Would Argentina have won the 1986 World Cup if Pele in place of Maradona?

I think @leadleader makes a good point in light that you always offer some vague implication about there being better options, usually alluding to simple sideways or back pass which is naturally less risky, but football is not played free of risk taking (although Guardiola's Barcelona probably managed to achieve this). The essence of any interesting game involves risk, it is the obstacle that demands brilliance to overcome it. Otherwise we would just have four Mascheranos in midfield, it would be a sport that I would not follow. Maradona, Romario and all other greats are engaged with the game at a level beyond that of most other players, their vision and technique allows them to see and execute a play that others could not pull off, and possibly even envision.

By the way, I continue to get an error when trying to watch those videos. Do you have a different link to them?

 

right ... I thought Carnevale joined since 85-86
but romano was already there at the beginning 85

 

I used to have a similar opinion about Guardiola's Barcelona, but upon closer inspection I find that Messi, Iniesta, and Xavi, constantly took risks, even if that Barcelona team gave the impression of calmness and composure (probably as a result of all that "sideways" passing, more than anything else).

One thing I would criticize is that referees over-protected Xavi and Iniesta. But, regardless of that over-protection, those two players took a lot of risks. And Messi took even more risks, and unlike Xavi and Iniesta, Messi almost never dived so "referee protection" wasn't much of a factor to be considered with him.

Anyways, fully agree with your point there. Beautifully put, it concisely explains the essence of the argument.

 

Yes, those were in.
If I am not mistaken, of the players that had significant participation in the 85-86 season out were Bertoni, Pecci, Celestini, Carannante and Filardi. By out I mean that had left the team or that they did not play in 86-87.

 

LOL. Very funny joke this is.

 

You can't even read properly. That's clearly not what I said.

I don't like your aggressive attitude.

I did not say the second thing. You misquote me. At least, you suggest that I said something like that (on the contrary: I don't possess a soft spot for players making 100 sideway passes in a game). That's dishonest. Therefore you don't deserve a proper reply as well.

As far as the first thing is concerned, I don't know why you suddenly start to talk about dribbling behaviour. That spoils the discussion. The subject was "difficult pass/a flick versus 'simple' pass" right? But no, leadleader feels the need to widen the discussion a bit further.

No it isn't.

What I pointed out is that Ronaldo, at least in a certain phase of his career, looked for empty spaces when attempting a dribble. He utilized his top speed. The end result is still the same because you are still bypassing midfielders and opponents. You still drag them out of position. You can still make a pass.

Romario on the other hand, tended to run into trouble yes. Right into the cul-de-sac. That's my observation.

The theory of passing the ball right at the moment three opponents are attracted towards you sounds nice, except that Romario didn't do that. I thought it was celito who said that, but Romario was a "dribble first, pass second" guy.

Again a false strawman. To be perfectly honest with you: I don't know why I'm doing this so I will not reply to your aggressiveness again.
Too many enemies in this thread.

 

Right, I forgot that you live inside some alternate bubble in which Messi is a diver and a cheat.

You must really, genuinely, dislike South Americans and Spaniards (and apparently also Germans). It must be rather exhausting to dislike so many people for something as ridiculous as the geographical area in which they were born.

 

"usually alluding to simple sideways or back pass which is naturally less risky"

Wrong. Where do I say back pass? A back pass clearly doesn't cause the same end-result. You commit now the same fallacy as leadleader.
It is perfectly clear that we talk about similar objectives and similar end-results. A similar 'goal' with different options leading towards the same goal.
A back pass doesn't have the same effect so this is an inaccurate suggestion. It is inaccurate or even insincere, because I did not allude to back-passes.

But (mis)reading it in that way suits your and Once his agenda so good luck with it.

 

Why are you bringing this up for God's sake? Is the only thing you can do is sheer aggressiveness and personal attacks. Within just two/three posts you step over to personal insults. That's a familiar tactic of you; everyone who disagrees is biased or a moron. What's the relevance and purpose?

Takes three posts to go from this to a next line of insults:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ace-of-maradona.1993025/page-52#post-30065077

 

I know you don't like me, there's no need to dress it up. By the way, I don't think I'm being "aggressive" towards you? I thought I was merely criticizing your argument, why the need to take it as a personal confrontation?

It is not "dishonest" to understandably misunderstand your vague arguments.

Why should dribbling behaviour not be mentioned or considered when you are talking about the "best option available"? I don't get it. I don't understand why you are acting as if though I have personally offended you when in fact all I said/argued was that nobody can objectively argue that a certain style is better than another style, which is something you consistently do.

And a good observation at that -- but how does that justify that your opinion is the "correct" one?

Running right into the cul-de-sac, means that if successful, you take out two or three opponents.

Ronaldo running into empty space is not taking anybody out of the play, he is merely trying to out-run his opponent/opponents in order to create something, which very rarely worked against any opponent (note: it worked without the ball, but rarely worked with the ball).

Why is R9 "better" or "smarter" for doing such a thing?

And if Romario was a "dribble first, pass second" type of player, then that would make R9 a "dribble first, dribble second, pass third" type of player.

Where is the consistency in your opinions?

We must have different opinions for "strawman".

And as for "enemies", I think you're creating enemies where there are none. I disagree with the sentiment that you have consistently voiced -- why does that make me your enemy? I don't get it.

 

Listen,

You misquote me on purpose, accuse me of applying different standards to Zidane only because he is European (but where the hell has Zidane been mentioned by me?), create strawmans... I'll not respond to this.

 

You can't say things like "I admit I am a little biased against Spanish players" and then not expect people to throw it in your face.

You consistently describe Maradona as a cheat. You are one of the few people who describes Lio Messi as a diver, and also as a cheat. You openly admit that it is not easy for you to rate Spanish players highly. And yet, you feel insulted when I mention things that you openly admit yourself? I don't get it. How do you expect me to react to your open bias against players of certain nationalities?

If it bothers you that people perceive you as someone who "dislikes" players from certain nationalities, then why do you so openly admit your bias against players from certain nationalities? I mean, I just don't understand the logic here to be honest with you.

 

I never misquoted you on purpose, but I also did not quoted an exact quote of yours. My response was an answer to many of your quotes over the past few months -- and of course, over the past few months you have, in fact, consistently used double standards in favor of Zidane.

If the reason why you consistently do such a thing, is because Zidane is European or pretty-looking or just your type of player, I honestly do not know with any certainty. One thing is certain, though -- you haven't used double standards in favor of any South American player, and in fact, you have a very consistent tendency for using double standards against South American players.

Maradona was cheat.

Messi is a diver and a cheat.

Romario 50/50 flicks and tricks are useless.

Valderrama made careless passes (you never actually offered any "proof" for this, you just said it).

You never, ever, say something like "Zidane made careless passes quite often". It's always a South American that you mention when you want to criticize a player -- this is not a strawman, this is a fact.

If noticing such OBVIOUS patterns, makes me your enemy..... so be it. I think most reasonable people will understand the logic behind my response.

 

If I understand him correctly what Puck wants to point out is that a "difficult pass/a flick" is not better than a "'simple' pass" if the result is the same. Thats fair enough I guess. But to me it is like saying that great tasting food is just as good as ok tasting food if they are equally nutriciuos. Or that sleeping with a normal looking girl is the same as sleeping with a hot babe because you know, the end result is the same. Now that I wrote this I realize I must not have understood his point, for this cannot be correct...

 

I also more or less understand it the way you explained it, and I too think it is fair play to have that opinion: why not?

My problem with Puck is that he identifies such a characteristic as a flaw, and then he reserves that "flaw" to South American players, and he fails to recognize or acknowledge that some high-profile European players such as Zidane, for example, are also guilty of the same exact thing.

So I just wanted to know why Puck uses the mentioned characteristic as a "flaw" when Romario is the player being discussed, and yet as a "strength" when Zidane is the player being discussed. I find it wildly inconsistent.

Of course, Puck responded by saying that I am strawman-attacking him, but the truth is that the guy has consistently used double standards in favor of his favorite European players.

 

So within two posts you switch from discussing the merit of a certain flick to bias against nationalities. Good luck with indulging yourself in your aggressiveness.

The thing is that all of these accusations (that you made in your very first few posts) bear no relevance.

It's al-right to say: 'Hey, but this also applies to Zidane'. Fine. However, you feel the need to take a hit on me. And that shows what type of sick person you are. You know that you're approach wasn't fruitful at all.

Which cannot be surprising because first you are saying that I'm incorrect, and later you say that I don't apply this to Zidane because he is European. But if I'm incorrect in the first place, why should I apply this to Zidane as well?

It might be even the least good option because the success-rate is not the same. It can lead to awkward transitions.

Indeed, the analogies are not correct.

 

I can't speak for Puck (if he meant that or not) but my 2 cents:
that's not the same , nor that's a "fair" comment.The difference was the SITUATION -
no one is stupid to do a back pass to another when 2 ,3 team mates are available next to him,

Or Maradona sometimes did a "rabona" crossing ... not for the "show off" but
1- he was one footed,
2- he wanted to FOOL the opponent with that sudden kinda pass ...

Kaka was not a one footy player, but he sometimes did the rabona long pass for same purpose ....

"square passes of Xavi or Iniesta or Busquets , Xabi Alonso ... " are WAY over rated ... just because they could rack up to 500 passes in few games ... in a "tikitaka" tactics, that everyone moving up down synchronously!

 

Step down dude,

You challenged my statement in the first place ("As much as some people want to believe that "a simple pass sideways" would have accomplished the same as a flashy skill -- that's not true, at all").
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ace-of-maradona.1993025/page-52#post-30065077

If I was wrong with my thoughts, you can't honestly attack me for the players I happen to pick out ("Why is it a "flaw" when Romario does it, but it isn't a "flaw" when Zidane does it?").

Note: you create a whole argument in the link below about why Zidane DID commit these flaws. Suddenly, these 'flaws' do exist in observable reality.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ace-of-maradona.1993025/page-52#post-30067829

But, remember, that 'flaw' wasn't a flaw in the first place - in leadleader his mind. It was me who committed an error in thinking it is a flaw by a player.

That cannot be "wildly inconsistent". If anything, it is you who is inconsistent. With first saying that I'm wrong and then criticizing I don't apply this 'wrong idea' to Zidane (NOTE: I haven't mentioned Zidane at all).

 

Its like walking on egg shells around Puck sometimes. He implied I was delusional a while ago. Didnt mind at all. I was going to finish my last post cracking a joke involving his mom's cooking skills and the looks of his girlfriend, but refrained because I dont want him to get or pretend to be offended.

 

Thats why Caffarelli should have kept it simple

 

At least I'm not wasting my breath saying that "Maradona was a pumped up cheat" nor that "Zidane was another cheat".

I prefer to stay away from such accusations against players, since who knows how many other football players with a clean image were in reality the dirtiest players of them all -- to use such speculation to degrade the legacy of a player is not only an aggressive tactic, but also a rather dirty double standard as well.

Exactly -- you are "incorrect", therefore, you cannot possibly apply it to Zidane; but how does your ignorance refute the actual argument?

In other words, it is "incorrect" to genuinely believe that one method is "better" than the other simply because you personally prefer one method over the other. Therefore, the principle of self-indulgent football players who waste away possession in their self-indulgent habit of wanting to satisfy their sense of perfectionism, still applies to Zidane even if you are in fact "incorrect" in your belief/opinion that Zidane's method was "better" than Ronaldinho's method -- a simple and a fair argument, is it not?

As for my approach not being "fruitful", perhaps it was not as "fruitful" as it could have been? But still, I am pretty sure that I did not "attacked" you at all with my first response, I merely criticized an opinion that I did not agree with -- since when is this a crime or even "aggressive" in a forum?

 

Again, what is the relevance of this? You carry all sorts of irrelevant and unconnected things in the debate.

No it isn't, and you know that you're trolling. Read back:

"not different means to the same end, these are different means to different ends; a fact that far too often is completely disregarded."

That was my supposed flaw in my reasoning.


Your Zidane post of a page back:

"
Zinedine Zidane was guilty of the same exact thing -- Zidane many times gave away possession by making incredibly stupid/forced passes in situations in which he was completely free from mark.

Example: Zidane grabs the ball with his right foot, and just because he is Zidane, he wants to make a sideways long ball (to the other side of the pitch) with his left foot, and he wants that transition from right foot to left foot to look as fluid and as natural as possible, and what happens next? Zidane gives away the possession by making a stupid/badly weighted/badly directed pass with his left foot in a situation in which no opponent was close enough to him to actually mark him
[...]
Another example: Zidane could have simply and easily controlled the ball with his chest, instead, he decides to make a first-touch pass via his chest, ends up giving away the possession in a situation in which he was free from mark"


I'm putting you on ignore now.

 

You take the good with the bad, and with that principle, everything and everyone is inherently "flawed" to some degree.

You are wrong about Zidane, and obviously, that is precisely why you cannot apply the "correct idea" to Zidane. It is a very simple argument, the fact that you still cannot seem to grasp it says a lot about your bad use of logic.

By the way, you did in fact applied your "wrong idea" to Zidane -- that is one of the things that I criticized, the fact that you apply your "wrong idea" without any real consistency.

I would have never criticized you for "not applying your wrong idea to" Zidane, precisely because I think your wrong idea should not be attributed to Zidane -- which you did, which I criticized you for it.

You are indeed inconsistent.