Without letting myself be carried away by patriotic feelings or my sympathy towards the club he defended for so many years, I have to break a spear in favor of Iniesta. As Puck well says, in the memory of all the good fans are those goals so important for the Spanish team and for Barcelona. But it would be unfair to reduce the value of Andrés Iniesta to these specific facts. For five years, Iniesta has been loved, respected and admired in all the fields of Spain (including the Bernabéu) and partly abroad. I could bet that on very rare occasions I stopped watching a Barcelona game in at least the last 12 years. In them I enjoyed the game of Iniesta from minute 1 to 90. His intelligence and technical resources, his fantasy, humility and chivalry had me stuck to the armchair throughout the game. Anyway, a real delight to enjoy the game of Andres. Therefore, although all preferences are respectable, I want to show my disagreement that Iniesta's sports career is limited to the authorship of two or three specific goals.
I didn't say this. I said his reputation as a big game scorer (or big game player, by extension) is based on three goals and three games. Not his career. Of course he cannot be reduced to goals and after all I placed him above a Lampard or Gerrard (and the perennially strolling Riquelme... who had not the influence/impact or end product to compensate for it in my estimation...) - but that is precisely the thing. Lampard scored three goals at euro 2004 - in one tournament more goals than Iniesta in all his eight tournaments combined. He was runner-up in the BdO once too and unlike Iniesta he was in the running for elected best player of the league (when EPL 'dominated' Europe), ahead of a peak Henry who had reduced Javier Zanetti to mince meat at the time. That very well cuts to the core of the subject at hand.
I'm not sure how to take this extract. In theory, it seems to be a criticism or a questioning?, but the idea about how it is a tool and how it remains subjective and dependent on the criteria used is exactly the same as I stated. Indeed, I think it is not a magic formula because it is not that it calculates an exact number by which we can objectively determine positions as if it were a mathematical calculation, but it is still a formula because it shows in a compressed way the development of several ideas and present them at the same time to create so many comparisons (making such a general ranking is different from comparing 2 players specifically, it is much more complex and we need to order too many ideas, so many that even with full knowledge about them when having to develop the exercise it is very difficult for someone to consider them all and be uniform for all cases). I suppose we could say that that would be its main function, to be a structure that allows us to sort, store and compress our own ideas because naming several in general point by point and comparison by comparison I think it ends up generating less defined muddles, at least of the various test I've tried and of the many informed positions that I have tried to compile (many of this forum).
The one best player over the period 1988-92. Without the shadow of a doubt. Then, Gullit is my clear second best, over the same period. I don't know. As for the Ballon d'or, in 1991 and 1992, Van Basten was still the best in the absloute of course but there was the current events that went more in favor of others. So on these specific years, I'm not sure there's an absolute truth like I can feel when it's about the whole period of time that we're talking about. But yes, in the end, the exact numbers of individual awards is maybe not the most important. As you say it's an indicator and in this case, it's clear that he was the dominant player of the time. And it's a very small circle of players who "achieved" that, of course. If really we need more proofs for it, there's always more apparently. Interesting find. It's not my aim to discuss and stress every personal choices in the rankings that x or y has posted when I just quite disagree but although I think that the comparison between Müller and Basten, like between other players, is interesting to make, at one point well, it's ok, normally it's clear that MvB was "something else" so to speak so there's no reason to make the count of all their goals, seasons played or everything we can count. Their official individual and collective achievements are, say, about equal all in all and then it's the player. There's no "this compensates for that" in this case, imo. On one hand we have the 70's "bomber" (a term that is used by the Italians too) and on the other hand the complete striker (or forward, like one wants) who also scored a lot like in the best league in the world at this moment, in Italy, for the best team in the world, Milan. The most sophisticated player in the most sophistaced team, might we say. So, that's all. There's no tie. It's a no brainer @Perú FC . imo
In contrast, I think it is this answer that has some problems of logic. Let's focus on 2 points. You seem to be very surprised to infer that Baggio could be favored in terms of longevity (for as I have raised my criteria, I would say that it is rather consistency over an average level). I didn't mention that, of course, but I can certainly see how starting from the base of how many seasons I think that each one exceeded the top 23 fence in the mentioned exercise (in red my possible honorable mentions): Roberto Baggio: 7 + 3 1988-89 Fiorentina & Italy 1989-90 Fiorentina & Italy 1990-91 Juventus & Italy 1991-92 Juventus & Italy 1992-93 Juventus & Italy (1st) 1993-94 Juventus & Italy (2nd) 1994-95 Juventus & Italy 1995-96 AC Milan & Italy 1997-98 Bologna & Italy 2000-01 Brescia Dennis Bergkamp: 6 + 2 1990-91 Ajax & Netherlands 1991-92 Ajax & Netherlands (4th) 1992-93 Ajax & Netherlands (3rd) 1993-94 Inter Milan & Netherlands 1996-97 Arsenal & Netherlands 1997-98 Arsenal & Netherlands (3rd) 1998-99 Arsenal & Netherlands 2001-02 Arsenal Although there could be some discussions about it, I even have better feelings about the 2002-03 season of Baggio with Brescia among all those do not appear. Then, evidently discarding your usual accusation/delirium about an anti-Dutch machinery, I believe that popularly Baggio is not usually positioned ahead by the point of longevity, but because despite both of them are recognized as 2 of the very best technical exhibitors of the 1990's, Baggio is probably seen even more exquisite (unless it is what I perceive in the circles that I usually move). The second point has to do with the distance. In my attempt they are separated by 28 positions, which are not many (I do not understand how it can be perceived as a big difference for an all-time or almost ranking in which players from all positions are mixed). I think that is a matter of perspective that shows when you do the exercise and not so much if not. You can notice it once you sort them by classification: By Forwards: 7th Roberto Baggio 8th Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 9th Dennis Bergkamp From the whole 1990's: 2nd Roberto Baggio 3rd Michael Laudrup 4th Dennis Bergkamp I notice there a short distance.
Ok. No, I don't think that it can sum-up our ideas/ reflexions. Only that it is a "tool" in the sense that it can be a first instrument of measure that can be helpful to participate to a reflexion at the start or at one moment during the reflexion but in the end it's always a matter of personal reading, understanding and appreciation of the numbers. As you introduce it, it would be like the reflexions would be dictated by the numbers (again, already obtained according to one person's criterias) or that the formula is dictated by what we want it to say. Perhaps it matches quite well sometimes, but not always, or can be even misleading. I don't think that discussing things (without convoking the numbers at every turn), expressing ideas, results in muddle but on the contrary that it feeds the common reflexion. At one point you have decided that it was a tie between Müller and Basten and since then you're just after things that would follow this direction. I want well that it could be many ties between many players and even, why not, although I don't believe much in what I'll say, between them two... or that it would be close. But in reality, I'd pick MvB any day of the week, in order to play in no matter what system, no matter who would be his teammates and no matter the era also, I suppose. I imagine. Müller must be the perfect back-up, once the best #9's (also best names, but he's one of them here) are gone in a draft game so he could be picked not long after MVB in this context, and that's it. In a ranking, perhaps people will choose to have Müller not that far from MVB too... but preferring Müller over MvB or having a tie between them (in a ranking)... perhaps you'll change my mind about other things (I have no precise exemple in mind but anyway) but you'll never change my mind on this one. It is just settled in my head like this "tie" is settled in yours. In my heart, I have no preference too, or Papin it is then. Perhaps you just love them equally. Perhaps you rated Müller higher than MvB previously and now, after reconsidering it, decided it was a tie because in your mind and in your heart you could not relegate Müller too far? I don't know, I just wonder. Making rankings implies making series of names too with more or less a logic behind it, so perhaps it was more conveniant for the best idea you had about what would be your best possible ranking (as you said, you're "satisfied" with this one). I can understand that. At one point, you just must stop. But you'll have to decide who's the best between them too because a tie here it's not possible. imo By the way, about Rummenigge, I did not meant that he should be ahead of "all of them" of course but I questionned his ranking behind "all of them", his presence at the very end of that whole group. That was the other thing that caught my eye and really made me wonder.
You start all your assumption badly if you think I knock down the prizes you mention. As several times I mentioned I do not take them into account at all for not covering the same period of time (what is substantially different). Have you noticed that the pattern is the Dutch players, right? (Cruyff, van Basten, Gullit, Sneijder, Robben, Seedorf...) (this is how you have accumulated a list of "adversaries", hehehe).
And you do well, but not on purpose because it shouldn't be for "sake of politeness", but for the obvious that it is (by basic education) that you cannot have prejudices towards an individual from an average of many. Your mistakes are yours, they are not those of the Dutch.
The problem is not that you protect them, is that you protect them from... non-existent attacks, which makes you somewhat phlegmatic and forced to try to build arguments in favor from many pieces of information and some biased interpretation (it is also obvious that you do not have much control over your character in front of the screen, you explode and write nonsense that has nothing to do with your knowledge, but with your irrational emotions). I'm not a moderator here, but to be able to discuss in an useful way (y no como suele ocurrir en Foros Perú) I think it would be better if you left the position of "protector" and emit all your reasoning from a neutral point of view (ignoring your nationality). I can't imagine what could happen if I suggest that Sotil taught to play to Cruyff.
Now, take a look again: What is the false analogy? I guess I should explain it in extension for you. Ronaldinho's is not an example to compare literally to van Basten as to suggest that, but the example of how a player who showed a higher level, but in a shorter time can be qualified under another for the latter, what we can apply for van Basten, but not for free, but compared to Müller. By the way, if you mean van Basten in these terms, it is not exactly that he had those 10 years of competition, but 7 seasons: 1983-84 Eredivisie (28 goals) 1984-85 Eredivisie (22 goals) 1985-86 Eredivisie (37 goals) 1986-87 Eredivisie (31 goals) 1988-89 Serie A (19 goals) (Capocannoniere scored 22) 1989-90 Serie A (19 goals) 1991-92 Serie A (25 goals) That's including European Cups and adding UEFA Euro 1988 (5 goals). He was not a competitor before 1983-84, he did not compete in the 1990-91 season (he was in the 12th position among the top goalscorers in Serie A) and he suffered the interruptions of his 1987-88 and 1992-93 seasons. I haven't mentioned any of these 3 South American strikers in this discussion. If you're linking ideas from another discussions I think it's probably not about the correct context here.
That is maybe the case in your pro latin circles (and Bariloche imitation circles) but this is not necessarily true for the simulators. Baggio his dribbling reigns supreme yes, but not his technique (99 vs 98 in PES stats) or his passing. Either way, also here you totally ignore the points I made on this. I honestly struggle to understand what you write above. It is obvious you downgrade plenty and upgrade none (and in a handful seasons by 300% per ESM and BdO). It is also clear you are unable to understand my logical arguments for why a honorable mention in certain years is very well appropriate. I leave your shallow analysis for what it is.
It's a minor thing but certainly having been well aware of both of them at the time I'd place Bergkamp above Baggio for individual form in 1995/96. I think ratings that you could find (certainly DBS Calcio) would do the same. Of course Baggio did still have a few nice moments (free-kick goals for example) and AC Milan did better as a team than Arsenal.
Of course, I realise elsewhere I've advised others not to compare DBS Calcio ratings between leagues (or between eras)! But just over 6.4 as an average in the Premier League was clearly better than just over 5.9 in Serie A. And Bergkamp was more of a regular player in terms of appearances that season too, so for sure I do stick by that recommendation that Bergkamp be rated above Baggio for that season. For the previous season in Serie A though no (but I don't take that as an indication of proof that Baggio would have had a better season in the PL if he transferred there for 95/96 - Bergkamp really started to find his form well that season and Baggio was in a bit of a trough in terms of form and confidence and I'm not sure it was specifically the integration into AC Milan that caused it, but maybe more likely adapting to having had a few injury issues and becoming an older player perhaps too - he did eventually adapt well as for example his Bologna season seems to show and in that respect maybe it's a little bit like Giggs having a dip as he got older at Man Utd before improving again in his 30s, although of course him and Baggio are not very alike as players).
That 1998-99 is only a *possible* honorable mention is rather strange (and revealing again). He was shortlisted for PFA player of the year and OPTA placed him on top for the creative players. Is this so much worse (less influential) than the 1997-98 Bologna season where over half of the 22 goals were penalties? For longevity (at the top level, for top teams) I have no doubt he is ahead (see my post for explanation); peak is another matter though and on that five years base I still have Baggio ahead.
To try to be balanced (hopefully it comes over that way rather than just disagreeing with both you lol!): I would give a bit more credence to the idea of longevity in Baggio's favour perhaps but not with certainty (in other words if I ever thought that way,marginally perhaps, then it could have been a wrong idea and your comments would give good reason to doubt it anyway). It would be based on the premise that perhaps he was better right at the end of his career (but I didn't follow Serie A closely personally at that stage) as maybe Bergkamp's legs had finally gone a bit by his last season, and perhaps he was better at Bologna than Bergkamp at the same age (but then when we look at the form Bergkamp found in 01/02 and even as late as 04/05 maybe that idea would indeed be wrong). Both had for a few reasons fallow periods I suppose, so that comes into the longevity argument too rather than only when they were first world class and when they were last world class. Yeah, I can see how you come to your conclusion the more I think about it though, but maybe still retain the idea that it's feasible for Baggio to be ahead on longevity (you are surely more certain about the question though and again I don't categorically disagree). I suppose at Fiorentina he probably did better overall than Bergkamp at Inter, but then we know Bergkamp actually broke through and had great years at Ajax already. Comparing peak players I see them both in a similar class I think, while being a bit different. If Baggio ahead then not by much, but yeah I guess it can be looked at in terms of putting him ahead as a World Cup player in their peak periods, impact in Serie A (undisputed top league) and the second tier European club competitions too. Anyway I just felt I should add what I did about 1995/96 because I do feel that is accurate, and Peru I guess should appreciate advice or adjustments if they improve his understanding and overview.
serie A was still widely considered the best league in europe during 2005 and english teams definately didnt dominate europe between 2000-2005 only between 2007-2009 did it deserve the moniker of worlds best league with arsenal,manchester united,liverpool and chelsea dominating the latter stages of europe for 3 consecutive seasons something that has never been done before or since.
https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method3/ccoef2005.html They won the Champions League, two in the semi finals.
Griezmann is more of a marathon man than an explosive type. Ronaldo and Messi 'need' others to work the opposition, after which they can make the difference. IIRC they have more second half goals than first half goals. And the goals in the first five minutes rarely happen.
Again, I think your answer is in a different tune (I think there is some misunderstanding). I will try to be clear. I do not mean that you should specifically take my formula based on my own criteria to make your own ranking, but I think you must develop some kind of own structure (which may have a different approach than mine) to be able to order about it all the ideas that arise and can be discussed. Yes, the numbers do not come from objective data, but from subjective ideas and that is why it is not that what I call formula is a definitive representation, it is only a basic and orderly idea on which I deploy more ideas. Of course, discussing multiple ideas is helpful (and that is why I usually participate here and have fed on many different opinions), but what I point out is that there are many ideas and perspectives that can be discussed and there are so many that if a certain structure is not elaborated to make such a general ranking from such different ages and profiles, it is very difficult to find an order among so many loose ideas and perceptions that can change without changing the facts. I think I mentioned it before (I don't remember if in this discussion), but if you ask me very personally, I would tell you that van Basten is my "horse" over Müller any day, as he would be in a draft, probably for the same reasons as you, but in that exercise I also put on the grid the element of the consistency of their careers, which obviously would not have as much weight for what each could contribute as an individual player at his prime in a match or a specific tournament. It's just a different perspective, I don't know if it's more correct. From that perspective I would change some positions and surely I'd put Müller behind van Basten, but also Matthäus, at least thinking about which player I'd choose first in a draft without a previous tactical idea (and I'd have to obviate pre-1950's players): 01. Johan Cruyff (Netherlands) 02. Michel Platini (France) 03. Ferenc Puskás (Hungary) 04. Franz Beckenbauer (Germany) 05. Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) 06. Eusébio (Portugal) 07. Zinedine Zidane (France) 08. Marco van Basten (Netherlands) 09. Lothar Matthäus (Germany) 10. Bobby Charlton (England)
The circles I usually have have little Latin. Your guess (I suppose) thus begins somewhat misguidedly. What I find interesting is that you then take as reference to the PES game (and not because of irony). I guess you know that dribbling is part of the technique, right? And that is probably one of the main problems in this discussion and, as you can see, that's why I only answer a few things from you (I know that others are a waste of time). Contrary to what you seem to believe, there are points that I'm not answering you because I'm placing them as pending to be able to review them later. It happens that even though you how hold logical your arguments are, the truth is that your data is usually interesting, but (apart that some I have already reviewed) I think the way in which you try to interpret it is usually very forced or/an even grossly biased and what I've not seen, I must review it and pass through more neutral filter first for that reason (and I can see that I'm not the only one who notices that). By the way, since it was touched before, I guess there is reason to degrade Zidane behind Bergkamp for the 1997-98 season (plus World Cup), but I don't know how much more because despite what it said I notice a lot of brilliant episodes of his games (on the same scale of Del Piero at club level, which does not mean that I don't know that usual ratings favor the Italian).
To have Michel platini with only one ballon dor that isn't questionable (1984) ahead of ferenc puskas (800 career goals as a inside forward) is completely criminal Puskas was still world class at 34 years old scoring a hat trick in a European cup final Platini retired at 31 The career of platini in France (ligue 1)compared to puskas in Hungary Is a complete joke Puskas had 1gpg as a playmaker for honved and the NT and was competing against hidegkuti for best playmaker in the hungarian league 800 goals and directly assisted as many as he scored (according to many reports) Platini is one of the greatest AM of the 1970s and 80s Ferenc puskas is the greatest and most complete goalscorer of the entire 20th century(officially recognised by fifa) Unlucky most of his prime wasn't recorded Still a great deal of footage for a player of his time (40s-60s) The greatest post war European trio is ferenc puskas,Johan Cruyff and Cristiano Ronaldo The case for franz Beckenbauer as superior to CR is baffling Based on prime or longevity? CRonaldo had 12 consecutive world class seasons His prime compromised of 6 consecutive seasons scoring 50+ goals (also 3 seasons with more than 14 champions league goals) Never been done before or since Likely the greatest athlete the sport has seen Technically underrated on BS( and this will never change despite presenting evidence to the contrary numerous times) Is there a previous precedent for a winger as great as Sir Tom finney,Stanley Matthews and George Best reinventing himself to become a scorer as great as Eusebio? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2306026/Dazzling-Ronaldo-strides-among-the-games-legends.html There is a tendency to overrate historical players Beckenbauer is most likely( like CR) the second best of his era but his prime does not touch George Best 67/68 or cruyff 71-74 and it is questionable if his best was conclusively greater as Gerd muller or netzer
Definitely. Actually, I was about to answer you, but I just noticed that I made a mistake: in the 1995-96 season I did not add Baggio to my honorable mentions list (neither is Bergkamp). I think I added him by memory because I remembered that he was the Serie A Top Assist-Provider. How do you see the possibilities of both among Serie A and EPL players that season?: Serie A (Top 23) - Gabriel Batistuta (Fiorentina) - Alessandro Del Piero (Juventus) - Marcel Desailly (AC Milan) - Paolo Maldini (AC Milan) - Dejan Savicevic (AC Milan) - George Weah (AC Milan) Serie A (Honorable Mentions) - Demetrio Albertini (AC Milan) - Franco Baresi (AC Milan) - Oliver Bierhoff (Udinese) - Enrico Chiesa (Sampdoria) - Didier Deschamps (Juventus) - Ciro Ferrara (Juventus) - Angelo Peruzzi (Juventus) - Igor Protti (Bari) - Roberto Carlos (Inter Milan) - Rui Costa (Fiorentina) - Roberto Sensini (Parma) - Giuseppe Signori (Lazio) Premier League (Top 23) - Éric Cantona (Manchester United) - David Ginola (Newcastle United) - Ruud Gullit (Chelsea) - Andrei Kanchelskis (Everton) - Peter Schmeichel (Manchester United) - Alan Shearer (Blackburn Rovers) Premier League (Honorable Mentions) - Philippe Albert (Newcastle United) - Peter Beardsley (Newcastle United) - Les Ferdinand (Newcastle United) - Robbie Fowler (Liverpool) - Ryan Giggs (Manchester United) - Roy Keane (Manchester United) - Georgi Kinkladze (Manchester City) - Rob Lee (Newcastle United) - Gary Neville (Manchester United) - David Seaman (Arsenal) - Dwight Yorke (Aston Villa) By the way, I have a somewhat clear idea of a complicated and criticized start for Bergkamp, at least during an initial part of that 1995-96 season and a kind of nut change for him since the arrival of Wenger in the following season.
Best European player ever ? It’s obviously Cristiano Ronaldo. 5 ballon dor 5 CL 1 EC 1 nations league , records etc . 2-4 includes Cruyff, Zidane, and Eusebio. 2 Portugal players in the top 4.