Does Retirement overhypes?

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by poetgooner, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. ko242

    ko242 Member+

    Jul 9, 2015
    that`s a very good point! although i do think thuram was as dominate as any outside back during his peak, he was not in the limelight for as long as maldini or lahm. i mean, how many years did thuram actually put himself in a position to be seen at one of the top clubs in the world for so many years? something that lahm and maldini were able to do. it`s unfortunate for thuram as far as ranking is concerned. and by the time thuram was at barcelona after moving to juventus he was already downhill. of course, at parma he was an extremely strong defender, as though were in my opinion his best years. but lahm and maldini were exposed for so many years at the highest level teams.
     
  2. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    And that is why Maldini and Lahm have the more committed fans... Which is also the main reason why those players tend to get overrated with every passing year post-retirement. On the other hand, Thuram undoubtedly has a better career at NT level, and at club level, Thuram played for Parma and for Juventus from 1996 to 2006, that's a whole decade of playing in the league that was widely considered as the best league in the world at the time.
     
    ko242 repped this.
  3. poetgooner

    poetgooner Member+

    Nov 20, 2014
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I think both Lahm and Maldini benefitted from winning late in their career. It didn't matter that Maldini, for example, was a shadow of his former self. The fact that his team reached the UCL final both in 2005 and 2007 elevated him even further as someone who was able to remain world-class well into his 30s. Contrast that with Thuram who was seen as a defender who relied far more on his athleticism and when that deserted him, was a below average defender, completing ignoring how good he was at the art of defending itself, back in his peak. It didn't help that Thuram was playing for a poor Barcelona side.
     
  4. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Maldini's place was already well established long before then.

    He had been selected as one of the 100 greatest players ever by World Soccer (21st), Placar (54th), Guerin Sportivo (30th), Planet Foot (top 50). Venerdi (top 100). He was selected as the best LB ever by Voetbal International, by FIFA etc. All that was before Milan's resurgence under Ancelotti.

    People were already mentioning Maldini as the best ever in his position by the mid 90s.

    Lahm as well retired at 33 which is pretty young by modern standards so not sure that really holds either.
     
    Sexy Beast repped this.
  5. Milan05

    Milan05 Member

    Dec 2, 2015
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Chelsea don't really have the fanbase of Manchester United, so this is rather unlikely. Chelsea fans who sing the praises of Lampard are a minority; certainly compared to Liverpool fans who praise Gerrard, or United fans who praise Scholes. This is partially due to the fact that Liverpool is a more popular club than Chelsea, and partially due to the fact that Gerrard was the undisputed star and captain of Liverpool in his prime (2005-2010), while Lampard who peaked around the same time, was not the captain (Terry) and arguably not the biggest star either (Drogba). Lampard also didn't really have Gerrard's personality and charisma, as you stated.

    Nedved spent his prime at Lazio and Thuram spent his prime at Parma, neither club have a big or international fanbase. Both men eventually joined a big club Juventus at the age of 29, but IMO it was already too late.

    It's not a coincidence that the players who you perceive as overrated (Zidane, CR7, Scholes) have played for either Real Madrid or Manchester United (or both, in the case of CR7). They are the two most popular clubs in the world, with the biggest and most vocal fans in the world.
     
    leadleader repped this.
  6. Milan05

    Milan05 Member

    Dec 2, 2015
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Look at the state of this comment section:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...man-veteran-central-winning-run.html#comments

    2 of the best rated comments are:

    Manchester United fans really are something else when it comes to spreading propaganda. I mean, Carrick was a good player, but to rate him on par or higher than Busquets/Alonso/Pirlo is utter delusion.

    Then again, this is the same fanbase who - with hindsight - placed Scholes in the same bracket as Xavi. I really shouldn't be surprised.
     
    Sexy Beast repped this.
  7. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Hahaha... Good stuff... About Scholes: How would you say his ball retention ability compares to that of Xavi? And in which areas would you say Xavi is simply a class above? I watched Scholes play a lot of times in his later years, but I never really paid that much attention to him, and I was too young to have seen him between 1999 and 2004.
     
  8. objectiveneutral

    Oct 30, 2014
    Xavi is a truly unique player tbh. He can't be described simply as a playmaker. In today's game none of the midfielders hold a candle to him. You have stratgeic passers like Kroos, press resistant players likes Modric and needle players like Isco, great final ball passers like Thiago but Xavi was something else. He covered the most ground, picked up the ball fro the defence and ended up giving the assist or pre assists, He was box to box,the best strategic passer I have ever seen and one of the best final ball players in history.

    Scholes wasn't a deep lying playmaker and started off as a striker/ss and then became a Cm and then finally as his legs gave way he became a deep lying playmaker, but somehow people have imposed his final few years of his career on his past. People forget that SAF signed Veron to be his controller and Scholes had a spell of 2 seasons irrc were he was extremely poor.

    He was a great passer but he wasn't anywhere near as good as a strategic passer as Xavi and he was not as press resistant so he needed to drop deeper to control games, Xavi could operate in the final 2/3rds of the pitch and not lose the ball because of his insane press resistance and strategic prowess that has never been matched before or after.. This is something neither Scholes nor Pirlo could replicate. The only area I would say Scholes was superior to Xavi was his shooting from all distances.
     
    Shen-O, leadleader and Sexy Beast repped this.
  9. objectiveneutral

    Oct 30, 2014
    @OP

    In some cases, yes.

    Case in point Zidane. The fact that people compare him to Maradona, Pele Cruyff and Messi is baffling to me. The WC in 06 made his myth skyrocket.
     
  10. Milan05

    Milan05 Member

    Dec 2, 2015
    Club:
    AC Milan
    There have been at least 2 players that are officially or essentially retired since this thread was last active: Andrea Pirlo and Ricardo Kaka. The MLS season has came to an end and neither have signed a contract for their own team or someone else. Pirlo announced his retirement. Kaka said that it physically hurts to play football.

    Pirlo I hope will be remembered for his achievement with my club in the 2000s, and not the washed up Juventus version in 2014-2015 that was inexplicably praised as the maestro of the midfield when it was clear that he was the weakness.

    Kaka will almost certainly be remembered as his AC Milan self. A player who in his prime was gifted with unbelievable athleticism, excellent technical abilities and good vision. One of the best counterattacking players of all time. A player who's injuries gradually grinded him down, unfortunately.
     
    benficafan3 repped this.
  11. Milan05

    Milan05 Member

    Dec 2, 2015
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Under Ancelotti, Pirlo had a similar style of play. He wouldn't just ping long balls, he would strategically carry the ball up the field. Unfortunately people only seem to remember the washed up Juventus version who's sole purpose it was to search for passes while sitting in front of the defense.





    Pirlo's style of play in these videos is barely recognizable from what people saw of him at the 2014 World Cup.

    Pirlo had a very similar playing style to Xavi when he was younger, he just wasn't quite as effective. Xavi was faster, had a better final ball delivery in the last third, and he was even more press-resistant than Pirlo - but not by much.
     
    Shen-O and leadleader repped this.
  12. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    #137 benficafan3, Nov 10, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
    Good post pal, agreed on Pirlo, although I think he is generally overrated, largely due to a "Halo Effect". He exhibits a 'cultured' aura, with his wineries, majestic hair and beard :laugh:, and philosophical manner of speaking. That, coupled with a creative playing style, prompts, at least IMO, a undeserved elevation of his actual career impact.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41903596
    Andrea Pirlo: The football genius who defied the number crunchers

    A player whose best Ballon D'Or position was 5th place in 2007, in other words, not anywhere near the top of any list of the great footballers of all time... yet he's a 'genius'. Another example of that word being thrown around without much thought.

    Kaka is more of a genius than Pirlo could have dreamed of being, IMO. Unfortunately, however, given his prime was so early in his career, relatively speaking, I doubt the majority of football plans in the future will properly know of how good he really was at his best. His 2007 year was majestic at its highest points. That game against Manchester was true genius.
     
    Shen-O repped this.
  13. Milan05

    Milan05 Member

    Dec 2, 2015
    Club:
    AC Milan
    The problem with this argument is that the Ballon D'Or is very susceptible to hype and not very objective.

    For instance, Pirlo finished 7th in 2012 and 10th in 2013; while in 2004 he did not receive a single vote. No one who watched Pirlo throughout his career can claim with a straight face that he was a better player in 2013 than in 2004, but the polls will have you believe so. This is because the hype machine surrounding Pirlo was much bigger after he battered England at Euro 2012, despite already being past his prime by this point.

    Zidane finished 5th in the 2006 Ballon D'Or thanks to two good game against Brazil and Spain in the World Cup. Pirlo was objectively better than Zidane in the World Cup and much better than Zidane at club level, yet he finished 9th.

    Pirlo around 2004-2007 was the best player in the world in his position. He was in the world XI in 2006 thanks to the World Cup win, but was inexplicably left out in 2007 when FIFA picked a midfield of Kaka-Gerrard-CR7 which would never actually work in real life. Why? Because FIFA also wanted to include Ronaldinho in their world XI, since he was apparently better than Pirlo that year. Hype is what matters, not performance.

    Neither the FIFPRO XI nor the Ballon D'Or are based on merit. If they were, Pirlo would have been in the top 3 Ballon D'Or in 2006, and had a spot in midfield locked down at the expense of Ronaldinho in 2007.
     
    leadleader and Sexy Beast repped this.
  14. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    He was a pure genius:


    Imo, the greatest over the top passer of all time. He could pick up any run with his left, right foot. From first touch, run up, no run up. And he is so direct with passes. Plus often he would put up a bottom spin (slice) that would actually slow down ball for an attacker after it hits ground. I have never seen anyone kicking the ball the way he did.
     
  15. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    It's quite obvious by now taht individual awards by FIFA and all of those oragnizations are biased af. So having that as an argument is pretty lame.
     
  16. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    #141 benficafan3, Nov 10, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
    Lol I knew this would come up but hoped it wouldn't. Your argument in lame. The award can be a joke due to its hysterical marketing aspect but in general with respect to it, and similar awards, veracity in evaluation of a player it is generally very accurate if you at look at one's career over time, not in a given year. Getting 5th overall in your career means at no point were you ever considered a Top 3 player. Tell me how many Top 3s of this award, and others, you really disagree with in years past, in general.

    Not at any time being a real clear Top 3 player, to the point where the voters, which span from journalists to players and coaches , think you are a given. There are marketing agendas, but most of those people genuinely do choose who they believe is the best footballer, with little agenda. That to me means you are not a genius. You are a very great modern day player, but you are not a member of the true greats of all time. Being in a clearly different level to only a very small number, if any, players that you currently play with. Pirlo, never, was that. He never changed teams the way the true best did, he was always part of pretty stable systems. He didn't solely bring teams to new levels the way true greats do, IMO.

    Kaka at his best was a clearly better player than two young GOATs. Pirlo couldn't touch that if he tried.
     
  17. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    f
    First of all, such awards are heavily biased towards attackers and you know it.
    Second of all, there is not second. It's obvious and well known that that has little to the with an actual reality.
    Even making such references as a rough guidence in evaluating player is an absolute bs, imo.
     
  18. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    Rightfully so. It is the toughest aspect of the sport. Requiring the rarest talent., Thus why it is the most revered.

    I guess it never crossed your head that Messi being an attacker, Maradona being an attacker, Pele being an attacker, CR7 is an attacker, etc. etc. isn't just coincidence. The players considered the greatest of all time, generally, are all, at the most general level, attackers.

    Before you blow your tit, that does not mean I do not value defensive performance, I believe I appreciate both the same.

    Edit: Also noticed you responded after I had edited my post, my b
     
  19. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    The reason is that they score goals and majority of football fans CAN'T understand football past the shot or an assist.
    That's why you see people mocking an idea of pre-assists or dribbling or anything of that kind. It's easy to measure attacker's performance (or at least people think it is), that's why the bias exist.

    The reality is actually quite different, everybody can play attacking positions, because it is responsiblity free role that requires occasional briliance rather than consistency within 90 minutes of a game.
    That's why, if you have ever noticed, when i new guy, who has never played football, comes to a team, manager of the team puts him in offensive positions, because at worst case, he happens to not score a goal... if he was put as a central defender, in the worst case he could ******** up game completely.

    Anyhow, people think that goals win you games so attackers win you games, while anyobody with slightly bit more thinking could understand that it takes a huge effort on everybody's part to score a goal. People don't see that hence the bias.
     
  20. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    #145 benficafan3, Nov 10, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
    Because they do. Perhaps the most absurd statement I've ever seen on this website.

    I believe you're thinking about it no differently than those you're trying to belittle in your speech. Every player has one core function on the field. To attack the opposing goal or to defend their own goal. That is it. Every position can be boiled down to that, rarely mixed. The player that is best is the one most important to goals, because it is goals that win you the game. The best defender from a functional perspective gets you no better than a tie. Winning is what matters. That is why the GAME is played. You can think of it otherwise, as some artful ballet, but that is not why it is played.

    There are greats like Yashin and Beckenbauer that enter that pantheon because their ability transcends their respective positions, but those are, as you should very well know, very rare. Thus why I say attackers, generally. Thus why it is attackers that are ultimately chosen for these awards. Because whether you know it or not, they generally reflect reality.
     
  21. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    Let me rephrase my statement:

    People (you as well apparently) think that goals come out of the sky and that nothing else has to be done to win games, but the last shot.

    better?

    So how does not keeping a clean sheet while scoring only one goal win you a game? If they conceded they wouldn't have won despite scoring a goal.
    It's matter of perspective, it's just that you can't see farther than your nose.

    The point is that scoring a goal can be credited to a single player easily, while keep a clean sheet can't. People go for easy way. You are the primary example of that.
     
    leadleader repped this.
  22. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    Yeah, that's probably it dude. You're too smart for us plebes. Sorry for wasting your time, promise to not do it again.
     
  23. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    Apology accpeted.
     
  24. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #149 PuckVanHeel, Nov 11, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
    You asked for what I think of this;

    More or less I tend to agree. That those tend to be the most effectual positions can be backed up by research and stats too. Even in the murky world of football (see the PM you send me), the top ones add more wins for a team than the top defenders. This is also how broadcasters, marketeers, spectators like to see it play out.

    In the end there are more top class attacking players who could play as a defender up til an adequate to very good level, than the other way round. It is more likely that a great attacker can play as a defender, than the opposite scenario. Or more nuanced: Zidane could fairly adequately play as a defensive midfielder or central midfielder, but has there ever been the opposite scenario?

    Also remember here that the defenders who made the top five of the Ballon d'Or in their career were mostly not pure defenders (and nearly all 'top five defenders' have come from the major nations, more so than the high placed attackers!!).

    Facchetti, Moore, Beckenbauer, Breitner, Krol, Kaltz, Amoros, Koeman, Rijkaard, Brehme, Baresi, Sammer, Roberto Carlos and Nesta made the top five for their style and ability on the ball.

    E.g. Carlos and Koeman made the top 10 of the Ballon d'Or a couple of times in their career because they were goals and assists machines (in their position, but even relative to other positions).

    Also Yashin won it in part for his skill outside the penalty area and what he could do without using his hands.

    The exceptions here are Wright, Cannavaro, Schnellinger, Vogts and maybe Maldini. Cannavaro still looked quite spectacular, but got there for his defensive ability and capability to break opposition play. Those five names are a minority compared to the ones who could distribute around with floating balls and did their best Iniesta impression.

    Of course there are exceptions that prove the rule, as you say yourself.
     
    benficafan3 repped this.
  25. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #150 Sexy Beast, Nov 11, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
    Let me just add one more thing to the discussion about "the bias".

    The source of bias comes from the nature of their jobs.
    Goalkeepers' (this applies to defenders and midfielders as well, but for the sake of simplicity i will talk just about gks) job is consisted of not screwing things up, while attackers job is consisted of doing as much of goods as possible under 90 minutes.

    So if a striker scores 3 great goals, but misses 2 big chances in the same game, he is thought to have an amazing game regardless of big chances being missed.
    On the other hand, if goalkeeper makes 3 excellent saves, but makes 2 mistakes that ends up as goals, he is thought to have an abysmal performance. The same applies for defenders, and slightly less for midfielders.

    Put in real life context, a striker doing that would be Cavani, who is thought to be one of the worlds best strikers, while the example of a goalkeeper would be someone like Kameni, an average la liga goalkeeper few years ago who could shine at some moments, but has never got the consistency to be considered as world class (nor marketing being Espanyol and Malaga goalkeeper)

    And that's the point, the overal nature of their jobs is different. You are obliged to be far more consistent at the back than up front and people ignore that (or don't notice at all) because it is way easier to notice when an attacker makes a single good play than a goalkeeper keeping consistency at very high level and not screwing things up for prolonged period of time.... as i said, it's easier to evaluate strikers' performance due to its nature of a job.
    That's the source of bias. It simply comes from fans' lack of understanding of football and poor evaluation skills.

    Considering the importance of their jobs, it's self evident that every one of those roles are important when it comes to an end result. Scoring 2 goals in a match means nothing if you concede 3.
    Btw, if attackers are shit and defenders are amazing in a random game, you are left with 0-0,
    but if attackers are amazing and defenders are shit, believe me, they can't score as much as they can screw things up... think about that.

    The thing is that non attackers are evaluated differently than attackers with exception that midfielders are evaluated as both, attackers and defenders... that's why imo, midfield is the most important area of the pitch. You need consistency as well as an occasional bursts of magic.It requires the best of both worlds

    EDIT: The reality is that Cristiano is not better player than let's say Modrić because, over the years (especially recently), Ronaldo, although he scores a lot, his consistency is questionable. He is damn lucky because he plays in Real and chances just keep on coming there. If he played in an average team with limited amount of chances per game, he wouldn't have the time of his life. The effect is clearly seen in his Portugal performances when Portugal faces a competitive team.
    Modrić on the other hand keeps doing his job at very high consistency, it's just that the end product of his performances doesn't end with goals next to his name.
    ... now look at FIFA's awards, who was ahead of whom between the two? So don't give me that shit that attackers are ahead of others because they are better. That's false... the bias is clear, check out the amount of attackers in 23 shortlist and everyone else.

    Pirlo is not an attacker so individual awards don't matter in his evaluation.
     

Share This Page