personally speaking to you , I would never include Ibra in the Top- 500 the greatest players of all time. Honestly, I don't see even Ibra in the Top- 10 in Sweden as a Nation . as Simple as that.
Could you please tell me 10 Swedish football players with a professional career better than Ibrahimovic's?
yes , Gunnar Gunnar Nordahl Henrik Henrik Larsson Karl-Erik Palmér Lennart Skoglund Kurt Hamrin Ralf Edström Nils Liedholm (captain) Gunnar Gren Thomas Brolin Martin Dahlin Kennet Andersson Ove Kindvall for Feyenoord from Holland I've seen these players play their entire matches. Only Gunnar and Karl-Erik Palmér . I've only seen shorter highlights. I'm speaking individually Ibra was very very limited defensively speaking So I'm not talking about team titles. There are so many many more team titles to compete for currently or nowadays . In Gunnar's time the new continental competitions were just beginning to exist in european Calendar year by year . In Ibra's timeline There are many more competitions to win annually, speaking to you.
Ibra at PSG easier years for sure Can you just imagine the havoc Ruud Gullit, Johan Cruyff, or Van Basten would wreak playing in the Eredivisie with no limits on the foreign players in the Squad , full of Brazilians, Argentinians, and Uruguayans? Playing for PSV, Feyenoord, or Ajax and playing together with Gullit , Cruyff , Van Basten ? Van Basten == 60 Goals == + 26 Assists Gullit .............== 44 Goals == + 51 Assists Cruyff ............. == 60 Goals == + 60 Assists ... in every Eredivisie season . "!
Saying that Ibrahimovic was better than Cristiano Ronaldo is the same nonsense as saying that Hatem Ben Arfa Hatem Ben Arfa, Jay Jay Okocha, Djalminha , Roberto Rivellino or Ronaldinho Gaucho were much better than Messi in terms of pure technique, born talent and pure skills. + Nice beautiful Goals in whole career the truth is Professional football encompasses Mental attributes Tactical attributes and Physical attributes + Consistency and effectiveness not only Technical Attributes + cards Of skills .. "!
I don't know enough about Swedish players. He is better than any I've personally seen, and I think this poster had a very thorough list for great players from each nation, and for me is on the very top end in terms of lists made from English speakers attempted for players from my nation, so I suspect it isn't that terrible for Sweden also. He is ill-suited for sustained UEFA Champions League success, given his playstyle and resource demand, but I personally think he has fantastic attributes. My critique is focused more on his traits that for me negatively impacts his rate of UEFA Champions League success, not his ability to shape the team, or the ability bully around less well structured defenses with his individuality. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/top-10-best-footballers-from-each-country.2124082/ SWEDEN – ZLATAN IBRAHIMOVIC-4 (F/10), Nils Liedholm-4 (M/50), Gunnar Nordahl-4 (F/50), Kurt Hamrin-5 (M/50), Ronnie Hellstrom-6 (G/70), Henrik Larsson-6 (F/00), Gunnar Gren-6 (M/40), Tomas Brolin-6 (M/90), Lennart Skoglund-7 (M/50), Bengt Gustavsson-7 (D/50) > Ove Kindvall-7 (F/60), Fredrik Ljungberg-7 (M/00), Patrik Andersson-7 (D/90), Kennet Anderson-7 (F/90), Martin Dahlin-7 (F/90), Erik Nilsson-7 (D/40), Orvar Bergmark-7 (D/50), Roland Nilsson-7 (D/90), Glen Hysen-7 (D/80)
yes , Nice I watched Ibra's entire career. Honestly, he didn't convince me at all and til today . Well, how many of these people actually watched really the entire matches of the older players?????
Watching the entire matches of Sweden in the 1974 World Cup Honestly Ralf Edstrom I found him a much more interesting player than Ibrahimovic Ralf was an ambidextrous feet player shoots from range playmaking and vision his tackling won % was incredible and he was skillful He completed quite a lot of dribbles.
So, feel free to sign him, the famous Ibra at Football Manager. Honestly, from my point of view, I would never spend a lot of money to sign Ibra. IHe is not simply my priority on the senior Squad . possible 26-senior players . !
you ! You're implying that Ibra would replace Cristiano Ronaldo at Real Madrid years without any problems. so What are you saying with this It's the same as saying that Hatem Ben Arfa would replace Messi without any problems at Barcelona years as well. "! If If If If or IFS it doesn't exist on reality !
When did i say or implied that exactly? I literally said the opposite is true already weeks ago: that you cant directly replace players without problem, as players have their own unique profiles. So that is just YOUR false interpretation of my words. What I did say, in nutshell, is that if you improved team around Zlatan, or any other player for that matter, that he would perform better and have more success in ucl; that in a better team, any player plays better. Is that really such a controversial statement? Everybody is speculating all the time here and entertaining counterfactual realities, just that some people are denying that and try to smuggle it in as a fact. For example, this is speculation: Speculation that replacing Zlatan with Cristiano in Real Madrid is like replacing Ben Arfa with Messi in Barcelona.
Depends. For most circumstances, adding Zlatan Ibrahimovic to a squad over any other Swedish player would be my go-to-choice. Then again, who have I really seen? The scenarios where this is not the case might be teams that already has sufficient attacking punch, and the addition of Zlatan Ibrahimovic only would increase the burden on traffic control and tensions within the locker-room. But these scenarios would be in the minority no? The problem with Zlatan Ibrahimovic is that he tags along extra demands of traffic regulation, in terms of where and when the ball comes and goes. He sort of shares that problem with Thierry Henry, who shined more with Robert Pires as a traffic regulator, and did not co-exist particularly well with Zinedine Zidane. I think Zlatan might have filled that sweet spot where his hierarchy within the greater footballing space was too low to demand his preferred levels of prioritization from a superteam with a high chance of winning the UEFA Champions League, and his ability to ease traffic control in such superteams was way too thoroughly lacking, to warrant a complementary role should plan A of being the superstar for a super-team for sustained periods fail. For me, there is no universe that has Zlatan Ibrahimovic dominates the UEFA Champions League as much as Cristiano Ronaldo, unless he is the absolute best player in the world by a significant margin, and everyone, from squad players to the manager, is absolutely hell bent on catering to his needs. And such an era never existed for me. Not since I've started watching football.
No, but because you realized you are wrong. Your answer to that question is obvious, everyone knows it. You clearly think Cristiano would do better than Zlatan if he was in his place. You refuse to answer it because then you would have to concede the point that when you say "Cristiano is better than Zlatan," you mean he would have overall come on top if both of them played in the similar, meaningful set of circumstances. The "better than" statement, in a way that is used 99% of times in debates, implies and asserts counterfactual realities in which a certain player is better than other in consistent and meaningful way. The "better than" statement doesn't have to be counterfactual per se. For example, if someone said player A is better than player B in a specific, real tournament based on criteria A, B and C, this is an analysis based on factual infromations and doesn't involve counterfactuals at all. However, as soon person uses or implies factual analysis to assert that this means Player A would be better than Player B in non-factual circumstances, it becomes a counterfactual claim. Player A scored XYZ goals for Team A in Competition A, which is judged as excellent performance - is a judgement based on facts. As soon as this becomes a reason to assume: Therefore, Player XYZ would have no problem scoring similar amount of goals for Team B in Comeptition A - counterfactual claim. Counterfactual is the most interesting form of evaluation for anyone and the ultimate goal: If we put all players in history to the test in circumstances A, B, C, D, E, etc., for teams A, B, C, D, E, etc., against teams X, Y, Z, etc., for period of X, Y, Z, etc. time, who would have come out on top overall. This is the question of "who is the best player in history of football?" The ultimate question. If we made all circumstances equal for all players, and ran this simulation 1 000 000 times, who would perform the best, who would score the most, who would rise probability of winning the most, who would make their team most successful. So don't give me that no counterfactual bs. Counterfactuals and hypotheticals foundational in human history. The whole point of thinking itself is to consider counterfactual realities. If I have done X, would Y happen. If I do X, will Y happen. That is how science and engineering works. That is how you build planes and fly in the sky. That is how you make a medicine that saves your life. That is how you build Burj Khalifa. That is how you land on the Moon. Only two kinds of people are against counterfactuals and hypotheticals: 1. Short-sighted 2. Dishonest
lmao it is definitely not because I realized I was wrong. Buddy, you literally didn't know the meaning of the words you used. You were, by actual definition, wrong. Yes, I believe Ronaldo would have done better than Ibrahimovic. "You refuse to answer it because then you would have to concede the point that when you say "Cristiano is better than Zlatan," you mean he would have overall come on top if both of them played in the similar, meaningful set of circumstances." You were wrong as to why I didn't answer - I have absolutely no problem conceding that point - so again, you're wrong. You didn't know what counterfactual meant. It's okay. You are literally all over the place and it's difficult to discern what even is your argument or point. You probably don't even know. You speak vehemently about counterfactuals and their crucialness to human development yet 2 days ago you didn't know how to properly use the word. LOL. Also, I was right - you were baiting. You asked a question feigning interest but already assumed to know the answer I had and used it to 'set me up'. And you want to call others dishonest? Puh-lease.
I agree with you, but I would ask: do you think it’s possible to know who is better, mathematically speaking? Imagine we already have the answer and we know how good a player is on a scale from 1 to 10, and we have a player who is an 8 playing on a team that is a 7, and then a player who is a 7 playing on a team that is an 8. How do you analyze that? Those are real, not hypothetical, scenarios that you see in football.
At what point, in a sport where there are 22 guys on the pitch, do you think a single player can have that level of influence? Cristiano obviously increases his team’s chances of winning, and he can be the difference in a very evenly matched scenario between two sides, but a player can never have such a big impact that a mediocre team beats a superior one because of him. @Sexy Beast explained it very well: "If we have a Real Madrid vs Bayern Munich semi final tie (two games) and they are 50-50 match without Ronaldo. Presence of Ronaldo would swing the tie perhaps few percent in Real's favor. Like 2-3%, maybe 5%. It would be relative to specific cirucmstances and matches, but with expected performance of Ronaldo, for me, the tie would swing at most 55-45 to Real's favor. This is how much I think an expected probability swing is for an all time great player at a top modern football level. This would still mean the tie is 55-45 in favor of Real Madrid. That is essentially still a coin flip. I would mean that 95% of probability lies outside of Ronaldo's influence. All the things, referee mistakes, performance of teammates, performance of oppositions, managers' decisions, lucky bounces, etc." The problem lies in understanding how much influence that player has within the team, and it can’t be that significant. And knowing that it can’t be that significant, one concludes that it is the external circumstances that mostly determine the outcome.
Tell us how you know this since you are so certain - tell us why Real Madrid decided to build their dynasty team around Ronaldo and not Benzema. Was it external circumstances? It was because Florentino Perez, Zidane, etc. understand the notion of causality. Tell me how you can posit that it definitively "isn't significant", which seems based on @Sexy Beast's make-believe math and percentages. Let's reconcile with reality's percentages: Over Ronaldo's nine seasons at Real Madrid, he was responsible for ~40% of their goals and ~20% of their assists. He averaged over one goal per game (1.03) for the entire nine years a rate that mechanistic models would consider an impossible outlier for such a long duration as it is unparalleled in modern football. Please tell me how that is insignificant. Ronaldo is what is termed, an "efficient cause". Real Madrid would not have been a dynasty without him.
Because even if Cristiano scores 40% of the goals, he could be replaced by a player who scores, say, 35% of the goals, or even matches him. So, in reality, and this is only hypothetical, we could say Cristiano adds +5% or +10% "chance of winning", and that might be enough to be the difference-maker in a match, but it can never turn a mediocre team into a good one.