Is it lopsided that the Messi has six golds while DiStefano, Puskas and Pele have four, Maradona and Cruyff have three? This should make Messi the greatest player of all time.
I would like readers includes you to read discussion part in the paper that is the most important one for me. The number of winners cannot apply to all-time ranking because competitiveness of candidates between era is highly varied. Maradona's candidates are Zico, Platini and Gullit is relatively high for example.
Perhaps within a month Lionel Messi adds another gold medal, so far for me has been the best player this season.
The 2017 list will be announced after FIFA Confederation as some players still have a chance mathematically although it seems to be difficult pragmatically.
Honestly it is the opposite. one of the reasons I once joined this board because there were a few users on the internet (not only popping up at BS, but also elsewhere like some of your ear whisperers) driven by thumbing down certain countries and players - for ex. ruining NL player threads with WWII references. Some of them with sadly a respectable reputation and you tend to listen to. As far as the mutual perception between (conservative parts of) Germany and NL goes, that doesn't come from merely one direction. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch-niederländische_Beziehungen Yes, I am emotional at times but that has also to do with the city and the family I grow up, and it is ingrained Calvinistic tradition to not forget or forgive. In a football sense I resent their power and how they tend to get away with almost everything (the munich maffia - courtesy Andrew Jennings), while in the meantime sabotaging others by throwing up a number of barriers. Despite this, I did/do recognize that Lothar Matthaus was a good veteran player (one of the best) despite his comments that Hitler forgot the Dutch and him generally being the most unpopular exponent of a brand of football. I bet I know more about mathematics than you do. At least I know enough to criticize the applied techno babbling. 'Ignoring' is actually precisely what I tend to do the past five years with your PMs and emails. You know very well that I don't answer (also because I struggle to decipher your writing). Hence the stream has also stopped. I don't try to influence your work because only once (four years ago) I sought contact myself with a question. Others, driven by "personal conjecture", indeed do and have done the past number of years. Considering that I don't seek contact, you're giving yourself a bit too much kudos. 'Seeing' is not the same as mathematics. To me there is no real or alternative world where a half of 2015 Cristiano is "phenomenal" but 2008 isn't. Let alone the creativity. I'm sure the vast majority of the football world thinks the same. Likewise, to me you get yourself exposed with your assignments of points to NASL seasons. The untrue and imbalanced reflection is not even up for real debate or doubt. That is where you drop the ball and expose your personal preferences or perhaps the agenda of your companions. There's just no reality where Beckenbauer gets points for a couple of his NASL seasons and none of his contemporaries get a single point. You're of course free to do it, but that is where you show your hidden colors. But indeed, I ignore (and will ignore) all the mathematics or "discussion part in the paper". What I didn't ignore, but will ignore from now on, were the above two specific points that had to be highlighted. That you then react in this manner to these two points speaks volumes. I wish Pipiolo and all the rest all the joy.
That is definitely your problem to succeed the obsolete tradition and have been reacting political matter to football. People has grown up among their own circumstance but it is undeniable you have your own choices and you have long permitted yourself to discriminate German people. People’s own preference is one of an inevitable parts. Some people surveyed themselves and improve to reduce their biased and some even incessantly enforce them. You’re currently at the second one and it is imaginable you would go on your imprison world until you retire from this board and the next generation of NL will think you are not a good example of conservatism. Your criticism on mathematics didn’t prove anything that you understand mathematics well. You never create the system by your own. Engineer who never have an experience to create the system and only have experience to criticize them is way ridiculous. I see you’re now dishonest. Now you can react my sentence but you didn’t reply my simple question for years as following PM reference and you actually replied me regularly before (although my English was worse than the later time) so “decipher” is just an accusation” and implied your arrogance is existed. “Hi, Mate Should Ruud Geels be categorized in forward or target striker ? How often did he played as second striker and top striker ?” “Dear, Puck Now I'm collecting historical data of domestic cup for analyzing ad calculating for the standard of competition. So, I'm immediately think of your contribution of source of KNVB cup full history (pre-1950s). Without them, I can't rate all-time performance of Ajax, PSV and Feyernood completely. Thanks.” I don’t see any relation between your ignorance on my PM and unintended influence on my work. My PM is just to ask for somethings. You have intermittently criticized my thread is just clear that you can’t ignore is a phenomenal paradox and now that is a good news for yourself to commit ignorance. Now I become disappointing that you refer to the vast majority of people opinion since you’ve been fighting for Cruyff who is rated below Maradona by worldwide perception. That is no problem. Cruyff’s NASL seasons will be reviewed as I always open for improvement. (Now already add the 1979 season to Cruyff's international class".
There are many other years weaker, the most obvious choices are 1975, 1978, 1992, etc but the era of Messi and CR7 has its long span that rare players have come close their level.
See here a good example for why I ignored your PMs because I actually don't say that or referred to this above. It is the best solution. Which years you see as 'weak' and which not (by wide expert perception the late 70s/early 80s) also speaks volumes. Influenced by the numbers of the internet. That you like to ignore the iifhs poll, don balon poll, fft poll etc. is within your right.
You type this sentence "I'm sure the vast majority of the football world thinks the same." So I think I misunderstood you because you actually refer to the robotic artificial intelligence not human. I have a ton of PM to many experts and have been always gotten feedback from them. That is alright anyway.
"Vast majority of the football world" is clearly not the same as "vast majority of people opinion" (on the internet) although there is a small overlap and both influence each other. Marketing considerations ('the people') influence the football world. Likewise, I'm sure some of your experts are driven even more by hidden personal conjecture (unlike me popping up everywhere on the internet) than I am, which is to me shining through in your points allocation. It's best to leave it at here.
So, you have accepted you refer to vast majority of football world that is influenced by people in the 2008 Cristiano Ronaldo case and this is still disappointing since you reacted in opposite way for Cruyff against Maradona in all-time ranking. Experts’ personal conjecture is not pertinent as I just requested them a raw evidence of rating and statistics for a long time.
Back to the the further work, Now I have established the plan of skill evaluation project that is plan to finish around September. This work is to conclude the lists like the most skillful dribbler, passer, shooter, etc. The methodology, schedule plan and chart can be found in http://xtraimmortal.blogspot.com/2014/02/Skill-Evaluation.html Any comments to this designated methodology and below chart is highly welcome to mutually adjust the plan prior to the implementation in the next 2 weeks. During this time I will improve the 9x100 positional ranking list by succinct implementation.
There is some misunderstanding; When I said in a byline that "the vast majority of the football world" will not put Cristiano 2008 lower than Cristiano 2015 then I don't mean "the vast majority of people", i.e. the supposed popular internet opinion. The "vast majority of people" logic is a different kind of argumentation, when put in a byline. Although I didn't say it, the same is true for the points allocation for the NASL. A simple look at Sports Illustrated (the premier and most reputable American sports magazine) will reveal: https://www.si.com/vault/1979/06/25...-doubled-and-afield-where-scoring-has-tripled In my criticism of the NASL points allocation, which I think correctly called "a joke" because of the enormous untrue representation and imbalance, I didn't mention Maradona at all or what (relative) points you give to him (maybe I should have). But since you bring him up and criticize my own consistency with it; I tend to agree that the "vast majority of people" (i.e. the internet, including yourself and your 'greatest club season of all-time') place him 2nd. However, I wouldn't say that the "vast majority of the football world" did in one way or the other. The IFFHS expert vote didn't, Don Balon (1999) didn't, Sport Bild (1999) didn't, FourFourTwo (1995) poll among players and managers didn't. Also the France Football player of the century poll among true peers (1999) was a close affair because Maradona had two more first place votes, but three fewer inclusions among the best 5. Had Stanley Matthews accepted the invitation to vote, and was Lev Yashin still around, then most probably the order would've been the reverse. There you have both the (supposed) 'football historians' (IFFHS) and the peers where no "vast majority" in one way or the other is discernible. So I think what I said about Cristiano Ronaldo is a bit different than an appeal to the 'argumentum ad populum', although I also realize that in a demand driven environment the populace has an effect on the experts and pundits voice, and maybe to a lesser extent vice versa.
Each skill attribute in the chart will be determined based on degree of difficulty. In more details, it is already written in a methodological procedure in the referenced link.
I suggest keep the mathematical methodology rankings and make a new page that includes the qualitative values.
The longest spanned dominant club list was just implemented. Torino and La Maquina is moved to honorable mention since there is no regular continental international club at that era and could not compare to others in the list. http://xtravictory.blogspot.com/2013/03/Era-Club-Team.html
Where does Boca Juniors of Carlos Bianchi rank? Also, looking at your Derbies page, the biggest Brazilian classic is "Fla-Flu", not Flamengo vs Vasco da Gama. I would include Olimpia vs Cerro Porteno (Paraguay) as higher prestige than the Roman, Greek or Turkish derbies.
Boca Juniors’ 2000s glory years started from 1998 - 1999 and finished in 2002 - 2003 (5 years span) and only 2002 did not win any major title during an intermission of Bianchi era. As Boca won Intercontinental cup twice and was beaten narrowly in 2001, their Copa Libertadores Cup trophies qualified to count as a part of glory era. However, they won only one domestic league in seasonal year (1998 – 1999). In other related year, they’re not a winner if combine points between Apertura and Clausura. I set criteria to win at least 2 competitive league titles within 5 years span. For “Fla-Flu”, someone already suggested me for a long time. Let me review.
I would extend the 2000s glory years for Boca Jrs up to 2007 if not 2008, they won the 03 Opener, 05 Opener - 06 Closer, and 08 Opener, plus the Sudamericana Cup in 04 and 05, and of course the Copa Libertadores in sensational fashion in 07. While you have noted that the Sudamericana is not rated, it's still a decent competition that is increasing in prestige. It's true that Boca did not win a joint Opener and Closer until 05 - 06 but I have doubts for adding points as means of standardization. You notice Boca won a lot of Openers, winning either half-season tournament gets a club to the Libertadores plus the trophy for champions. If the Closer was out of reach with two or three matches left, Boca's manager may decide to field reserve players since entry to the Libertadores was already attained. Also adding up points from both half-seasons may give a different team than the champion of either as the "whole-season champion" despite such team lacking actual silverware, which is a jarring scenario. There may be alternative means to standardize for a whole season league format. A suggestion is to subtract the point difference between winner and runner-up for each half-season, the winner with the bigger advantage gets called the "whole-season" champion.
I’m aware of the different objective between a South American and European traditional format. When any club declined to attempt for the champion in clausura to reserve energy for Copa Libertadores Cup, they decide to abandon another league title. To solve this problem, I have abolished to combine season and count for only half season title. Boca won only 1.5 title in this five year span so they’re still not qualified for minimum 2 titles requirement. 1998 – 1999 : winner in both half of season 1999 – 2000 : No winner in both half of season 2000 – 2001 : Winner in aperture 2001 – 2002: No winner in both half of season 2002 – 2003 : No winner in both half of season Another interesting case is the 1970s Independiente, they won consecutive 4 copa libertadores titles but made only 1 league title within five years.