I won't be thanking you for a random message about a 'reductive comment' that annoyed me either Benficafan (I know who you are a big fan of, and always were, anyway and so you have the same motivations as Isaias in that respect in arguing for every angle that helps his cause as 'GOAT' or a contender for it I guess - to be fair I think Isaias probably sees Pele as the GOAT I should clarify, if anything although I could be wrong on that).
I do thank you, and did rep you, for this one though: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/g...e-best-players.2112404/page-180#post-43180447
It should annoy you because it wasn't intellectually honest as the rest of your post is here. I wasn't just defending CR7 in my post so your insinuation that I am doing so because I am a fan of his is misapplied. I was defending Messi too. You have a habit over the years, and I like you as a poster, of downplaying modern player achievements, specifically, CR7. To take their achievements and reduce them to being players that chase records is a serious lack of respect for their body of work, that was driven primarily by the desire to be the best and win trophies and secondarily to beat records. You need to understand the issue with calling players like Messi/CR7 record-chasing players - it not only very unfairly reduces their hard-earned achievements to pursuits of vanity, but it also falsely elevates prior, historical players as better examples of morality in the pursuit of excellence.
The teammate is 50% of the equation there - if 'the player' becomes 'the teammate' you don't see their part as different I guess? 'Pass' = 'ability to create' in your equation. Finish = 'ability to convert'.
They may have had poor morality (Messi in Tello example perhaps, and we know the allegation about CR7 even though you don't seem to care about it I think, irrespective of truth - I'm not sure) but I wasn't classifying 'chasing goals' in a rivalry, that was talked about, as immoral. Cr7 certainly took a lot of shots at goal (the stats say so too) but you may feel that was his best strategy, or that it wasn't flawed overall at least because for every few missed chances to make a key pass or continue a good move he could turn down with it he may score a goal (and it could be argued he peaked in effectiveness when becoming more shot/goal focused in 2007/08 I know). Within my post you quoted was also the part about accepting GC% was if anything more favourable to players on less stellar teams (as long as they weren't completely nulified in those circumstances, without enough support to help them score etc) and I was saying players in better teams played in less games where nobody on their team scores (which works both ways: for team results it's beneficial but for the GC% of a player it can be less so of course) so that part of the argument (not that I think it should be over-stated) could be seen somewhat in support of all players on stacked teams (including them, and Pele for Brazil to be fair for example too it could be said and he still has the best GC%) when it comes to GC% (the part where I talked about 1 or 2 goal games for teams as opposed to 0 goal games and the effect that could have in terms of GC% on overall higher scoring teams over a season).
I am not trying to win anything. I am stating how reality is as accurately and precisely as I can. I think I said "to score more goals than opponent" first, or carlito said it. It doesn't matter. Me repeating this, is not stealing argument from you or anyone, I reiterate it to make a point in that specific post. I absolutely agree with the objective of football being singular: to score more goals than opponent. The objective is not: having more possession have more shots pass ball forward have more dribbles ... There is nothing arguable about that. It is written in the rulebook of the sport. Scoring more is how you win in football. Period. Everything else revolves around achieving this single objective. Tbh, I don't understand what your disagreement and argument actually is. I said what I said about the obsession around goals and misconfusion around goals and goalscorer. You came after me. You seem to have problem with me using the world "realm". Let me clarify that. I said that "objective" and "strategy" are in different realms because the objective of football tells you what you need to achieve - the "what" realm Strategy is in the realm of "how" you are going to each the what. The objective = to score more goals than opponent An example of strategy = relentlessly attack and put pressure in the first 15 minutes to take them by surprise, score 1 or 2 goals, then defend the lead for the rest of the match in a compact low block An example of tactic = man to man high press; direct, long passes to wingers for 1v1 situations and crosses into box; pass to right fullback as a trigger for press, etc.
Of course they are different. They are different words with different meanings. if they were the same thing, they would be the same words. Objective is not the same word as strategy. They mean different things. You simply don't want to understand what I am saying, that is on you trying to ridicule my words as someone who is talking gibberish. The word "realm" for me is appropriate for what I am trying to say. You might disagree or think it is nonrsense. okay. Realm: "field or domain of activity or interest." Basis of my argument? What is my argument then? Say it. I don't know where I said that strategy can exist without objective. You can quote those words of mine. Ive never said that goals are primary objective in football. For a team, the only objective is to score more goals than opponent. Primary implies that there exists secondary objective in football. It doesn't. There is only one objective. Obsfucating what? I am making a simple distinction between goals and goalscorers. Goalscorers do not have claim over goals. Goalscorers on the pitch have function/role of finding themselfs in chances and finishing them. That is one part of chain of events behind each goal. The confusion and obsession I was refering to regarding goals is that people associate goalscorers 100% with goals, because it is mentally easy. Player X scored a goal, so it is the player X the one who made it happen. Player X is the one who gets credited with the goal and ends up on the scoresheet, but that in itself, says nothing about value of action behind the goal. People in general are just cognitively lazy and make the most obvious associations because it is easy. That is why most often football conversation boils down to scoring and stats, because to look beyond it requires a lot of effort.
No. So there is no such things as a clutch save? Because the ball didn't go in? There is no such thing as a clutch last man tackle? Because the ball didn't go in? Defending can never be clutch because it doesn't score a goal?
Among the five cited players, Scholes hands down. Socrates said Scholes was the only midfielder from UK good enough to play for the Selecao. Beckham was proficient at crossing and taking free kicks, but overall technically limited. The other three were where more british than good (to cite a pun that some user introduced us to in this forum). But of course none of them was as good as O Patrao da Bola, possibly the best ball carrier I have ever seen.
Not true. Scoring an open net tap in that 99,9% of this forum would score that required zero off the ball movement or positonal sense for 3-2 win in 95th minute of a world cup final is not clutch. You wouldn't call that action clutch. You would call it lucky, just that timing of it was very fortunate. Clutchness requires providing actual value, performing in moments of high demand and stakes. it is indenpendent of outcome.
No, factually wrong. After Maradona left, Napoli scored 56 goal in a 34 match serie A season, 1 goal less than best season (in terms of scoring) with Maradona by their side (and that one single goal more was likely scored by Maradona himself with an handball ), and significantly better than the average over the seven Maradona-enhanced seasons . Despite an aging, past-his-prime Careca.
To clarify further. Finishing is indeed the most clutchable skill. The most clutch moments in football are indeed scoring goals with clutch finishing. however, that doesnt mean that: 1. Every goal in high stakes moments is necessarly clutch. 2. No other action bar finishing can be clutch. 3. That win is a prerequisite for clutchness.
Maybe zola was in excellent form that season,i am not sure but what happened since then?also serie a gpg increased in the 90's as the game became a little less defensive.
Perhaps right but how would you calculate so many clutch or non clutch goals among presumed clutch goals for so many players? Too many video evidences will be needed.
Yeah, many factors could have influenced the results. But that numbers I reminded are undeniable facts that I would say push your statement -Careca Alemao and Carnevale were mostly reliant on Maradona for scoring- quite in the region of unlikeability (and in any case we don't have other samples telling a different story). That year also average goals/match numbers for the whole serie A tournament were still aligned with those of the Maradona years. Tally started surging the successive year.
Definitions are almost always overly simplistic, but what I wrote is that "the most common way a player can significantly impact the outcome of a football/soccer game is via goals; there's no debate about that," not that it is the only objective way to significantly impact a game, and the value of a long-range goal or a goal from dribbling can be worth more when evaluating what is greater, but a dribble goal, a tap-in, a free kick, a penalty, a heading goal, etc.—all these things have equal 'clutch' value when your team is losing 2-1 in a UCL final in the 95th minute; they all provide the same output, which is a goal, even though dribbling past 8 players and scoring is of a higher caliber then scoring a open net tap in it still provides the same clutch value, which is keeping your team's head above water. As for whether a pass can have more value than a goal (which I almost entirely disagree with, as with a pass you still have to rely on the scorer to finish, and your goalscorer being clinical when you are tied or losing in a big match is the most impactful thing in my eyes), it is, of course, debatable, but the most common way is via the striker being clinical. The individual value of certain plays or passes or goal variations is, in my eyes, an ornamental factor, because what matters most is the goalscorer finishing when it comes to offensive 'clutchness' (defense is another discussion, of course).
I agree! I think 'clutch' is maybe the most versatile term in all of football, since it can apply to entire performances, singular moments, and throughout different stages of the game and any position on the field. My post was simply about the offensive end and what is the most common form of offensive clutchness.
yes, for sure ! ............ ... carlito 86 loves these english players ... But ....... .. This could be Compton, Long Beach But this is Vila Rica, enough of this nonsense If you know how to approach, you'll be approached If you mess up, slip up, a hug! Caught and paid, paid and got caught It all worked out the same, that's when it got blurry Having an attitude in life, that's how it reveals itself I'm from the outskirts, it's the sound of the favela Like Racionais, says Mano Brown A strong presence in Brazilian rap Heavy rap, all the good stuff You're in VR It's hot, it's summer Who (?) in the know can believe That (?) is in the area, come closer, let's go But CJ is at home But once put on the record and party for the guys Welcome to VR Come closer, come closer Only strong bros, only peaceful bros I was born here, raised here, hrum, hrum It's summer in VR, yes yes .... SISTEMA NEGRO - Verão da VR [Clipe Oficial HD]..... Of rooney is good as well ... He has alot Stamina, endurance , bravery .. team-work .. with good technique ....yes ... at Manchester United played pretty well in some Matches ...and in some seasons.. .... ..
That is a false equivalance. Goal is an event of ball crossing the line. Goal is what counts and the objective of the game. You can't compare pass with an event (goal itself). What you meant is: "Can a PASS have more value than a FINISH..." Finishing is not equal to goal itself. Again to go back to the chess analogy: Goal in football = checkmate in chess Finishing = last 2,3 moves to deliver checkmate Passing = move(s) 5+ turns ago that sets up a checkmate pattern. You can't put passing in the same sentence with goal. Passing is a skill, goal is an event. Passing can't be more important than goal. Passing is a skill you use to achieve outcome of "goal". It would be like saying: "Can a chess move that is on a board 7 turns before the checkmate be more important than checkamte?" They are not the same thing. Checkmate is not just finishing sequence, it is all moves prior including checkmate pattern. Goal is not just a finishing touch, but the whole chain of events. Finishing is often the last action in this chain of events, not goal itself. Confusion comes from equating finishing with goal. And I understand why that is. Language is sloppy around these terms and it is deeply ingrained in football terminology. But it is completely wrong. Comparison is always between skills: passing vs finishing. Not passing vs goals.
I don't understand how difficulty to access, count and evaluate actions in terms of clutchness changes anything in principle? Just because it complicates things, it doesn't mean that overly simplistic solution is right one. Some things are difficult to measure and calculate. That is not a reason to reduce conversation to what can be measured and calculated. In face of uncertainty, solution is not to make up certainty by whatever means necessary. Some uncertainty will always remain unaddressed.
No, Praasen .... means .. the last defensive cover for the Team " the last one Attempts " ... can be one bigger save for sure for the whole Team .. to be one Cleansheet action ....yes ,,,... and to be highly a clutch ...action or decisive yes ...for the Team .... .. ..... .. How Ruud Gullit Became the Best Player in the World | Goals, Skills and Assists 1985—1987 Go to directly 5 : 20 minutes at video ...there . "!
at Football Manager ... it comproves the great quality of gianfranco zola i agree with you dear mate ! that Zola globally is very very under-Rated yes always around the whole World and . ! and criminally forgotten for not being a media darling player like Van Hanegem or Overath or Netzer or Zenon are also always forgotten . ........... ... But on Maradona ... no way ... on training schedules .... .. As a main Head-coach or Football Manager , you design and choose training sessions based on the mindsets, philosophies, and type of squad available. so ... Maradona could be making some misses or Lacks by the team and senior professional squad.... when He was there at Napoli in the current squad or in the current season .. .....or in the Training Sessions ..at seasons that Diego was there .. .... This is required by the current contract running in that age . ............. ... Napoli 1991-1992 season ... trained every day... to implement Napoli's new philosophy as a team and the moves or plays with Zola ... ... none player is irreplaceable