If an era is weak, it is possible for the few elite players in that era to also have highly inflated stats etc. making a comparison of their performances across eras kind of redundant, IMO.
It's good to see you back sometimes ... If it's "hard" to be proven (?) then It's not that "hard" to see this era is weak, and it's not the fault of Messi and CR7 - in FACT, they both BENEFICIAL well with that ( both share 5 Ballon Dors and will be same this year- WITHOUT ANY competition). At least these are main remarks of the point: - Some delusions see Messi as 2nd coming Maradona and CR7 as new Eusebio as results of the situation. Thanks to the WEAK ERA that ALLOWED them being in disguise, despite of their form in NT - Some delusions see Spain (best NT at present) as among the BEST NT teams in history - since they are on way to break "historical record" (to win Euro right after WC, and or a double Euro) - THANKS to the WEAK ERA that ALLOWED this happening (if ever in next week)
Puck ... Regarding the Germany NT team in this Euro, I did not mean they played "great" nor "beautiful" - however, in such a desperate tournament (where most performers were VETERAN i.e. Sheva, Ibra, Melberg Karagounis Klose Pirlo ... to say the LEAST of the point) they ADD spices to the entertainment side - not necessary quality per se
Let's here one single fact backing up the theory that the average 1st league player today would be worse than 20 - 30 years ago, despite talented player being lesser spread among leagues and no restriction in foreigners.
You are going off a tangent of your making which has nothing to do with what I have said (and neither with what Estel said). A weak era does not necessarly mean that the average player (whatever that means) has to be weaker than one 20-30 years ago. It can also mean an era where there is little competition at the top. And I think it's kinda obvious Messi and Ronaldo have almost no competition. Your above statement above is in reply to Estel, but actually it's pretty much irrelevant for what Estel said. It does not really matter whether there is a difference (for better or worse) between the average players in each era. A player can have highly inflated stats if there is a massive disparity between his team and the competition. Estel was probably alluding to Spain and I don't see how can this be denied. In terms of competitivity, La Liga is at its worst in history. For several years in a row, Barca and Real are constantly scoring 100 goals or more and reaching 90+ points, while the other teams barely reach 60-70 points and 50-60 goals. Messi and Ronaldo are obviously benefitting from this disparity, which arose from Real/Barca literally piling up most of the talent available.
As Tribune explained above, you misunderstood my intent in making that statement. I was referring to the lack of depth in the elite player base which ensures that only the top clubs get their hands on real talent, while the rest do not, since there is no one left which they can get. A larger elite player pool (especially if the same were competing for a similar position) would have meant that while the top clubs still get the best (as per their scouts' understanding and the circumstances), they do not have a monopoly, since the rest of the elites (which were not taken up) can then move to the lesser clubs and still make these other clubs competitive. Either way, lets see you explain away the meat of Tribune's argument, that being that in the old format CRonaldo would have won 4 Balon d'Ors by age 27 with the possibility of winning still more. Something that is quite unprecedented in footballing history. So does that mean he is the best player from Europe to have ever graced a football pitch or is there something else which we are not taking into account when measuring the greatness of the players of this era?
Once again look at Ballon D'Or voting 2nd and 3rd placed over past years if you think competition changed to the worse. How about always playing at the highest exposure level and hardly missing any games due to injury.
I made this thought before but maybe the (implicit) criteria have changed by which players and journalists vote. For example: at the past it was more based on achievements I feel and less on stats (I can point at some players who had stat-wise better years when they did NOT won the award). I can for example think about winners and runners-up who won it thanks to three matches in a season. Blokhin won it in 1975 when he led his team to a Supercup win over Bayern Munich, when he scored three goals. Rensenbrink came very close in 1976 when he copied Blokhin: 2 goals and 2 assists in a Supercup win over Bayern Munich. Both were of course the winners of the Cup Winners Cup in those years and had in their respective final 1 goal and 1 assist (1975, Blokhin) and 2 goals + 2 assists (1976, Rensenbrink). While both were very excellent players, which I do not challenge, I feel that their high ranking in those particular years depended for a large extent on only a few (key) matches and perhaps football has now to such an extent a global reach that ratings do not depend anymore on ~5 internationally televised matches in a year. Indeed, experts make question marks about whether those two players had their peak form in those years (I know a bit about both players). Together with the higher propensity for catching injuries in those days it made it more likely that various sorts of players had a shot at the award, instead of a situation where 6 El Clasicos in a season are put in the equation as well as 10+ closely followed Champions League matches and so on. Just a thought.
A high exposure level (if by this you mean being the go-to guy in ones team ) is something that every great from the past eras has also achieved. However, for some strange reason these other greats were never able to replicate the same record shattering runs as CRonaldo has achieved, which implies that the opposition that they played against had a better handle on neutralizing them, either through fair means or foul. Which brings us back to this being a weak era argument, unless of course one feels that these other greats were a bit less talented than CRonaldo is. Injuries also tie into the above since the refreeing and hence the defences of the current era allow offensive players to play with much lesser risk (from a physical injury inducing perspective) for the rewards that they seek (in terms of goals, etc.). I have just been watching the UEFA Cup QF tie between Bordeaux and AC Milan from 1996, and the amount of tackles flying around in that game which could receive cautions or even explusions from a modern refreeing perspective, really put a different spin on things in terms of how easy the modern players have it. Considering that all these were happening in 1996 after the changes made earlier to rules in order to prevent career ending tackles, one can only imagine the kind of treatment that the older greats had to endure.
What are the 2 and 3 positions supposed to tell me? If I wanted cryptical statements, I would have gone to a fortune teller. Zidane also played at the highest exposure level for 10 years and hardly missed any games due to injury, yet he was ranked only once as the top european player by France Football and 3 times by FIFA. Ronaldo has 5 such rankings in 9 years. And to answer your original question, no I don't think that the average player from X years ago is better than the "average player" of today. I think it's a weak era because the "top of the three" has flattened out, so to speak.
No, I mean that Cristiano Ronaldo's club is a contender for the biggest European competition year in year out in his prime, not the case for players from prior eras.
And is consistently followed throughout the season. Experts say that Platini was already amazing in 1976 and 1977 when he played for Nancy. Same with Van Basten (excellent between 1984-1986) and Cruijff (excellent in 1966-1967). But I think that the foreign journalists hardly noticed them or saw them as one of the best in the world. Comparisons were a lot harder to make too, which contributed to the tendency to look at achievements instead of inherent capabilities. Comparisons are a lot easier when every season has 6 El Clasicos and every new CL season sees always the same teams meeting each other over and over again, season in, season out.
You were claiming that there is little competition on the top right now among European players. Platini's competition when he won the Ballon D'or was Dalglish, Simonsen, Tigana, Elkjaer and Schuster.
Thanks you, schwuppe, I do not always agree with you but I can understand most of the times the sense of your view.
Who actually was his competition is beside the point. The important thing is that Platini did not manage to win a gazillion Ballon d'Ors. Estell summarized the situation in a single statement when he said "lack of depth in the elite player pool". With respect to this argument, it's irellevant whether Platini competed against Pele himself or against his grandma. If you don't understand, I'll draw it in crayon: 1-2 players monopolizing the top spots of the rankings = lack of depth in the elite talent pool lots of players for the top spots = more depth in the elite talent pool This is a valid assessment for both World Cup-level players as much as for a bunch of five graders. With whom Platini competed does not matter in this respect. The argument is not convincing because Real Madrid is not the only contender. Last I recall, there are 4 spots in the semifinals, not just 2, for Real and Barca. So, Ronaldo's competition from England, Italy or Germany should benefit from the same exposure.
Maybe you can also summarize what was the talent situation outside of Europe when Platini won his Balon d'Ors and compare it with what CRonaldo has to face, apart from Messi, as talented competition outside Europe? And I think we are just looking at the offensive players here, while there were the Scirea's and the Baresi's to contend with too at that time, players of an ilk which are being overlooked in this discussion precisely because there seem to be none of similar talent in the modern game.
Correct. See PuckVanHeel post for the reason. Or 1-2 players monopolizing the top spots of the rankings = 1 - 2 players being consistently outstanding How often was Platini's team among the best in Europe until he joined Juventus Turin? Or heck playing any of Uefa Cup/European Cup/Cup Winners at all?
You missed the Scirea/Baresi part I suppose. Anyway, it matters because the point made by asking that question regarding CRonaldo's all time European elite status, was as much rhetorical as factual. The base point remains that CRonaldo has no one but Messi to contend with, while Platini had a host of South American offensive greats in addition to quite a few European defensive greats to contend with, in his era. Lastly, Platini's era (Europe level competition only) is anyway considered to be one of the weaker eras by most, so the only question that remains now is how the current era matches up against it.
His teams were not necessarily one of the best in those years but they had a few remarkable results against top teams like PSV and HSV, with him as top performer. Platini was also among the best ranked in those years as well. However, once he started to play for a French top team (St. Etienne) his Frenchness might be seen as an advantage because the award was organized by France Football and France Football was an influential (in terms of leading the opinions) publication in those days too. As similar sidenote, the 1971 win by Cruijff was helped by a rout against Olympique Marseille in late 1971. The article of France Football, which can be found on the internet, that accompanied his voting as European Player of the year explicitly mentions this tie too - and for example not the ones against Celtic, Atletico or Panathinaikos. Here it is: http://www.storyfoot.com/ballondor1971.php [that website has all articles that appeared in France football when the winner was announced, very interesting website] In sum: it is a plausible possibility that being French was in some way an advantage, just as in the case of Cruijff performing well against a French team supported his bid. I know, the league of France was a second-tier competition but France was media-wise an influential country. I hope you understand what I mean.
It is my feeling that the 'cartel' of current football (i.e. the situation of a pretty closed landscape with a few elite-teams) is not good for the talent development elsewhere. Example: in Holland and Belgium they often talk about how important it is to get Champions League experience, relative to other top performers elsewhere. Or how important it is to play with and against good players to get better. These two things, to start with, are a serious problems today in terms of nurturing talent. And those problems did not exist, at least not to this extent (in the pre-Bosman, pre-CL era), in the past. I mentioned earlier the example of Zola, he became that good because he learned many things from Maradona. We see a situation where the same elite teams meet each other every next season, which makes comparisons quite easy. But at the same time it might work as a 'cartel', which relatively damages the possibilities of raising talent in second-tier nations (Denmark, Scotland, Austria, Netherlands). The Champions League is a highly competitive league, to a certain extent (because wealth-discrepancies also exist in that case), but only for those who are part of it. Again, that is just my thought.
Good points - 1- The clear example of this: most young talents (at present) FAILED miserably OUTSIDE their own club/team (messi, CR7, Ibra, Rooney from last WC to lately Robben, Van Persie, Torres, Benzama, Riberry, Balotelli, Silva ... ) They simply BENEFITT well the situation of less competition in the leagues and got EXPOSED in different games style! 2- Example for 2nd bold: after all (by many games year in year out) Real (and Chelsea) had finally broke the dead lock of the so called "great Barca" ================================================== Look at the last 2 QF games and what we found are: - Spain and France broke a NEW record in creating chances (13shots all together after 90minutes played) with Spain being the (supposedly) best team to beat - GOSH 9shots after 66% of possession (for NOTHING) - Italy and England: Italy (along with Holland) broke another record in (BAD) shootings - which is a serious issue of this era BTW. Holland 2goals/53shots and Italy 4goals/88shots. And ironically, the previous was of course exit early while the latter entering the Semi Euro!!!