Well, everybody is entitled to an opionion, but you think there is a team in recent times Pele would have scored more than he did with Santos of the 50s and 60s?
I can't see it, but maybe for a season. Put Pele in Barcelona 11-12 in the Messi role. You give Pele the focus Messi received that year, and he too could hit 70+ in 60. I can see him hit 80+ and crazy amounts of assists (basically 100+ goals and assists) if he was given that role AND had Messi playing with him as well, but that's just fantasy football.
this was very great... but still manipulative: Compare the topscorers and how much they scored during those years since we are evaluating the potential of an individual (Pele). I present La liga top scorers, i failed to find English league's top scorers of 50s and 60s. Topscorers: 1957-58 - 3 players with 19 goals, 2 of them scoring 19 inn 29 matches and one scoring in 30 matches. 0.63 goal per game ratio 2007-2008: 27 in 37 matches, 0.73 goal per game ratio. Decades later, despite the alleged difficulty arised in scoring, topscorer individual of the current decade surpasses the old one. Topscorer of 58-59: 23 goals in 28 matches. 0.82 goal per game ratio. 08-09: 32 goals in 33 matches. 0.97 goal per game ratio. Again, despite the 'alleged' difficulty that arose in scoring due to revolution of football, later years beat the old one. Then starts Ronaldo Messi era, I am even not going to look at them, I am pretty sure they will win vs the old one. Now, world cups: World cup 1962 top scorers: 6 players tied with 4 goals. Those years, there were 16 teams in the world cup, thus they played less games than the topscorers of later (pre 1998) world cups. World cup 2002 top scorer: 8 goals (in 7 matches). World cup 1966 top scorer: 9 goals. World cup 2006 topscorer: 5 goals World cup 1970: 10 goals World cup 2010: 5 goals World cup 1974: 7 goals World cup 2014: In world cups, it seems later years individuals had difficult time in scoring but it does not have anything with Pele's potential, his goalscoring in world cups was not great which shows us Pele's scoring does not have anything with the goal per game ratio of the tournament/year he was playing in. In conclusion, the criteria @Once used to compare is non-sequitor. If Pele was scoring so many goals due to high goal per game ratio, he would have scored same goals in world cups as well. Both in 58 and 70 WCs, his ratio was too low compared to the topscorers of the topscorers of the tournament. On the other hand, when we look at La Liga topscorers, later years' topscorers outscored older topscorers despite low goal scoring ratio compared to the older years. It is despite the old having more goal per game ratio, it shows us it became harder for teams to score but easier for individuals. Or it shows current topscorers are that great at scoring that they outscore the olds despite playing in lower goal per ratio era which will lead us to think Daniel Guiza of 2008 was somehow better striker than the old scorers. 1st of all, scoring is getting easier, both la liga and seria of the last decade outscore the la liga of 60s and seria a of 60s. It is by large margin. When we compare individuals, it is much easier for individuals to score than it was in the time period @Once is interested in: 58-65 Again, this "scoring is not getting easier" seems to be another 'myth.' At least for individuals it became much easier. I am waiting what kind of myths or goal-post-changing we will face. @Sexy Beast , @Gregoriak , you were related to this discussion. I thought you should be informed.
This is really a messy discussion. I think we should first figure out/establish what are all possible factors that can influence the amount of goals scored by an individual, rather than jumping to conclusions on what the each number means and how does it manifest in each era respectively. This is what i propose as major factors that contribute in a raise or a drop of goal tally by a single player: The quality of your team Nature of your team The quality of an average team you play against (essentially the quality of the league) Nature of the league (is it high scoring league like Brazilian league or like Serie A in 80s/90s). This doesn't necessarly tells you the quality of the league, but it speaks about general dynamic, mentality, rythm. Attacking minded vs defensive minded leagues. The first one for me seems to be the most defining one. Football really is down to who you play with, but really is... so many careers are either worshiped or crucified based on team achievments despite the fact that we all do agree that any individual doesn't have as big impact for that to make sense, and yet we always tend to fall into the trap over and over again in the sense of "single handedly" and stuff like that. It's funny because a quick thought experiment confirms that directly. Just ask yourself, how many world cups Pele would have had if he was Bolivian rather than Brazilian. How many champions league titles Messi and Ronaldo would have had if they were playing for Stoke or even someone as good as Napoli. The same analogy goes for the amount of goals scored by individuals, so why do we keep ignoring stuff like that is beyond me.. you need to abstract a player as an individual from his team to evaluate him. Pele playing for Santos and all those stars along side him doesn't go in his favor, especially because concetration of great players and professional players back then was watered down. At the end, Santos was, relatively, an even bigger superteam than Barcelona and Real are now. 2nd point is that the team you play in (regardless of its quality) doesn't necessarly manifest into a certain amount of goals. You could argue that Liverpool and Atletico are teams of equal quality, but would playing for both of them, for you, as an attacker (let's ignore the difference between Spanish and English league), result in the same amount of goals... obviously not, so as well as quality of your team, your goal tally depends on playing style of your team. This is important because you might be "Liverpool" in a very defensive minded league (in the sense of scoring a lot and conceding a lot). So despite 'goal per game' ratio of your league being lower than some other, you still, as an attacker, benefit from playing style of your team. Essentially, goal per game stat talks about average team in the league. Your team might not necessarly be an average one. So if we talk about Pele in 60s. We should get a goal per game ratio of the league and then see in how many goals Santos was involved, compared to The most important thing i would say comes down to 3rd and 4th point. It's really easy to mistaken 'a change of nature of a league' as 'a change in its quality'. For example, Serie A right now is enduring the change of its nature, not the drop in its quality of defending,.. big difference. They simply stopped defending as much. They didn't become awful at defending.. that doesn't necessarly have to do anything with the goal tally by a single player, but it has to do with how we analyse different eras. Some drops/raises in 'goals per game" are due to drops/raises in the quality of the league, but some are really down to new culture occuring at the time. We have to be careful with articulating what those numbers actually mean. I don't think that's been down so far at all on your halfs, guys. I propose that despite goal per game ratios vary a lot through decades, that continual raise in quality of football, on bigger scale, is constant, and no stat of that kind can dispute that because stats don't deal with quality, but nature of leagues and game itself. Minor factors: The quality of pitches and accessories. Can't think of any other. The reason why that makes difference is because finer facilities and accessories benefits more skillful players like Pele. So if he did play in modern conditions, he would be more dominant, but i don't see it as a major factor.
How about this for manipulative: one season wonder Dani Guiza's scoring average is lower than any top scorer in Spain in the 58-65 period, except the ones you picked 58 and 59. Curiously, those seasons were the ones with the highest overall scoring in La Liga between 58 and 65 (with the exception of 60). That must be because when the scoring is plenty, it is harder for individuals. When the scoring becomes less frequent, that is when it becomes easier for individuals, as proven by your analysis. Just messing with you Have a good worship!
Great players typically end up in great teams. That's just a fact. For NT yeah, players don't have much of a choice. Pele was indeed blessed with that aspect. As for all the other items, IMO all you have to do is watch some of his goals and skills. Yeah we can argue about league strength, how strong his teams were, era and etc ... but along with the number of goals he scored, the skill he showed in many of the goals recorded is of the highest quality. Great goals/plays in Paulista league, Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup, World Cup, international friendlies, you name it ... at all levels. The good teams he played on helps, but the loads of examples of individual skills is undeniable.
Who picked 58 and 59? Me or you? Post #121: It was you who 'picked up' those years, not me. By the way, formerly it was different than 58-65, take a look at what you picked up, post #114: to which I replied with my post #118. I compared there Seria A 60s and La Liga 60s, both of which refuted your initial premise, then you went on to pick up 58-65. As proven by my analysis? That was the criteria you initiated, you used. If anything, that is by your criteria. By your criteria, we would need to conclude: 1) Scoring got much easier than it was in 60s 2) Especially for individuals it became much easier as you once said: In short, with your logic: in 50s it was easier to score than in 60s and in the last decade. Something happened in 60s and scoring became harder than it was in 50s. Then again something happened and scoring got easier than it was in 60s. So, what kind of shifting goal posts and myths we will see.
Who picked 58 and 59? Me or you? Post #121: It was you who 'picked up' those years, not me. By the way, formerly it was different than 58-65, take a look at what you picked up, post #114: to which I replied with my post #118. I compared there Seria A 60s and La Liga 60s, both of which refuted your initial premise, then you went on to pick up 58-65. As proven by my analysis? That was the criteria you initiated, you used. If anything, that is by your criteria. By your criteria, we would need to conclude: 1) Scoring got much easier than it was in 60s 2) Especially for individuals it became much easier as you once said: In short, with your logic: in 50s it was easier to score than in 60s and in the last decade. Something happened in 60s and scoring became harder than it was in 50s. Then again something happened and scoring got easier than it was in 60s. So, what kind of shifting goal posts and myths we will see.
NOTE: I now realised I did not mention one thing in my previous post: Both 58, 59 and 2008 and2009 seasons were picked up by @Once. I did mention that he picked 58-59 but I forgot to quote him comparing 58 with 08 and 59 with 09. Here is his comparison: It was also mentioned in my older post to which @Once replied by saying something like "You picked up those two seasons." I do not know why @Once confused it but those two seasons from each period (or 4 seasons in total) were picked up by @Once. If it was cherry picking or whatever, it was done by @Once.
All of that where it looks like you are talking to a jury instead of me, wont bother with it. Yes, definitely it seems to me it was easier to score goals in the 50 than in the 60s and probably any other time after that. Not really deducing anything, just comparing how often scoring was happening, that is literally all I did. "Something" happened in the 60s... you say it as if you had never heard of Catenaccio. I dunno about the second half of the 60s, the 70s and 80s. It would not surprise me if scoring back then was more scarce than now, but I did not check. You act as if this was a logical impossibility..
(Emphasis is added by me) For red part: is perfectly possible. I mean, scoring being more scarce/easier/harder in certian era than another certian era is possible. I opposed your premises.You started with something like "if football got easier, we should find certian leagues having more goals than it was in 60s." Last decade's Seria A and La Liga outscored 60s. Then I opposed relating individual's goal scoring to the goal per ratio of his time. If it was really dependant on the era, why would other topscorers of that era not outscore the topscorers of the era you compared? or why would they not score as much as Pele did? They were playing in the same era you compared, why they did not? If individual's goalscoring ability was dependant on the goal per game ratio of the tournament he was playing in, why La Liga top scorers of that era not outscore Messi or Ronaldo or Suarez (2016)? These and kinda these are the things I opposed. I agree goalscoring maybe easier in certian era but individual's ability is hardly dependant on it.
That's undeniable, but since the name of the thread is about conditions in which Pele played in, it's more than necessary to include stuff like attacking mentality behind Brazilian league or low concetration of great players poorly distributed through whole league resultin in even more significant gap between the best and the worst. Look, Neymar is also scoring beautiful goals, you see in those highlights all the amazing stuff he does, but does he score as much as Messi, for example. Eye test in this cases is not needed, because we talk about difficulty to score goals relative to their era. Does bad facilities overpower those two points from above (attacking minded league and low concetration of great players)? In my opinion, no. Who you play with and against who, is more important than the pitch you play at or the ball you play with? so i would say he benifited from playing in Santos in Brazilian league in 60s and that his goalscoring record would fall in modern era. How drastically depends the team he would join. His goalscoring record would be quite similar to Messi's and Ronaldo's imo. I don't think it can get much better than that in modern era at all.
@Sir_Artur , look here in this link you have all the top scorers in La Liga per season and their average: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofeo_Pichichi If you make an average of the scoring averages of all the top scorers in each decade it looks like this: 1950s -- 0,93 gpg / there were 6 different top scorers 1960s -- 0,84 gpg / there were 7 different top scorers <0,90 gpg between 1959-60 and 1964-65 seasons, 3 different tops scorers> 1970s -- 0,66 gpg / there were 8 different top scorers 1980s -- 0,73 gpg / there were 5 different top scorers 1990s -- 0,82 gpg / there was a different top scorer in each of the 10 seasons 2000s -- 0,74 gpg / there were 9 different top scorers 2010s -- 1,2 gpg thus far / eight seasons going and only three different top scorers, always Messi or Cronaldo except for the one time of Suarez What do you make of this? I never saw the point of your looking at the top scorers rather than the overall scoring frequency difference between the Pelé era vs recent times. But what do you make of the fact that rounding up to get the stats in a per decade way of the top scorers you never get a number as high as it was in the 50s and 60s (particularly the first half of it) until the Messi/Cronaldo times. Note that back then you had several guys who managed to become top scorers, but the fact that the 2010s are dominated almost exclusively by them two must surely tell you something that leans more towards how special and impressive these particular two guys are rather than to "though goals happen less often it is easier now for individuals". If you hold on to this statement, could you please explain to me how did the "conditions" change so massively from the 2000s to the 2010s? Because now "individuals" seem to have a much much much easier time scoring than then too. BTW, did the research of top scorers in England. Not sure it proves anything, but since you brought it up (and I still dont get why), here it is England: Season--top scorer-- goals in games 56-57--John Charles--38 in 40 57-58--Bobby Smith--36 in 38 58-59--Jimmy Greaves--32 in 42 59-60--Dennis Viollet--32 in 36 60-61--Jimmy Greaves-- 41 in 40 61-62--Ray Crawford--33 in 41 62-63--Jimmy Greaves--37 in 41 63-64--Jimmy Greaves--35 in 41 64-65--Andy McEvoy--35 in 40 Five decades later... 06-07--Didier Drogba--20 in 36 07-08--Cronaldo--31 in 34 08-09--Nicolas Anelka--19 in 37 09-10--Didier Drogba--29 in 32 10-11--Carlos Tevez--21 in 31 11-12--Robin VanPersie--30 in 38 12-13--Robin VanPersie--26 in 38 13-14--Luis Suarez--31 in 33 14-15--Sergio Aguero--26 in 33 Make of it what you want, I just gathered the numbers only.
My sincere apologies for not having responded earlier--I've been incredibly busy as of late. As for the question above: well because strikers typically and especially those who play as big players for one of the top 3 clubs in one of the top 2 leagues in the world, are known to miss about at least one clear-cut chance per game, if not more than that. With that in mind: Barcelona are still one of the top 5-6 clubs in the world, and Barcelona really should've won La Liga 2016-17. Moreover, while stats can in many ways demonstrate the fact that Luis Suarez has been terrible so far this season (read: a fact that should become readily obvious on the basis of plain sight alone), at the same time, stats don't do a great job in terms of defining exactly which type of chances Suarez has wasted this season; for example, is it the easy tap ins that Neymar or Messi routinely served to him in Luis Enrique's MSN era, or has Suarez failed to score more difficult goals that fall more within the category of half-chances as opposed to clear-cut chances?? Well that is definitely what Messi SHOULD be doing, and that is also what Valverde SHOULD be doing--Messi at this stage of his career is much more useful to Barcelona, the deeper he plays, even if it comes at the expense of less goals. On the other hand, the source that I'm following claims the opposite, that being that Messi is being pushed back into an false nine role similar to the one he played in season 2011-12 under Guardiola, and again in season 2012-13 under Vilanova. I don't like to have debate about arguments that I haven't actually seen first-hand, so I will retract from this specific debate (about the logistics and specifications concerning Messi's new role under Valverde) and will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. In any case, I certainly hope that you are correct about that, because I genuinely think that that's exactly what Barcelona/Valverde should be doing. No offense, but I must readily and strongly call bullshit on the "Suarez missed only 20 out of 35 games" argument. Just against Juventus he missed one clear-cut goal, and Juventus had the best defensive record in the UCL last season, if I'm not mistaken. So against La Liga clubs with considerably inferior defensive lines, Suarez missed only 20 chances out of 35 matches?? Again: no offense, but this is in my opinion obviously a classic case of statistics being made deliberately misleading--there's just no chance in hell Suarez missed only 20 chances out of 35 games. Or maybe I'm wrong, and Suarez simply failed to score a lot of goals in a lot of high profile games (such as the Juventus game, for example), therefore creating the impression or illusion that he must've done the same throughout most of the season--as is traditionally the case with players like Luis Suarez. In any case: I certainly remember Suarez 2016-17 missing a lot of easy chances in a lot of games, so the "Suarez missed only 20 out of 35 games" argument just readily sounds like Grade A bullshit--it sounds like one of those bullshit statistics such as "runs and dribbles" where the line between what a run is and what a dribble is, is deliberately obfuscated in what is a demonstrable attempt to mislead the fans and/or create a strong impression on the fans. Marketing 101. Statistics have always been and will always be significantly limited by the inherent human bias that can't be entirely isolated from the end product--and especially if not exclusively so when there's as much financial incentive involved as there is in football. Suarez is VERY out of form... but going by the information that I've been reading from a source that is normally correct, it very much looks like Valverde is not the type of managers who cares about Luis Suarez scoring a lot of easy tap ins in the easy games, only to see how that strategy repeatedly fails to work against the top clubs who don't allow you those easy tap ins. With the result being that Suarez's goal scoring stats will go down significantly, regardless of his actual form--which again, has been VERY BAD for most of the ongoing league season. I can't honestly completely disagree with that, but I also can't whole-heartedly agree with it either--as an example, Zlatan Ibrahimovic in Ronaldo's role, would have won one or maybe several Champions Leagues, one or maybe several Liga titles, and he would've done it scoring at a rate of more than 22 goals per every season he played there. Same as Francesco Totti--Ibrahimovic just played for the wrong clubs, and their place in history would be very different had they played for the Real Madrids and/or the Barcelonas of their respective eras. Luck and chance truly are the biggest factors when it comes to such things in football, in my opinion.
EDIT: I've probably sold Barcelona short there, I mean, Barcelona arguably still is a top 2-3 club in the world (AND should have won La Liga 2016-17).
Missed chances are for la liga only. There is always a potential human mistake in there, but 20 in 35 is not similar at all to 9 in 9 matches. Btw, i follow those stats for 2 years now, and i have never seen a noticeable inconsistency in their evaluations. Everything is a bit different in this Valverde's team, from Suarez's role to Messi's role, i think we can agree on that one.. anyhow, i don't even remember what was the initial argument about Zlatan defintely falls into category of those players who would come close to Ronaldo's goalscoring tallies in his place, but let me ask you this: why Real bought Ronaldo for the record breaking transfer fee and not Zlatan who was at top of his game in Inter at the time? It's not coincedence that Ronaldo and Messi got the privilege they got for so many years. There is a reason why Ronaldo was bought and not Zlatan.. he is simply better. He earned it in times when he had no privileges. About Zlatan, i don't see what's the whole fuss about him. Just like Zidane, i believe he gets overhyped because of his uniqueness. Sure, he had incredible moves, goals over the years, but he stands no chance in comparison with Ronaldo at their primes, neither in their 30+ versions,.. I don't evaluate players at all based on thropies so that doesn't concern me..
Agree to disagree on that point--I always see Suarez missing a healthy routine of goal scoring chances, and 20 in 35 just overtly looks ridiculous in my opinion, having watched Suarez as consistently as you could expect from a busy person with not a lot of time to watch games. The initial argument was about Messi's new role under Valverde (if Messi's new role can indeed be defined as a new thing) and how Suarez's goal scoring form might have something to do with Messi's new role in the team--for example, the arguably decrease in easy tap ins that Suarez would statistically suffer from, presumably because of the absence of Neymar, that is, the absence of a player not named Messi who can take defenders on, beat them quite consistently, and ultimately deliver a healthy portion of easy assists for Suarez to simply tap in, as was so usual in Luis Enrique's MSN era. Of course, I have barely watched Barcelona this season, so I probably shouldn't be having debates about things I haven't actually watched first-hand. Well for one thing, Zlatan was literally a Barcelona played in 2009-10, that is, the same exact season that Real Madrid broke the transfer record after having signed CR7. It's difficult for Real Madrid to sign players who have just signed or about to sign for then high-flying Barcelona. But more important than that: Ronaldo was a younger player with a far greater international influence--at 23 years of age Ronaldo had already delivered one of the greatest season campaigns of all time in the 2007-08 season, a better season than any of Zlatan's seasons, and a season that made Ronaldo a far greater financial gain or incentive than Zlatan would ever be at any stage of his career. Here is where the Ronaldo hype gets tricky for me: I think that post-2008 Ronaldo declined and continued to decline, his goal scoring form did not get better with age--besides him simply not doing any dribbling nor anything much outside of scoring goals, which logically resulted in more goals scored, but as I mentioned before, he scored those goals at the direct expense of his own teammates who were inevitably reduced into mere peasant-like sidekicks. Of course, not to mention that Ronaldo also became objectively-speaking one of the worst fee-kick experts of all time... Think of how many additional headers Ronaldo and Ramos could've scored, if instead of Ronaldo hitting the wall for the 200th consecutive time, he allowed Xabi Alonso to deliver a pinpoint cross into Ronaldo/Ramos territory. Just one of so many examples where statistics are simply completely at odds with objective reality. In other words: Ronaldo 2009-2013 was individually better than Zlatan was in that same period of time, but Ronaldo's purported individual superiority over Zlatan was very difficult to employ in a way that it actually produced superior end product in the collective sense that football essentially is, that is, Zlatan would score less goals but Zlatan's teammates (regardless of their names) would score more goals, and Ronaldo would score more goals but Ronaldo's teammates (regardless of their names) would score less goals. In the end, you get more or less the same trophies, but with the debatable exception that Zlatan's presumably inferior style of play would probably work better against the more difficult teams--simply because Zlatan was never athletically gifted enough to demand the luxuries that were invested in Ronaldo. Not coincidentally, Real Madrid became a more successful club precisely when Ronaldo became a lesser athlete--lesser athletes don't have the pedigree to ask nor to demand the privileges that prime Ronaldo asked and demanded for. And why does it non-coincidentally work better? Because football is a sport where the essence is inherently collectively-shared, that is, a sport consisting of eleven players. Of course, the problem for Ronaldo in this instance is that Zlatan could have arguably easily done what Ronaldo did for Real Madrid 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Gabriel Batistuta's form from 1990 all the way to 2000, was also great enough to essentially deliver what Ronaldo actually did for Real Madrid 2011-2017. Ronaldo would technically be the better individual, but Ronaldo's individual superiority wouldn't actually be meaningful in any practical sense--impression and reality are very different things, which is a fact that CR7 fans have long had trouble with. In fact, to such a degree, that in this forum some CR7 fans now actually claim that 3 games in 2017 were Ronaldo's peak--not because Ronaldo was individually better, but because Ronaldo was in the collective sense a superior player than ever before, or at least that certainly is the impression if one goes by the results first and foremost. The funny thing of course, is that those same exact CR7 fans would be arguing the exact opposite: that Ronaldo is the better individual, if Ronaldo 2007-2008 ever had to compete against Ronaldo 2016-2017. Such is the level of hypocrisy and the devastating lack of self-awareness of these so-called fans; they will readily contradict themselves as soon as they see an opportunity to hype Ronaldo's current BDO aspirations. You don't evaluate players based on trophies, but the rest of the world, the majority of it anyways, certainly does--just look at the world's best player Cristiano Ronaldo, who objectively-speaking is not even a Top 5 player, but we still must consider him a Top 2 player, simply because he scored a lot of goals in 4 games at the end of the 2016-17 season. Moreover: I think you overrate individual brilliance to the point where its actual value is made irrelevant to the discussion, which in my opinion makes the entire discussion misleading and manipulative. My two cents: I think that Zlatan Ibrahimovic is absolutely categorically not like Zinedine Zidane... Zidane played for the absolute best clubs of his time, and every time, Zidane did not looked better than Del Piero at Juventus, and Zidane's Real Madrid career is one of the myths of the century in that Zidane's Real Madrid career is probably the most overrated thing in the history of the sport; for example, past-prime Figo looked plainly superior to Zidane in so many games, as did past-prime Ronaldo (Brazil's Ronaldo, that is), which is akin to Leo Messi looking comprehensively inferior to past-prime Iniesta. (Of course, the politically correct perception, is that Zidane was much better than Del Piero was at Juve, which is most certainly a perception largely if not entirely based on what Zidane did with France and therefore a perception substantially divorced from whatever Zidane did or didn't do at club level.) On the other hand, Zlatan played only one season with Barcelona and he was quite unlucky in this one season, in that Iniesta was out injured when Barcelona was eliminated by Inter Milan (think of what would've happened vs. Chelsea 2008-09, if Iniesta does not play any of the two legs, and of course, understanding that Iniesta was the MOTM in the first leg and then scored the goal that eliminated Chelsea in the second leg), and in that Zlatan was coming back from an injury and looked visibly out of form when Barcelona were eliminated by Inter Milan. After that, Zlatan played for clubs that had ZERO CHANCE of winning the Champions League. And before Zlatan's Barcelona stint, Zlatan had only one or maybe two seasons where Inter was arguably good enough to have won the Champions League. And as for Zlatan's performances in the big games: he has been generally good in a lot of big games, and his reputation for failing in the big games mostly comes down to failing to deliver in the big Champions League games against exclusively superior clubs. Cronaldo and Messi have their fair share of big game flops; can you imagine how many more of those they would have, if Cronaldo and Messi had played for the clubs that Zlatan played for??
I'm ever so sorry for this very late reply....actually i'm writing this for the third time as my earlier drafts didn't get saved and just disappeared...starting all over again was difficult and time consuming as well... Now to the matters at hand.... I understand from your post that the pitch pics belong to lower/junior level competitions.I actually meant senior/international level pitches.I suppose i wasn't clear enough...my bad. Regarding pitch /cleats / balls my take is that it's a fact that modern football does not use the old versions of the above three and for good reasons.The sport has left behind the old types for technologically enhanced better versions of the same.The fact that a lot of R&D went into the making of the above in these sectors shows that there truly was/is a compelling need for the upgradation of infrastructure in the sport.Like in any other sport.Now this switch for the better ones happened not as a matter of personal choice/preference but because players/coaches/officials could see that the new apparatus were by far better and good for the game.There is no going back.There is a universal consensus in that sense.The video itself lists many of the advantages of the present types over the old ones.No present day player worth his salt would prefer to wear old type cleats/play with old type balls on bad/muddy pitches just because football can still be played with/on them[past players did play with them].Hence "I dribble as well on every pitch, because when you play football on the bad pitch, pitch is not just bad for an attacker, but for defender as well. Fundamentals of dribbling, like body fients remain just as useful. It's my personal experience" is no argument at all.I guess this is no longer a subject of anybody's personal views.The footballing world has made this transition for good.Hence lets not get stalled on this one. Its good that we are having this discussion because when we began these details were not part of the conversation.I suppose we are now heading towards a more balanced perspective. There is this widespread assumption that tactics have ironed out all the deficiencies in the sport.However,your post gives an insight[appreciate your analysis] into the state of affairs at ground level.We realize that tactics aren't a magic wand that can unleash miracles.So the sport moves forward/makes progress taking along both its high points and imperfections as well.There is never going to be a "perfect football." I don't deny the cruciality of tactics in the sport today.Actually the world of football has always been aware of the significance of tactical play from the earliest of times. What i say is that the interpretation of tactics on the field depends on the player who is doing the interpretation.He imbibes the concept and puts it into play but does so as per his own vision and understanding of the same.The execution of even the most comprehensively laid plans will vary[and can go awry too] according to the player who helms it.Tactics would gain from 'player ability' and suffer from his shortcomings as well. Even in real match situations tactics are not adhered to nor followed 100 percent by the teams on the field.Every match has its own pulls and pressures that often bend/dilute plans. It is no wonder then that even the greatest players of this era are not wholly 'tactical' in their play.Cristiano is a unique "cometh the hour cometh the man" type of a player[at least in the last few years and he's become even more difficult to contain now] and Messi,though more of a team/tactical player has this extraordinary individual prowess in him that he often does things on his own.Atypical,yet,part of the same modern footballing ecosystem. So there is enough space and scope for non tactical play too. Actually i'm indulging in "presumptive argument".I mean i don't agree with you if your contention is 'the greats can't learn modern tactics.".They can very well.Nevertheless,for arguments sake even if i accept your line of argument the on field situation is still fluid enough to accommodate alternate types of play.