pick apart every paragraph you write and illuminate your fallacies. I told you I am done with the 10,000 words exchanges which lead to the Ballon D'Or thread being locked. I receive pay for my writing and analysis. I refuse to invest hours & hours of refuting football posts.

Our record tells a completely opposite story but if this denial helps you cope, by all means keep believing the above.

 

My contempt for ignorant, hypocritical Messi fans.

 

Real Madrid vs Schalke was expected to be an easy draw, the 9-2 thrashing confirmed it was an easy draw. The same exact thing will happen again this year.

Argentina vs Bosnia was expected to be a "match that Argentina should win, but Bosnia will not look weak", and the contested 2-1 victory confirmed what a lot of journalists said about Bosnia.

You want to classify both victories as the end result of an "easy draw" when that obviously was not the case. As usual, you are conveniently applying club football logic into the world cup tournament.

Should a statement that was initially made irrespective of the eventual outcome, still be taken seriously after the eventual outcome proved that said statement was not an accurate preview of what did transpired?

Should similar statements still be taken seriously, when big teams not making it out of "easy groups" is almost a typical characteristic of the World Cup?

Saying that an easy draw is always an easy draw irrespective of the eventual outcome, at World Cup level, is bullshit. That's like saying that a theory will still be looked at the same way irrespective of what the eventual experimentation proves; bullshit.

Ultimately, Argentina's draw was considered relatively easy despite having to play against two opponents that were never considered "weak", which proves no objective conclusion other than the fact that the expectations of "easy games" was wrong. 800 years ago a lot of people believed that this planet was flat, with the eventual outcomes and discoveries changing how said statement has been considered ever since.

Argentina's draw was seen as a relatively easy draw, can you explain why the mentioned subjective label will always remain a valid one irrespective of the actual results?

 

Lets be completely honest here, both camps have their share of ignorant and hypocritical fans. CR7 fans holding the lions share.

 

And when did this become a dick measuring competition on who is the better writer with more eloquent prose and what not. Did I even use that word correctly? Who cares its bigsoccer. You guys remind me of these artists that still paint old master paintings having romanticizing about the idea of being an artist not realizing the art world left that behind 200 years ago. OHHH BURRN!

 

maybe or maybe not

but in fact any big teams (like Brazil Argentina or Spain Netherland ...) would prefer (surely) to play Iran+ Nigeria + Bosnia then say USA + Ghana + Germany.

Argentina indeed had an easier draw than Portugal+ Germany, Netherland + Spain, and Italy + England

 

I suppose the purpose of this novel is to convince me that the draw was tough for Argentina. NO it was an easy draw, even if you can write a book trying to justify why it was a tough draw.

Btw why do you like bullshit so much? Do you consider yourself some sort of the Internet hard man, or you are just displaying you level of IQ. Or perhaps it makes you feel good about yourself?

 

They did have an easier draw, not arguing against that.

 

You better retract this statement as it will be followed by ten novels trying to show you why you cannot say that Argentina group was easy.

 

Only that you did not "politely informed him" of anything. You basically took a piss on him, you never said anything along the lines of "politely informed him debating is part of my livelihood, this is fun for me."

This is the real version of events: Jaweirdo said you were intimidated by the fact that you represented a minority in this forum, so you felt that saying something like "I debate with intelligent politicians all the time, I went to the best universities, so owning a couple of ignorant messiphiles is actually fun for a change" was the appropriate measure to reassure yourself.

Let me assure you, pissing on people to glorify yourself is not "politely informed".

It is obvious that you love talking about yourself, and you were ready to use any excuse to talk about yourself. And no, I am not threatened by you in the slightest.

Keep saying that to yourself buddy. All that money on the best education money can buy, English as your first language, and you still get owned by a person who speaks three languages with English being the second option.

Of course not. But you do need to prove your intelligence to someone other than your own grotesque ego, because Dazer reping every one of your posts whilst a majority of people consider you a self-glorified troll, is not exactly the portrait of intelligence, is it?

But by all means, you can keep selling your superiority mate, as I said before: I don't care for stupidity.

You have "deconstructed" nothing. You are fixating on little details in an obvious effort to ignore the bigger picture, the bigger picture being (a) Real Madrid would've still finished in first place, even had they lost their two games against the only decent opponent in their group; (b) Galatasaray achieved one away draw and one home win vs Juventus, the same exact results that Real Madrid achieved vs Juventus; (c) Real Madrid's only victory vs Barcelona last season, out of three tries, was the one game that Cristiano could not play.

You can fixate on the small mistakes that I corrected myself all you want, the three points are still facts that you are thoroughly and conveniently ignoring by using your usual tactic of attacking the person as opposed to attacking the actual argument.

You receive pay for your writing. And who the f-ck gives a shit about how good you supposedly are at your job when you sound like a mentally challenged person in this forum?

Nobody, not even Dazer, gives a shit about you constantly jacking off to the conception that you have of yourself.

It's pretty easy to tell who lost the argument when a person reads as pathetic as you read in all the quotes above.

 

Group A: USA + Ghana + Portugal

Group B: Iran + Nigeria + Bosnia

James, can you explain to me why Group A is clearly better than Group B?

NOTE

And considering that "the eventual outcome doesn't change anything" should I therefore consider that Portugal should have performed a lot better, and that Cristiano should've done more with a team that wasn't that bad?

 

You missed my earlier post.

By ELO ranking just before WC14 started:
Group A: Germany (#2) USA (#18) + Ghana (#38) + Portugal (#7)
Group B: Iran (#42) + Nigeria (#36) + Bosnia (#25) + Argentina (#3)

By FIFA ranking (relative comparison since both systems are not absolutely correct)
Group A: Germany (#2) USA (#16) + Ghana (#39) + Portugal (#5)
Group B: Iran (#42) + Nigeria (#44) + Bosnia (#21) + Argentina (#4)

(note: The # is +/- 3 in errors for my laziness of lower countries)

One can see clearly Argentina were walking like water with other 3 teams (outside TOP30)
while Portugal only got Ghana outside TOP30.

Now even without reference to ELO or FIFA, one could say USA were much tougher (to challenge as #2 spot) than eitehr Nigeria or Iran ( for Argentina) OK?

 

The USA was eliminated in the Round of 16, by Ghana, at the 2010 World Cup. The USA did not make it out of the group stage, in fact, finished in last place of their group, at the 2006 World Cup (note: Ghana was in their group, and Ghana won their game vs USA). The USA this year, again, eliminated in the Round of 16.

Why are you talking about the USA as if it was clearly better than Nigeria? What has the US done since 2003 to justify such a recognition?

Group A: Germany toyed with Portugal (4-0 win), could not win vs Ghana (ELO #38, that is, below Nigeria's ELO #36), and won vs USA (1-0 win after wasting at least two clear goals).

ELO says one thing but the only team that Germany could not beat was the lowest rated team by the ELO rankings, which proves how the ELO rankings are everything but scientific. By ELO logic, Ghana should have been the easier draw, instead, Ghana was the only game that Germany did not win. For the record, the US was lucky to not get a 3-0 defeat, considering the clear goals that Germany failed to convert.

Group B: Argentina won all their group games by a difference of just one goal, Messi had to score two goals out of nothing in the first two games, Nigeria scored 2 goals vs Argentina, nobody else in the competition scored 2 goals vs Argentina, and Nigeria played against Messi + Di Maria in fresher form.

Based on actual results, Argentina's group proved to be of at least equal difficulty. Messi heroics were required in the first two games, whereas Germany toyed with Portugal.

 

what you said is just "arbitrary" based on one game (after math)

Like one said:
- who cares ELO/FIFA ranking, Germany (#2) beat Brazil #9 by 7 goals, while they barely beat Ghana (#42) by a goal?

- there are two things : expectation (on paper, and by STATS) and results (one particular case)

I am sure Germany held their breadth before meeting Brazil and never they could dream beating them that bad!

whatever excuses and (poor analysis) you tried, Argentina did have an easy group if not easiest group at WC2014 = FACT

 

let me refresh your mind about WC2014 before it started ==> the :fact I said:

http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/...014-groups-of-death-from-deadly-to-deadliest/
By Guardian.uk
World Cup 2014 Groups of Death: From Deadly to Deadliest
Nicholas Mendola
Dec 6, 2013, 2:10 PM EST

GROUP OF DEADLY DEATH: Group D (Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy)
Combined FIFA ranking: 57

GROUP OF DEADLIEST DEATHLY DEATH: Group G (United States, Germany, Portugal, Ghana)
Combined FIFA ranking: 45

===================================================

and more ....

World Cup Group of Death 2014: Analyzing Most Difficult Draw in FIFA Tournament
By Tim Daniels, Featured Columnist Dec 6, 2013

World Cup Group G
National Team FIFA Rank ESPN SPI Rank
Germany ------------2------------ 4
Portugal -------------5------------ 16
Ghana --------------24 ------------24
United States ------14-------------17