Of course it is. Absolutely. At the core, it is laws of physics. You can't physically be at two places at the same time. It is a choice - a trade off. If you drop deep and pass forward, you cant simultaniously be up front, run forward and recieve. Although, quantifying this trade off is very low resolution from a list of only few, all time great names. It exists and it is possible to quantify and it would be extremely interesting, but it would require mapping redundant number of players of all relevant classes to have some kind of certainty regarding the pattern of different roles. Great players are by definition exceptions. Btw, there are only two aliens on the list. It is even worse than just the trade off. If player is great at scoring, he actively decreases his own assists percantage. By scoring, the player rises his team's total number of goals, while his assist numbers stay the same. As Criyff said: "There's a huge difference between a great player and a great goalscorer." It applies in all directions, to all roles. You can't directly compare a player with a niche role with another player who is doing multiple tasks simultaniously. Juggling between multiple roles makes it exponentially more difficult to maintain the output across all of them. This is why context of roles matters and why it is important to always strive for "total contribution" ideal.
There is also a huge difference between a player who can excell in multiple roles respectively whenever he is assigned a specialized role for a match (or certain period of time) and a player who simultaniously can handle, switch and perform tasks on demand at any given moment. This is known phenomenon. It is called Task switching cost ChatGPT: "Task switching cost (also called switch cost or context switching cost) is the performance drop that typically occurs immediately after moving from one task to another. In laboratory task-switching paradigms, people are reliably slower and often more error-prone on the first trial after a switch compared with repeating the same task. (PubMed) A key result from decades of cognitive research is that switch costs are reducible but not fully removable. When participants are given time to prepare for the upcoming task (for example, via advance cues), the cost often shrinks—yet a residual cost remains even with substantial preparation time. This residual component is one reason “quickly switching” can feel feasible while still quietly degrading speed and accuracy. (PubMed) Researchers explain switch costs in terms of executive control and task-set configuration. Switching tasks generally requires (1) shifting the current goal (what is being done), and (2) activating or retrieving the relevant rules/mappings for the new task (how to respond). As rules become more complex, switching time costs tend to increase; with clearer cues, costs tend to decrease—patterns consistent with a staged control process rather than instantaneous “mode changes.” (PubMed) In applied work settings, a closely related concept is attention residue: after leaving Task A, some attention can remain partially engaged with it while Task B is underway, which can impair performance on Task B—especially when Task A is left unfinished. This framing emphasizes not only the act of switching, but the cognitive “carryover” that follows. (ScienceDirect) Importantly, everyday “multitasking” is often better described as rapid serial task switching. When tasks compete for the same control processes, the brain alternates rather than parallelizes, and the costs show up as extra time, more mistakes, and lower quality of thought—particularly for tasks that demand working memory, planning, or complex rule use. (American Psychological Association)"
Btw, task switching cost is a human reason why roles themselves exist across the board in all domains of life. Roles are needed to not cognitively overload performer. More you take on, exponentially more difficult it becomes to perform.
Great Periods Player's non-penalty goals as a percentage of the team’s total goals for Ronaldo Nazario, I only have 1997-2002-2003
Al Gabiru we can do it for Pele and then cross check it or Messi/CR7 and cross check it as the stats for the 2 modern day goats are readily available
Essentially, the level of dominance Messi is displaying in USA is the same level of Pele at his peak in Brazil, a bit lower it seems.
Im basing this by season instead of year (although his statistics would probably be better by year i haven't checked); 88/89 - 93/94 Roberto Baggio (Club + Country) 301 Games 25,598 Minutes 169 Goals 61 Penalty Goals 108 Non-Penalty Goals 13 Free-kick Goals 69 Assists 238 Opta-G+A 25 Non-Opta Assists 263 Non-Opta G+A 436 Team Goals 38.76% Team Contribution via Goals 54.58% Team Contribution via G+A 60.32% Team Contribution via Non-Opta G+A
Everyone is aware of what you are saying, which is that Messi's dominance level (rather than skill or ability) is comparable to Pele's dominance in Brazil, albeit to a slightly lesser degree. It's not that people don't understand you; rather, most people simply disagree with your assertion.
What do you disagree with? Btw, the reason why asked for Messi's stats in USA and why I compare it to Pele's at peak in the first place is because I am trying to imagine in my head how good Pele was and give context to his extraprdinary numbers, which prompted the assertion.
Basically, you're trying to downplay Pelé's numbers by comparing the current MLS with the Brazilian league of the 1960s. You couldn't be further from the truth. Pelé's performance from 1961-1963 represents the best individual peak in the history of football and it's not even close. Nothing compares to this. It's a joke to compare Messi at the end of his career to Pelé at his peak. And it's as much of a joke as comparing the level of the Brazilian league in the 60s with that of the current MLS. The Brazilian championship was one of the best in the world in the 60s. MLS is a far cry from that.
"It's not that people don't understand you; rather, most people simply disagree with your assertion." Are you sure about that? What I am doing, Isaias, is literally the opposite.
His statistics are still superior? the only difference is a lower percentage, which doesn't matter all too much taking in context
Let me rephrase: "It's not that I do not understand you; rather, I simply disagree with your assertion."
I think that, as great as Messi is performing and dominating, Pele's complete desimation of quite literally every team he faced across Brazil is completely unbelievable (not to say Pele never had bad games, but his record vs. every team is incredible; having less than a goal a game against a Brazilian team would lower his average). What I mostly disagree with (although there is nothing from your statement to egregiously dislike and/or disagree with) is the fact that, at least in my eyes, the position from which Pelé dominated is far more impressive than Messi handpicking older stars (and even a younger star like De Paul), whereas Pelé dominated with both superteams and mediocrity, so it is not only more impressive (which you were not discussing, to be fair), but it is also a much further gap of dominance considering Pelé won 23 trophies from 1958 to 1969. which is actually only 1 less than Messi won from 2010 to 2021.
Anyone familiar with Roberto Baggio’s career, his highs and lows, his irregular brilliance, and his injury struggles knows that his peak as a consistently world class performer lasted no later than 1995. There is a reason threads like this exists Is Roberto Baggio the best player without ESM honors? | BigSoccer Forum There is no credible way a player with 0 ESM Monthly selections from 1995/96 until his retirement in 2004 can be classified as one of the best players of that period, let alone be said to have produced one of the most dominant peaks in football history. Between 1995 and 2003 Roberto Baggio was not in the Ballon D’or top 20 even once Sure he could deliver an absolutely world class performance or have world class stretches of form post World Cup 1994(he was good in WC 1998 and very good for a veteran player at Brescia) but the consistency was just never ever there. Pranjit is defending Roberto Baggio even though he doesn’t know who he is and we know exactly why he is doing it Roberto Baggio 1995- is another hole in the G/C method(the only thing in this world that his Crack deity has going for him) and the method is starting to look like Swiss cheese It boggles the mind that anyone who claims to understand anything about football history could somehow think Roberto Baggio post 1995 was better or anywhere near to what he was prior to this.