The degree to which each trait is measured, and under what context is the difficult part though. For example, should the delivery of crosses be equally measured for all roles? Should they be rated in conjunction with a player's ability to dribble for better set-up for the upcoming cross? Why stop there? How about accuracy of crosses in a practice setting, versus 78 minutes into the game on their 17th attempt at a cross after running all game. After you account for everything, we essentially end up with the best players, because they are the best at functionally applying their technique on the pitch within a footballing game scenario. Even if a random YouTuber has more accurate delivery of crosses, and can land a ball with the type of spin that will knock over a water bottle in a certain direction for a cute domino sequence. It is sort of like discussion over who is the fastest footballer. It starts with the usual names, and there is always some random dude in third division who used to be a competitive track athlete, with better sprint records than world-class players. And then the discussion devolves into some mixing between actual speed and functional usage of that speed, until it is no longer a debate about who is the fastest. The actual definition of the word fastest footballer does not give answers people want, but there is a sweet-spot where there are sufficient mentions of a fast, but not that well-known player, until it goes too far and people are turned-off by the notion of the actual fastest footballers. I think professional footballers hate being associated with freestylers and futsal players, but also want to differentiate themselves from functionally greater players who may not shine as much as them during a rondo session. It is this fine hypocritical line they ride, where they do not want pure discussion of technique like literally the most accurate volleys by YouTubers who only practice that craft 24/7, but also want extra-credit for being more finely tuned to some aspects of football. I find the easiest method to go by the word-of-mouth, for the most praised as being the "footballer's footballer" during training, and watching their YouTube footage, but I want to sort of move away from 5-aside compatibility into more functional measurement, but have no idea how to do it. It is why I have doubts about resolution for these debates. They are fun, and I am introduced to players I was not aware of, but it is difficult to know what each person's criteria is. Can I ask, for example, what makes Paul Gascoigne absent from your personal list, but Matt Le Tissier was included? I know Xavi spoke highly of him, and he is indeed a technical fetishist of the highest level, but Paul Gascoigne is not exactly starving of complements from fellow teammates who saw him handle the ball up-close. I think a breakdown of these two players, might help me understand what you value in a technician, because a lot of the players you've listed are older players I have less understanding over.
Gascoigne was for sure a skilled player, and I would put him over Le Tissier in running with the ball (only partially because of technical prowess of course, but yeah I think still more comfortable and efficient when dribbling/carrying ball in that respect). Similar for control of the ball, with perhaps Le Tissier a bit better manipulating it. Gascoigne perhaps a better passer, but not necessarily from just a technical viewpoint. Le Tissier better I think with volleyed crosses for example, and better with shooting techniques overall, but I think at their peaks (though Le Tissier could be spectacular, and maybe was better for just end product) Gascoigne was a superior overall player (and would seem so vs higher level opponents in terms of general gameplay I think, as well as being more suitable to play as an all-round midfielder), and in terms of speed at least (especially when in best shape) superior as an athlete.
So maybe Paul Gascoigne bigger threat on-the-ball, but Matt Le Tissier more refined per touch? But I don't like low-number-of-touch players like Ruud van Nistelrooy being labelled as technicians, even if their level of first touch and ball-striking are totally respectable oreven praise-worthy. I sort of have this view that you cannot really be labelled as the best technician without having that extra level of composure with the ball at your feet, and trying to abuse that trait as much as possible, even if you are not dribbling-pe-se, twisting and turning, under pressure, to draw opponents inwards, and thriving under that self-created pressure. Even if you are not actually bursting past them with dynamism. From what I've seen, didn't Paul Gascoigne love his time with the ball and perhaps handled himself better, under difficult tight scenarios? If Paul Gascoigne was indeed harder to dispossess via pressure from a technical stand-point, I think the other aspects (such as striking of the ball at goal) can be rated relatively less important from my viewpoint. I guess that might mean I have higher proportional score for composure under pressure than ball-striking than you do, when thinking about technical players. The Marco Verratti types, who aren't necessarily elite dribblers of the highest levels, but are extremely composed with the ball. Of course, when it goes too far, and Mousa Dembele is mentioned as the most technically gifted Belgian player of his generation, I sort of think about his passing, and shooting and question the entire thing. I don't know where to draw the line, but I do sort of associate press-resistance a lot with technicality. Players of this ilk being dudes like Zidane, Riquelme, Dembele, and Pedri. I don't think Zinedine Zidane passed particularly amazing, but I regard him as more technical than Michel Platini, who probably runs circles around him as a raw technical passer, from what I've seen. So from my standpoint, Paul Gascoigne is probably more technical than Matt Le Tissier, but I was wonder how they compare for you, in terms of composure with the ball under extreme pressure.
Inconsistencies in the definition of "technique" that different users here (and different pundits in general) have in their mind is something I have stressed and commented on already too. Many seem to more or less equate technique to dribbling ability. To me, technique is proficiency in every aspect of the game. The art of making the best use possible of every ball that happens to fall into the capturing radius of a player. So dribbling/carrying, but also trapping/controlling, passing and shooting. What is more, I would say that dribbling is maybe a comparatively less important area of the whole technique scope, since professional football has been based much more on passing and clever carrying for ages. A more restrictive definition of technique would be to me uninteresting to me, it would be just a sort of trivia. And I would say of limited interest to players as well -and consequently a distorting point of view when comparing players- since they would be quite unwilling to fully develop certain skills to the expenses of other more useful ones.
Completely agree, and that is why I value the late 70s/ early 80s brazilian players so much. They fully mastered all the four technique branches you listed. Later on, I think you had very rare, if you had one at all, examples of 360 degrees skilled players. Messi only maybe. Ronaldinho was a Jedi master of dribbles and flicks, but surely not an immaculate passer and shooter. Same for Neymar. And not to mention the robotic players of today. nowadays.
I would say Gascoigne was better at dictating the play, and would also be more pressure-resistant deep in midfield (but partly because of physical qualities) Gazza - Italia 90 But Le Tissier wasn't really similar to Van Nistelrooy (including not being as efficient as goal poacher in the area of course), and could often use little touches, juggles etc very well to evade opponents in tight spaces: Matt Le Tissier – Le God | Best Goals & Skills Compilation Matt Le Tissier - TWO incredible goals in ONE game vs Newcastle United
Yeah, I did feel Ronaldinho's extreme ball manipulation skills could see him in a high placing (and he could make some very good passes for sure, but yeah overall as a passer I wouldn't think was one of the best or most reliable).
Not that I entirely agree with the common consensus, but from my intake of commentary from various players and pundits, is that the players that tend to receive the greatest level of praise for their technicality, such as Andres Iniesta for a more modern day example, who gets tons of praise from his Spanish teammates for his technical brilliance, would be the press-resistant, tight space ball manipulator types. Andres Iniesta is not my idea of a player who has mastery over all sorts of ball striking, yet he is probably ranked over players with broader mastery of various technical aspects of the game. So while incomplete technicians such as Mousa Dembele is not my idea of the perfect technician, things like press-resistance does seem to be the primary core qualifying condition that marks a technician. For how many define the terminology at least. An example of that being, maybe Kevin De Bruyne being much less of a technician than David Silva, even if he is more two-footed and the accuracy of his delivery is more immaculate. Mainly because of his relative lack of composure under pressure compared to David Silva. The problem with all-encompassing technical mastery approach for me, is two-fold: 1) It isn't how many people categorize technicians. 2) It becomes really difficult to isolate and measure, leading it to look more like a list of just good players who may or may not lack athleticism. It is more difficult to notice where the technicality ends, and when general functionality on the pitch begins. Whereas a great volley technician probably is easier to notice both in practice and on the field.
Of course, press-resistance does rely on physicality. Marco van Basten with frame of Mesut Ozil would not have the same composure under pressure, even if his level of touch and ball control was the same. But for me personally, press-resistance is the key indicator for a technical player that enjoys his time with the ball. Francesco Totti, for me, who has some of the most ridiculously inventive quick-release one touch passes I've ever seen, would probably not make my top 50 technicians of all-time, for that reason. I was just mentioning players who I thought automatically disqualified due to their lack of comfort in elongated scenarios of having the ball, such as Ruud van Nistelrooy, even if they had immaculate levels of first-touch and finishing technique. So if that capacity is significant enough to disqualify Ruud van Nistelrooy (for me at least), maybe the qualities like excellent ball-striking and first-touch is not enough to place Matt Le Tissier above Paul Gascoigne. However, an all encompassing approach seems good (but more difficult to execute and explain). I have trouvle reverse-engineering the approximate ratios for all the traits, especially since I am unfamiliar with many of these players. But I get that dribbling and press-resistance is of relatively lower importance. Then again, aren't there amazing ball striking technique players like Gunter Netzer? I am assuming ball striking technique still ranks below press-resistance in terms of importance for you?
I think I was seeing it as a pretty equal split between the 4 categories, with press resistance not specifically being one but being affected by reception/control of the ball and then also smoothness/accuracy when moving with the ball (away from players, through the pressing etc potentially). I think actually Alessandro10 may have been thinking more of the control and close skills when he started the thread though indeed, from what I understood of how he was looking at things, and less of the ball striking/passing techniques side. Like I say there must be lots of good options, but Netzer was excellent with passes and could place the ball very accurately when finishing too, and that will be aided by a sure technique in those respects. He could run well with the ball too, and control it well of course, but I guess I hadn't thought of him as technically speaking being a leader in any of the 4 categories as such from what I saw/know necessarily. But I think yeah, if I would be right to see Antognoni or Prosinecki ahead for example (but not as overall players) it would be more on the side of close ball skills (more akin to an Iniesta perhaps) that that would be decided, while Netzer I'd say was a bit more vibrant, explosive and for those reasons (and his passing, and yeah technically for passing he can be ahead too I'd say, even though for sure Antognoni had the capabilities to play excellently delivered ones I've noticed and Prosinecki was generally skillful including with passing) plus that he might have had better instincts (including for spotting passes and delivering them I'd think) and rhythm/flow when going forwards and combining with team-mates he's probably seen as the higher valued player/legend among them: 1972 Away Günter Netzer vs England Günter Netzer ● The Rebellious Hero (HD) Amazing Playmaking Specifically for the Iniesta-like qualities maybe this is good for Antognoni Giancarlo Antognoni vs Juventus Serie A 1982 1983 (According to DBS Calcio's ratings it's only around his average for the season though, albeit a still good by Italian rating standards 6.5, without end product) This illustrates it pretty well for Prosinecki (and gives glimpses of him actually being more elaborate with skills/tricks than Iniesta to be fair): Robert Prosinečki vs Italy 1990 Euro U-21 | Masterclass I had actually compared him to Netzer (as a close comparison in style/gameplay) though I remember, while another guy had compared him with Zidane in that respect (not just for skills, but carrying the ball too IIRC) on an old thread I remember: it's probably a mixture though (a bit of Netzer, a bit of Zidane kind of) in his peak (in his case young, and with a starring part for Red Star Belgrade in 90/91 of course) I'd say....
From my research, the most easily gathered praises about a player's technical prowess, tend to be for teammates that are unusually difficult to dispossess during training. It was why I initially assumed a higher proportional valuation for it, basically because it is the easiest option both in terms of how you check for it visually, and off anecdotes from professionals. Like, there isn't really a way to know exactly how bad somebody is at redirecting an aerial ball with his head with a backwards flick (as in with his eyes facing away from the enemy goal), if he never tries it, and teammates never bother to describe it. I guess my problem with giving equal points for all four categories, is that there is a high risk of the conversation overlapping into functional excellence. For example, a forward player gains functional advantage the moment he can receive aerial balls with his head or chest. I think Roberto Baggio, despite having a fantastic first touch, cannot be described as an elite receiver of cornerkicks, crosses and long balls aimed above his chest. Even for shooting technique, there is aerial heading accuracy that cannot be associated with the ability to win aerial duels. There are incredibly accurate headers of the ball who aren't necessarily the tallest or the most likely to win aerial duels. And that complete technical mastery of various ways of scoring goals, would make the list a nightmare to make, and it is really hard to gauge the heading accuracy of players such as Andres Iniesta. Is he just never in position, or is he actually just terrible at it technically speaking? Should Paul Scholes be ranked higher if he has infinitely better aerial technique and long ball technical ability? It just seems really difficult to balance, and the better it gets balanced, the closer it gets to just who is better.
Yeah, I guess chest (or thigh for example) control wouldn't necessarily be out of the equation I would be working with and for someone like Pele, or Cantona say, it might not be an insignificant consideration. I suppose with heading various aspects (not only 'bravery' or height, but also enthusiasm for it and timing for example) can come into it, but certainly technique is part of it and again it could probably fairly be a significant consideration I'd think for a Sandor Kocsis for example. Enzo Scifo was capable of scoring, largely because of technique, with a header from the edge of the box too (but whether I really considered that is doubtful I think!). I suppose tackling is even a skill in a way, although I'd say it leans more towards timing and execution rather than touch and skill, so it would seem reasonable to not see it in an assessment of technical players I think. Some things wouldn't be in the equation anyway; speed, power, vision, reactions etc. I suppose I just feel like technical playing of the ball is very much part of the overall technique although like I say the technique stat on PES is more specific to the ball control side of things I believe, and Alessandro10 may well have been thinking along those lines when he started the thread (other contributers weren't though necessarily). I was thinking in your comment re: Bergkamp you had referred to through ball technique in effect - I'd have to look back at that post again closely, but it may be you were thinking of technical skill allowing him opportunities to play through balls under pressure I guess (although overall through ball assist numbers don't provide a visual cue on how the assists exactly happened I suppose). EDIT: As an aside I guess passing technique (or quality/effectiveness overall anyway) can be somewhat of a press-deterrence (because of threaded balls or over the top balls that a great passer might be able to play when being closed down, taking advantage of space opening up behind the closer-down), although in some situations maybe more a press-motivator (as with shooting/finishing technique) i.e "close him down before he can pass/shoot!" If I removed distribution and finishing techniques from consideration (I don't but I'm just thnking what if I did and let's say the categorisation was clarified as 'ball skill technique' or something similar) I'd say the movements up and down (bearing in mind I'm far from certain/settled from one place to the next anyway though) could be indicated here - in blue for going up and green for going down (without saying how far, just a general estimation, and maybe I'm not even certain for Zidane moving to the very top): Zico Zidane Maradona Bergkamp Ronaldinho Hoddle Best Del Piero M.Laudrup Stojkovic Baggio Pele Cruyff Hagi Messi Totti Cantona Van Basten Rivera Francescoli Le Tissier Scifo Platini Riquelme Cassano Romario Zola Figo Falcao Antognoni Deyna Rui Costa Letchkov Bohinen Ortega Ronaldo Nazario Djalminha Beckenbauer Iniesta Savicevic Socrates Didi Puskas Osgood Pirlo Hidegkuti Bebeto Neymar Merson Prosinecki Marcelinho Santos (estimated) Schiaffino (estimated) Meazza (estimated) Sindelar (estimated) Pedernera (estimated) Rivelino Xavi Dalglish Veron Raul That'a just a brainstorm with an estimate, but it makes sense more are in green surely because there would be other players entering the equation. For quite a few I was a bit uncertain either way, including Messi for what it's worth, while I hesitated about putting Michael Laudrup, Rivera, Francescoli in blue, and between Zola and Figo I was uncertain both ways for sure, but I do think Zola gains more from the finishing technique side of things, and Figo somewhat more for the in-motion technical control side of things at least.... EDIT - I even changed my mind last minute lol; erring to Beckenbauer and Xavi in green as well after re-consideration.
I think a metric like this, where players are measured for the frequency with which they are pressured, and their ball retention rates under such scenarios, would have been very complementary for players such as Andres Iniesta, who I personally think is best defined by his press-resistance. I think if you are the kind of player who has this sort of snapshot reoccurring often across your career, you're probably a technical player. I personally don't have much problems describing Andres Iniesta as one of the finest technicians I have seen, because I personally do not associate the word technicality with complete functionality involving the ball, or complete mastery over all crafts involving the ball. It does not really matter to me if Andres Iniesta cannot tackle as well as Steven Gerrard, head the ball as accurately as Steven Gerrard, or strike the ball as accurately from distance as Steven Gerrard. I personally can imagine a team of eleven cloned Andres Iniestas losing to a bunch of eleven clones of other players regarded as being inferior technically speaking. However, I think the cloned Iniestas will look more refined with their extended time on the ball, regardless of the end result. Technicality from my viewpoint is more of an excellence via a specific method of contribution that is commonly seen in players with a terrific first touch, composure under pressure, and the ability apply nuanced finishing touches like throughballs and lobs over keepers that require the most immaculate timing and weighting, whilst often in motion. So if Marcelo thinks Isco is the most technically refined player at Real Madrid, I don't translate that as Isco having to master all crafts regarding the ball. And I do not expect a player like David Trezeguet to be labelled as a technician even if his technical mastery of how to head and strike the ball inside the box is miles and miles ahead of Andres Iniesta. A fullback does not need to have the greatest chest control, and a goalkeeper does not require world class crossing ability. As for the classification of the very press-resistant types, versus the more technically refined across broader realms types, I was thinking maybe Riquelme could go under the press-resistant type. I also think Marco van Basten could maybe be a press-resistant type.
I think we're not miles apart then because I'd have been thinking along the same lines in the sense that I wouldn't be thinking of overall proficiency/efficiency/effectiveness in taking shots, making passes, but more on the side of the technical quality (although it will have an effect on the accuracy and reliability, even sometimes speed, of shots of course). I guess you could even say your definition would be pretty much in the ballpark of a categorisation for 'finesse'? Examples I'd include but perhaps you wouldn't or partially wouldn't...? Marco van Basten v Soviet Union, 1988: 60 Great UEFA Goals Temp 89-90 Jornada 33 Barcelona-Valencia - YouTube (From 3:06: I'd include the cross by Laudrup not only the play with the ball beforehand) Michel Platini - Juventus vs Argentinos jr - Finale Coppa Intercontinentale (1985) Luis Figo All 87 Assists Barcelona (see the assists 50-52 vs Alaves - all of the crosses played there for example) 1979 hoddle forest Corinthians 3 x 0 Santos - Campeonato Paulista 1980 (shot by Socrates at 0:41) Maybe this pass by Pirlo (I just wonder whether it's more over-the-top than through ball but maybe you'd not be quibbling about terminology) you would include though, not only Baggio's reception of the ball? Perfect Pirlo pass for Brilliant Baggio goal - Juventus v Brescia I guess anyway you would be crediting the technique at 1:17 by Zico here in the through ball category? Udinese-Napoli 4-1 Serie A 83-84 14' Giornata Maybe you're narrowing it a bit more towards finesse and my 4 categories encompass something more like 'technical mastery' (where some players are better suited in some fcets of it and others in others - for you I guess there could be some distinction between through balls, chips, ball reception and in-motion skill though at least as there will be some variance - for example Xavi over Raul for through balls but not chips, Zidane over Iniesta for ball reception but not in-motion skill perhaps....)?
I guess for Bergkamp examples we'd both include this goal (and various chips, or the one in the FA Cup at Sunderland in 96/97; probably for both the skills and finish) Dennis Bergkamp gol a Inglaterra 1993 - YouTube (even though it is a volley as well as a lob) But this one (and maybe the WC98 one vs Argentina even, for both the control and finish) maybe I'd be factoring in (or partially - not all the power was to do with technique perhaps and the aiming of the ball isn't about the technique either even if it helps keep it on target) and you I guess wouldn't LMP: Berghamp vs Bolton
Thinking about it, I guess my preferred definition of the technical player would be something like: A player, through a combination of: - The ability to make a ball his own via things like excellent first touch - The ability to retain ownership over the ball regardless of timing constraints or lack of operative space, through things like press-resistance - The ability to freely time how to release the ball back into play for others, or a shot on goal Is able to basically remove other players out of the equation (as much as it is humanly possible) in terms of deciding the fate of the ball, once he receives it, both in terms of where the ball goes, and when and how his ownership of the ball ends. Maybe someone like Marco Verratti. You cannot really dictate tempo with the ball unless you are relatively uninfluenced by opponent press, so for me, this has much higher proportional score than volleying technique, when defining a technical player. You'll have the Worst day if you Press Verratti !! Basically, a player that has total command of tempo and space once he has the ball at his feet. A player that can both do an immediate one touch pass to a teammate, but also has the capacity to buy time and beat the press whilst his teammates move into more threatening zones or angles. These players often tend to be playmakers, but it does not necessarily mean that they also possess complete mastery of other techniques that are practiced by world-class defenders or strikers. I don't mind playmakers being crowned as the kings of technicality. It is when their functional capacity is automatically deemed as superior, and people start to make a thousand excuses for their failures, that I start to unwind into madness. No matter how immaculate David Trezeguet is at volleying the ball, he cannot really be defined as a world-class technician unless he has some of those key qualifying characteristics for me. Bruno Fernandes, no matter how functionally sound he is as a chance creator, isn't really the best example of a world-class technician for me for this reason also. It isn't a description of his functionality, rather his capacity to influence via a certain manner, and it is not an all-encompassing thing that points out who has the most widespread utility across multiple roles or the most broad skillsets, because I would pick a whole bunch of players over a player like Thiago Alcantara, in terms of raw pragmatism, but I still think he oozes technical class. If I associate Thiago Alcantara as being more technically sound than Bruno Fernandes, it does not mean I checked for every facet of his technicality including his tackling form, the accuracy and dip of his freekicks, and the exact swerve and spin on the ball during his corner-kicks. It probably just means I think he is in more control over the ball, once he gets it, more so than Bruno Fernandes. So if a technically elite player like Marco van Basten has elite volleying capacities on top of the usual marking traits I've listed, even if it does mean he is more technically broad in terms of his range of mastery, maybe I still rate a player who might be more narrow in terms of how he handles aerial balls with his head, or how to strike the ball across a whole variety of potential goal-scoring scenarios, like Dennis Bergkamp, as still being the more technical of the two. Not because of the range of mastery, but due to his profile. Zico for me is technically elite, but maybe it is more that it is harder to notice a gaping hole in his repertoire of technical skills for attack, rather than Zico being absolutely the most press-resistant player of his era (although I think it might be mostly due to his lack of core strength rather than blatant technical deficiencies). Michel Platini for me qualifies more as a stupendously intelligent player with amazing passing and off-the-ball, rather than being the ultimate technician who is impossible to dispossess even under the most difficult scenarios. Glen Hoddle with his two-footed passing range also seems a smooth operator of the ball, but maybe more inclined as an amazing passer, rather than the ultimate technican under tight spaces. Diego Maradona seems more apt, for me personally. Andrea Pirlo by default fails to qualify as an all-time technician even if he is a genius, because I feel he moved to the regista role exactly for the reasons I've stressed. He is not a player immune to press, or a player unfazed by difficult-to-operate-tight-space-zones. Of course, he is deadly the moment he is even slightly left in open spaces, and can decide the fate of the game with a single kick of the ball, but still, not my idea of the perfect technical player. A dangerous player, but that does not mean the most technical, even in the clip with the sumptuous pass to Roberto Baggio, he was left wide open because a teammate ate up an aggressive press-attempt by the opponent. I also think someone like Isco qualifies as a technician more than someone like Xabi Alonso, even if the latter possesses passing technique beyond Isco's wildest dreams. Zinedine Zidane probably gets into world-class status off this quality alone, even if I think he was not the most immaculate passer of the ball, or in possession of the best off-the-ball movement. Luis Figo being comfortable with the ball makes him a technician, his deadly accurate crosses turns him into a functional assist-threat versus a fullback. At least that is the way I see it. The technical mastery of the delivery of the pass, no matter how perfect, cannot really place him above the likes of Zinedine Zidane, even if I think Luis Figo was much more likely out of the two to provide an assist once he had the ball at his feet. It is a very narrow viewpoint, but I think it sort of matches how players usually complement technicians. So it is just easier. It seeems to basically boil down to who is the hardest to steal the ball off from, during training sessions and during the actual games (especially those who flaunt this capacity like Zinedine Zidane, rather than those who functionally work around the press). Which is why a player like Mousa Dembele seems to be mentioned in high-regard by Belgian national team representatives, and his club teammates. "Could of won Ballon D'or!" Mousa Dembélé the Most Underrated Player Ever. #shorts #football Of course, a masterful technician who has ridiculous levels of ball retention, who also has mastery of other technical crafts, becomes a superlative functional threat. A better player, if you will. Otherwise, that player becomes just another version of Mousa Dembele, who is really hard to dispossess and an awe to watch, but doesn't really make the most out of that technical capacity.
Maybe it's time to wind down the explanatons/definitions at this point @Letmepost but I understand your perspectives fully anyway (especially after the new post, even more so). Maybe in the same way that the idea of a 'technician' became engrained in your mind, phrases like "that was great technique on that volley" or similar stuck with me through the years of watching/following football. I think when I produced my original attempt at 40 names I used the title 'All-round technical qualities' so I guess that makes it distinct from a narrower definition. There seem to be similarly different ideas about how technique and skill should be described (as separate things) in football I see online, with skill being somewhere between innate ability used for touches of the ball, and perhaps playing the ball too, and a contrasting definition relating more to acquired abilities through training, including mental ones (equating more with workplace 'skills' I guess). So I guess it all comes down to definitions. Anyway, yeah, I wasn't placing Trezeguet for example as among major candidates for 'all-round' technical ability, so in essence we don'r really disagree on the theory, but just perceive different definitions (or prefer a slightly different titling of a technique-based classification). For what it's worth lol I think I would fare better with your preferred definition than my own, in terms of my own proficiency in football, and secondly I prefer a ground based skillful gameplay from teams I'm watching in general, so my idea here wouldn't have some sort of bias at least, but just be formed by associating the word technique with certain shots, passes etc, historically (and logically; but I don't say your idea or Alessandro10s or Pro Evolution Soccer's is illogical - it's just more specific). That said remove volleying and I'd perhaps be more in doubt re: my own proficiency; remove set-piece shooting (or free-kick shooting - I probably had/have better chances from corners if anything I think lol) and I could start to think I should change my mind. And likewise I do enjoy variety in football, and found some of the brilliant volleys for example great to watch....
Perhaps if I was separating out each section within my overall definition I'd go with top 7s for each of them something like this, I think: - Ball Reception & slow speed/static ball manipulation technique: Zidane, Ronaldinho, Maradona, Bergkamp, Djalminha, Cantona, Prosinecki (despite putting Bergkamp and Cantona in green before to indicate going down from 4th and 17th in my listing respectively with the narrower overall classification) - In-motion dribbling/carrying techniques and control with forward momentum: Best, M.Laudrup, Maradona, Savicevic, Rui Costa, Iniesta, Ortega - Distribution (various passes, crosses) techniques: Bergkamp, Hoddle, Zico, Platini, Cruyff, M.Laudrup, Figo (noting that it's not the same as overall proficiency, and for example range is influenced by more than technique - I think of Platini 1st for passing probably, and noting Figo, who I put in blue previously to suggest perhaps raising from 28th with the narrower definition (while I put Laudrup in blue too to suggest a possible raise from 9th), would be entering here because of the crossing aspect while others like Stojkovic and Totti would be ahead otherwise for example) Finishing (all sorts of shots, including volleys and direct free-kicks) techniques: Zico, Romario, Hagi, Del Piero, Puskas, Van Basten, Le Tissier
1) Importance of press-resistance As a final note, it may be just a forcing a modern narrative onto the past. Compactness in defensive shapes seem to be much more pravelent today. Whereas players of the past seem to compensate for the huge open spaces by more aggressive man-handling. So the relative importance of press-resistance and game-changing ball-striking press technique may not be the same today. Basically, as I see it: A) More compactness and systemized subtle body checks: press-resistance matters more B) Less tactical compactness but more mano-a-mano brutal challenges: game changing ball-striking may rise in importance, because the brutal challenges are not sustained or organized in nature like systemized pressurizations 2) Ball-striking technique There is indeed beauty and functional relevance in game-changing ball-striking technique. Even though I personally do not categorize Steven Gerrard as an elite technician, it is more due to the lack of adherence of a certain profile, namely, having ridiculous levels of ball comfort under tight scenarios. I also get why Matt Le Tissier might rank above Paul Gascoigne as a technician, if the proportional score for ball-striking technique was raised. If we had some sort of detailed tallies for all types of goals, such as volleys from various angles and distances, it would be easier to track the spectrum of the various goal-scoring techniques for individual players, and their relative proficiency for the various scenarios. Matt Le Tissier does have a sick collection of difficult-to-replicate-in-training technical goals, but whether he truly did master the various crafts of scoring goals, is another question. I would wager somebody like David Trezeguet may have greater range of functional mastery, if technique is being measured with functionality and range in mind.
Yeah, re: Le Tissier and the finishing skills aspect, I already planned to come back and adjust my 7 for that category (the order of some of the odd-number inclusions) as I'd feel a bit more satisfied with this if I'd taken longer to consider it before posting (and it's probably more consistent with the overall order I had proposed before, considering the other categories also): Zico, Romario, Puskas, Del Piero, Le Tissier, Van Basten, Hagi Like I said re: passing the range of shooting capability isn't purely about technique so I think with that in mind I had Hagi a touch too high earlier, as I might feel Puskas had more expertise in terms of the technique-enabled placement of shots, sometimes with movement on the ball (including inside to outside swerve) but often straighter, even if I've also said he didn't seem to show some of the more modern curled style finishes for example like a Baggio did (but it can be somewhat or a lot to do with the different balls). Le Tissier never scored a volley quite as brilliant as MVB's in Euro 88 and would be behind for overhead kicks too I'd think (though he scored one vs Forest in the game linked below I remember - he could do it for sure!), but though Van Basten was a better scorer, even finisher overall, I think for finishing technique he can slot behind Le Tissier if anything maybe.... Nottingham Forest - Southampton FC, 26/10/1991 - First Division (- 91/92) - Match sheet | Transfermarkt It's possible I didn't consider enough some players not in my overall 60 names, for the separate categories, I guess though anyway....
Yeah, the bicycle-type kick I was thinking of is on here (just after another pre-PL-era goal featuring an excellent finish on the half volley) - it wasn't strictly speaking an overhead kick though (but I think he was more limited by physique than by technique if he wasn't capable of one of those anyway): Matthew Le Tissier, Le God [Best Goals] 4:19
Sorry to interject with another discussion about definitions, but the list might have some bias versus elite strikers who may have more functional ball-striking technique adapted for maximal goal-scoring off those shot-techniques alone, as opposed to players who frequently score difficult-to-replicate-during-training screamers like Paolo Di Canio. Unlike things like press-resistance and first touch, which can be tested across the entire field (maybe with different degrees of difficulty, it is probably more difficult to be press-resistant in the middle of the pitch due to the potential angles of attack), I think it is somewhat unfair to raw-strikers like David Trezeguet who has to be tested across a whole repertoire of strikes whilst being airborne, in awkward unbalanced stances that cannot be sustained if somebody tried to copy that particular body configuration like a Yoga pose, one-touch finishes without having the perfect copy-and-paste alignment of the hips, the angulation of the main-striking foot, appropriately-spaced planted non-striking foot, and the ball placed perfectly like a golf-ball on a tee. I would wager that 99% of footballers never get fully tested for their actual full repertoire of shot-taking technique aside from their preferred finesse shots of their choosing. Especially more so, for midfielders and wingers, who often have the capacity to manipulate the ball to get into ball-striking scenarios of their preference. For example, Alessandro Del Piero may have a sick curling shot from a slanted angle, also seen from strikers like David Villa, but I think these shot-techniques are all planted in nature, and more of a golf-ball-esque strikes, where the body-to-ball alignment is pretty much the same every time. It explains why Del Piero is such a great freekick-taker also, but I am not sure if his shot technique remains that impeccable if he has to do the similar ratio of aerial shots, or shots with weird body configurations that makes finesse shots less of an option. Although, that may be more of a test of reaction time, strength, and body contortion (Luis Suarez, or David Trezeguet-type body contortions just to make proper contact with the ball). If a player lacks the kind of dribbling or pace, to not get into these finesse curling shots in massive volumes, is that indicative of their lack of shooting technique, or their lack of on-the-ball capacity to maximize the frequency of a very particular profile of a shot? It is also why I hesitate before naming Lionel Messi as the greatest technical finisher of all-time, despite expected goal-overperformance metrics suggesting so, at least from a modern day sample size, because most of his shots are planted in nature, and it is more his impeccable fine control prior to the actual shot-technique that amazes me, as opposed to the difficulty of the finish itself, from a raw technical angle. The discussion of the best shot-taking technique is so much harder than things like first-touch, because I don't know what we are measuring exactly. If strikers, and all-time great goal-scorers with their own sets of particular goal-scoring techniques are glossed over, to over-emphasize amazing freekick takers, that account for what, maybe 5% of all goals, whereas heading technique and fine directional changes with the neck muscle are mostly ignored despite accounting for like 15% of all goals, there may be a problem. Surely finishing technique, especially one that emphasizes all kinds of shots (maybe differently valued by their occurence rate), should have more strikers than long-range snipers like Gheorghe Hagi, who probably would start to look much less refined, if forced to take a lot of one-touch shots whilst being unbalanced, and airborne shots with the head. It is really difficult for me to accept midfielders like Gheorghe Hagi being placed over elite goal-scoring strikers who basically built their entire careers off shot-technique only, like David Trezeguet.
Yes, I understand what you mean @Letmepost . I think I was leaning to real stand-out technical finishing, as opposed to, or at least above, reliable replication of more 'normal' technical finishing, but yeah Trezeguet would be a good example I think for someone scoring with shots others would find too awkward - this one being perhaps a famous example (albeit I always felt the assist was at least 50% of this goal, and even the placement of the pass/cross is kind of inviting...and Pires knew who he was passing to, including how tall he was I suppose, which is maybe another factor sometimes with these things) Last Ever Golden Goal Trezeguet vs Italy Euro 2000 #goldengoal #euro2000 #france #italy We don't have xG stats of course for a Del Piero or Hagi, but certainly there merit is more in outstanding strikes than reliability I'm sure. I guess it can be similar for ball control where a Zidane has more truly outstanding examples of first touch play (I guess his bad touch rate would be low too though) while a Scifo I think might have a high percentage of generally very good first touches (at least his touch seems very sound and often replicated, to me). In this case I did have this in mind, positively, for Scifo (contributing to a top 25 placement suggestion overall), but I think it does still fit technicality while reliable finishing (off normal ground shots within range of goal, especially if there has been time to set up to take them, and especially if after a good pass) seems less clear to be outsanding technicality I suppose. I do think Messi, at a certain point in his career, around when he also became an outstanding or sometimes outstanding free-kick taker too (though he had some excellent technical finishes at a young age too, like the Copa America chip for example), became a player who can rate pretty well in the finishing element of my equation (I say equation but it's an estimation, not involving calculations of real or assigned numbers of course), but yes his goalscoring owes quite a bit to other things too. Like I said before I was uncertain if he'd go up or down my list (I guess it wouldn't be any big movement at least) with your technique definition replacing the one I'd worked to myself, in my estimation (his speed running with the ball is also not totally about technique of course for example, although not nothing to do with it either).
I suppose like I kind of hinted at as well @Letmepost I only included players I had already in my 60 player overall list when I did those estimations by sub-category, so I wasn't really opening up my thoughts to consider specialists in one particular sub-category that wouldn't likely be realistic candidates overall. Gianluca Vialli perhaps comes to mind as a random-ish example too: A few career goals from Gianluca Vialli Pes Miti del Calcio - View topic - Gianluca VIALLI 1988-1992 & 1994-1996
It is clear we have different views on many aspect of the game and I don't want to be overly quarrelsome towards you, I respect your opinions and consider your standpoints as a challenge to confront my ideas with, so despite I think for instance that you are too "democratic" in your choices, that is, you tend to limit maybe a-priori the number of categories a player is selected into, I will not protest any nomination you made. Except for one case, that I believe would represent a massive blunder, and that has to do with one of my favorite player ever, I mean Eder of course since we are dealing here with finishing technique. I believe he has genuinely been one the seven (in my mind he would pass even a tighter selection, but you chose to have seven champions per category) best shooters ever. Surely not inferior (actually I think better by some margin) to Del Piero, Van Basten, Hagi.