............. ... Honestly ..speaking to you .... After watching all of Thierry Henry's full matches... 2002-2003 season Ballon d'Argent losing to Nedved ... exactly yes and for me in a fair way . Nedved shone most in Big Matches... and naturally more one Total Footballer . Before this, Henry... was lucky with me... I remembered from him more... from the Premier League... who was undefeated champion...]]in 2003-2004 I had a... very distorted image of Henry..... Mbappé is easily better than Henry on my view .. Henry...wasn't a total footballer, doesn't marking ..tackling ..headers won ... and very hasty.
for me ... Henry == Ronaldinho Gaucho ...in general ... the same problems on the field ............but with different Styles Of Play .. "! Off the ball .... playing like a center-forward .... more to left .. "!
But .. Ronaldinho Gaucho better .. technically and skills than Henry . "! Henry better physically ... .. Mentally speaking... Two completely limited players. Henry had better numbers... He was a little bit more tactically awareness and better than Ronaldinho on this .
Roma - Milan (Copa Italia 1990-1991) Gullit, Van Basten, Voller, Rijkaard, Maldini, Baresi, Donadoni with Gullit on the field Ac Milan were destroying with AS Roma ...Away-game.. dominating the game completely ... Gullit was injured in the 27th minute of the first half and came off . then ... from Gullit's departure from the field Ac Milan was wiped off the map humiliated by Roma with Van Basten pretty bad on this decisive Match there always ..
And this is where you are FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. It would be one thing to argue that this idealistic scenario and it is not practically possible and that it is impossible to discern teammate's quality in real world example so gc% is useless, BUT to say that in this idealistic example Ronaldo is not a more impressive performer, that his G/A per game is not more difficult to attain than Bale's, that, to be completely honest, misses common sense, rationality and the most basic understanding of football. I dont think you are dumb. I think you've digged yourself a big enough hole that you are stuck now. You initially bite way more than you could chew and now you are doubling down to protect your reputation and cheerished beliefs. To directly respond to your comment.. No, it is not exactly the same context across the board (as clearly articulated in my original post). The same teammates (of the same quality) and within the same system and dependancy, produced less goals (0,8 gpg) in the case of Ronaldo than in the case of Bale (1,0 gpg). That is NOT the same context. The performance of teammates tells us that the environment in the Ronaldo's case, was more harsh to score in than in the case of Bale,.. for whatever reason. Perhaps, Ronaldo's sample is from more difficult league (against tougher opponents) where it is expected to score less (which his teamamtes did), so him matching Bale's GC tally is more impressive. (Also obviously it is the case of super large sample sizes in the idealistic example) If you cant agree in principle with this idealistic scenario, you are simply dead wrong about gc% and you don't understand in the slightest. We should call it a day here and simply agree to disagree. It is a strong disagreement on my side. It couldnt be stronger.. Gc% says that Shearer is better than Ronaldo Nazario, even tho you say that is not true, which prompted you to call flawed . By exactly the same logic, G/A per game says that Gyokeres 2025 is better than Haaland 2023, which you now say is not true. So conclusion is: G/A per game is flawed. So we should discard G/A per game from any further evaluation of players because it is flawed and "misleading".
... Roma - Milan (Copa Italia 1990-1991) Gullit, Van Basten, Voller, Rijkaard, Maldini, Baresi, Donadoni - YouTube Go to Directly 18 : 00 minutes at video there .. ! Gullit did it one very nice Overheadkick ... But .. .. burst injured the lumbar spine of the human back there with this action .. and came off .. "! Go to directly ... 10 : 03 ;;;...... minutes at video there .. "! nice shoots with Power .. "!
That many qualifiers are not necessary for the hypothetical scenario. Playing in the same league is of no direct significance as well as playing against the same defences. The comaprison is strictly between Ronaldo/Bale and his teammates within team. And especially a referee is needless point. What matters is that exactly the same teammates of the same level of performance and within the same system and role distribution/dependancy, produced different independent goals per game. How well teammates perform in this cases is an evidence of how difficult it is to produce goals. And since quality of teammates and their performance and everything within the team is idealistically the same, the only differences are external - a pace of game, opponent's quality, etc. This showcases the underlying principle and differnetiation that gc% does by dividing with team goals. It puts team, teammates and player who is analyzed in that context in a relative relationship between each other. This is exactly what gc% does in principle and why the same individual output with higher gc% is more impressive than equal output with lower gc% Now of course, in real cases, it is not that clear cut, because roels are not the same, dependancy is not the same, the same quality teammates do not perform to their standard all the time (especially for small sample sizes). Also teammates are not of the same quality. It makes it muddy to compare which is why additional interpretation is needed like with every stat already. Those two examples are not related. The Gyokeres v Haaland comparison is to demonstrate that G/A per game is not accurate without natural interpretation of context either. So to expect that gc% yields perfect power ranking without any interpretation are double standards. Just like Gyokeres can have better G/A per game than Haaland yet nobody thinks he is actually better, the fact that Shearer might have higher gc% than Ronaldo Nazario is not flaw of gc%. Gc% serves to see how superior a player is comapred to his teamamtes and obviously it will be easier to stand out against Newcastle players than players from top echelon clubs. Not that it matters for gc% but I think Ronaldo Nazario is overrated regardless lol
One thing is for sure, one way or another, great players will stand out in terms of gc% because it is a measure of how much they are superior to their teammates. Especially if it is the case within a team that has other great players. This of course applies only to positions and roles that revolve around producing and scoring goals.
This is a fairly close indication of how, in similar scenarios, players have very similar G/A Games with the national team (strong team) vs the strongest opponents they faced (Games vs teams that surpass 1900 Elo + Knockout stage in WC) Maradona: Team Goals: 1.002 p90 Non-Penalty Goals: 0.344 p90 Assists Opta: 0.172 p90 Pre-Assists Opta: 0.115 p90 C.Ronaldo: Team Goals: 0.982 p90 Non-Penalty Goals: 0.290 p90 Assists Opta: 0.112 p90 Pre-Assists Opta: 0.045 p90 Totals
Can you add Zico, R9 and Neymar (with time) for me too see one thing? Don't need to be urgent or anything. PD Nice to see you guys going tho, I'm very pleased to see a thousand more posts these days!
are you back my spiritual mate ????... But seriously now... with you I'm curious... about which attribute Zico lacks for you ??? ... you told me you would show me examples about it ...these..weaker Attributes Attributes ??? I'm talking calmly ... and with Open-Mind . "! Could you show me examples with videos of these plays so I can better understand your points about Zico?
.... .... Taking it off the legendary games ..against Belgium and England World Cup 1986 ! What other full-length games do you like more +++ and that you most impressed by Diego Maradona's incredible performances ??? Taking it off Belgium or England 1986 . !
Very very fair comparison: claimant best players in the world vs other claimant best in the world Maradona vs Zico (and Zico vs Maradona as well of course). 1)Copa America 1979 Brasil 2 Argentina 1 Zico 1 goal + 1 assist 2) Friendly 1981 Flamengo 2 Boca Jr. 0 Zico 2 goals 3) WC 1982 Brasil3 Argentina 1 Zico 1 goal + 1 assist 4) serie A 1984-85 Udinese 2 Napoli2 Zico 1 assist Maradona 1 goal + 1 hand-of-SanGennaro goal $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Team non-handball goals Z10=9 M10=3 Player's non-handball goals Z10=4 (44.4%) M10=1(33.3%) Team handball goals Z10=0 M10=1 Player's hanball goals Z10=0 (0%) M10=1 (100%) Player's Assists Z10=3 M10=0 Non-handball(or St. Gennaro) goal contribution: Z10=7/9=77.8%. M10=1/3=33.3% San Gennaro goal contribution: Z10=0/0->0% M10=1/1=100% $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Verdict: Z10 is clear best player of the world https://napleswise.com/essential-th...ory-and-significance-of-naples-beloved-saint/
It doesn't follow logically that if Ronaldo's teammates scored less goals than Bale's teammates, then it were harder for Ronaldo to score his goals lol That's not logical reasoning, thats an inference lol
............ .. What were Zico's most memorable and touching matches for you? That you saw in their entirety Full matches ?
You can call it whatever you want The same teammates of the same quality within the same team context (role/dependancy) and of the same level of performance, over super large sample size, will always produce a ceetain amount of goals per game UNLESS external context is different - the level of oppositions, style of oppositions, etc. If they produce less, it was more difficult to score, if they prodice more, it was easier to score. That value directly tells us about external context, because it is the only thing that can change from Ronaldo and Bale cases
On the spot, I would say 1)Flamengo 3 Liverpool 0 Intercontinental 2)Flamengo 3 Atletico MG 2 Brasileirao 1980 3)Flamengo 2 Cobreloa 0 Final Libertadores 3)Brasil 3 France 1 1981 (this one was only a friendly but the performance was very very fine)
Fraud of the day: João Etzel Filho João Etzel Filho – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre ——————————— Pele: The Autobiography - Pelé - Google Books That is another goal less for Pelé and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if joao etzel filho helped him to a few/many more fake goals. ———————————- In 2010 professor Olten made a shocking revelation: João Etzel Filho the referee who decided Garrincha should play in the final of the 1962 World Cup At the time, there was no automatic suspension. After being sent off in the semifinal against Chile, Garrincha would have to go through a trial for FIFA to decide its fate. The expulsion was due to an attack by Mané, the biggest star of that World Cup, against Chilean Eladio Rojas. Only one person witnessed the aggression: Uruguayan assistant Esteban Marino The video shows that the aggression was unintentional by Garrincha. The expulsion, however, was mandatory : Garrincha could not play the final against Czechoslovakia. There begins the episode told by Olten Ayres de Abreu. “João Etzel took 10 thousand dollars, at the time it was a lot of money. He gave it to Esteban Marino at the behest of the directors of the Brazilian Football Confederation. I met with João Etzel later and he said to me: I was the one who won the World Cup, I was the one who took the 10 thousand dollars and took it to Esteban Marino ”- said Ayres, in an interview with Sportv João Etzel Filho: O Monarca dos Empates | by Puntero Izquierdo | Puntero Izquierdo | Medium
I don’t think it really follows that the teammates’ aggregate goal production tells you directly about how difficult it was for Ronaldo or Bale to score. That would be true if we assumed that teammates are a kind of “constant” in the equation and that their performance reflects only external context. But teammates aren’t constants in that way. Their finishing, shot selection, decision-making, and even form can fluctuate quite a bit independent of external opposition strength. So when you see 0.8 gpg versus 1.0 gpg, you can’t cleanly attribute that gap to the league or style of opposition. Some portion of it is just noise in how well those specific teammates converted their chances. I’ll just illustrate this with a hypothetical. Imagine two players with exactly the same xG per game for their teammates: 1.0. Now, in one case, those teammates actually convert that into 0.8 goals per game. In the other case, they convert it into 1.0 goals per game. The xG tells us that the teammates were generating chances of the same quality in both contexts, but the finishing return differs. That gap isn’t explained by opposition quality, it’s explained by conversion variance. So the idea that “fewer teammate goals = harder context” just doesn’t necessarily hold once you bring xG or conversion variance into the picture. And this really matters when the claim is that Ronaldo’s equal GC% in the lower teammate-output environment shows he was more impressive. If the environment was actually equally favorable in terms of chance creation (but just had different finishing luck from teammates), then Ronaldo’s GC% only looks more impressive because of noise. In that sense, GC% is conflating teammate inefficiency with individual impressiveness. A couple quick further notes on this: 1. The external context could matter, sure, but it’s not the “only thing that can change” between the Ronaldo and Bale cases. Internal teammate variance is another factor, and over large samples, while variance narrows, it never disappears completely—especially if the “large sample” still isn’t infinite. 2. If you wanted a cleaner way to capture whether Ronaldo was operating in a harder or easier scoring environment, you’d probably want to look at something like non-penalty xG per team game rather than raw teammate goal output. That strips out the finishing noise and isolates what was actually being generated against the opposition. So, I think the point is that GC% ends up building in a lot of assumptions that don’t logically follow. The Ronaldo vs Bale example isn’t just showing external context, it’s just as likely showing teammate finishing variance. Which means it doesn’t prove what you want it to prove.